I have gone through most of Victor Cheng's material, and I must say they are indeed very insightful and helpful as you have alluded to. Now to your point on is approach not being feasible, this can be interpreted in two ways:
- A new approach exist and victor’s is extinct or a paradigm shift is taken place
- You are referring to the fact that following is approach to a tee , can be perceived as being vanilla or lacking “Extra Sauce”
On the first point, I would respectfully disagree. Let me explain, Victor’s approach is to follow an hypothesis based method of problem solving i.e. After clarifying case details and understanding the case objective, form a hypothesis and develop a structure to test said hypothesis and then refine appropriately as you go through the analysis and uncover insights. Of course you still need to maintain structure, do math fast and accurately, be confident, remain clam, be creative and communicate effectively. This in short is still an effective high level strategy for doing well in case interviews in general (including @ MBB).
On the second point, I would agree. Victor’s program is pretty much main stream and most folks (like myself) gearing up for interviews will most likely use some of his material. As such, you can expect that over time interviewers at least the experience ones can decipher who is following a program/reading frameworks or force fitting them and who has instead taken time to understand what fundamentals are required /essential to succeed at case interviews in general. I would borrow a saying from Victor Cheng and advice you read the last statement over again x3.
To address your question more specifically, cramming frameworks, the notion of a framework that covers all relevant aspect of any case (if this existed, why would consultant still exist?), and a well-known versus a non-well known framework are not the key drivers to doing good at case interviews and as such should not be where you spend most of your time and energy. Rather spend time
1. Understanding the fundamentals or key drivers essential for success at case interviews (see point one above)
2. Understanding typical or traditional frameworks, not cramming but rather analyzing to develop intuition
3. Developing business acumen (can be done by learning and understanding typical industries business models and their key performance drivers, reading and analyzing business publications etc.)
4. Finally, practice..practice….practice and did I say practice again? YES! More practice. Good quality live practice and acting on constructive feedback will do miracles to your casing skills.
In conclusion, doing the 4 things above would allow you to understand what is relevant and not relevant and as such help develop smarter hypothesis that help you develop an appropriate structure that is case specific (not reciting a framework or being vanilla), which in turn would allow you efficiently zone in on the key area(s) in which the main problem(s) lie(s).
P.s: I am not an expert, nor have I worked at a consulting firm or received any offers, but I am sharing what I have learned from several hours of studying, and giving and solving over 30 cases.