Dear Ben,
As you mentioned, in some cases you can easily communicate your hypothesis and which ones are you prioritizing in your analysis, after you set your initial structure. However, there are cases (like the NGO example you wrote) in which the hypothesis are indirectly mentioned in the structure.
For instance, following your example, imagine that you already ask the relevant question to understand about the objective, the philanthropist profile, etc. and the first criterium in your structure is "Selection of the country/city". You would probably have branches like investment/budget, impact on the population, impact on the economy, expertise, etc.
So you start by guiding the interviewer "To help the philanthropist I would analyze X criteria 1) Selection of the country/city 2) .. 3) ... 4) ... 5).... In the first one, I would analyze where the NGO can have the biggest impact considering 4 factors: 1) Amount of investment required 2) Impact on the population (e.g. literacy, death rate, nutrition in children, etc.) 3) Impact on the economy (jobs generated, corruption, delinquency, etc.) 4) How much expertise does the philanthropist have to solve this problem. (AND HERE COMES YOUR HYPOTHESIS). I think that a potential location for the highest impact is Poverty in South America, because X,Y,Z. However, I would like to probe this hypothesis with hard data. In the second one ......"
To sum up, in this type of cases the hypothesis are embedded in the structure and throught the case and is not as straightforward as profitability cases, turnaround cases, or any type of cases in which you are pinpointing a problem.
Regards,
Hugo
Dear Ben,
As you mentioned, in some cases you can easily communicate your hypothesis and which ones are you prioritizing in your analysis, after you set your initial structure. However, there are cases (like the NGO example you wrote) in which the hypothesis are indirectly mentioned in the structure.
For instance, following your example, imagine that you already ask the relevant question to understand about the objective, the philanthropist profile, etc. and the first criterium in your structure is "Selection of the country/city". You would probably have branches like investment/budget, impact on the population, impact on the economy, expertise, etc.
So you start by guiding the interviewer "To help the philanthropist I would analyze X criteria 1) Selection of the country/city 2) .. 3) ... 4) ... 5).... In the first one, I would analyze where the NGO can have the biggest impact considering 4 factors: 1) Amount of investment required 2) Impact on the population (e.g. literacy, death rate, nutrition in children, etc.) 3) Impact on the economy (jobs generated, corruption, delinquency, etc.) 4) How much expertise does the philanthropist have to solve this problem. (AND HERE COMES YOUR HYPOTHESIS). I think that a potential location for the highest impact is Poverty in South America, because X,Y,Z. However, I would like to probe this hypothesis with hard data. In the second one ......"
To sum up, in this type of cases the hypothesis are embedded in the structure and throught the case and is not as straightforward as profitability cases, turnaround cases, or any type of cases in which you are pinpointing a problem.
Regards,
Hugo