I've been working on a case for a impending interview to present very shortly. The company presented me with a relatively small data set (17 columns x 18 rows). The question, likely on purpose does not fit within one clear framework. Without providing too much detail - decide where our company should build a new office. The prompt states they value access to engineering & sales talent, (numbers they provide to me over three years) then less so they value the ability to gain significant market share in that city.
Data presented gives me projected headcounts of sales & engineers on LinkedIn in each city, % college graduate rate, total # employed in high-tech software, competitor offices, average engineer and sales salary, then $/per square foot of rental space, average vacancy, corp. tax rate, 12 month recurring rev. and TAM (all in each city). My thought process is weight each component they value (1.access to talent, 2. ability to gain market share, 3. cost). Seems like a general Business Problem framework, perhaps supply demand, however I'm not entirely sure.
Any suggestions on how best approach the case and provide recommendation on where company should build their newest office?
Thanks for any help
Thanks Daniel. This was my initial thinking. However, in the prompt they only state they wish to choose the city based on access to talent and secondly ability to gain market share in that area. I have supply data on talent and demand data. They also give me average salary of engineers and sales person within each city. Along with rental space by square foot, vacancy of buildings, TAM in that city, recurring revenue in that city and corporate tax rate. Although the prompt only specified they value access to talent and ability to gain market share (lesser so), I feel leaving out cost of labor and tenancy and tax out of my recommendation may be a misstep. What do you think?