Note for Interviewer

• The candidate needs to focus on answering the specific question with concrete factors relating to the actual context and the prompt, based on the candidate's hypotheses. This is different from candidate-led cases, where the initial structure serves as an analytical game plan for the case, which does not apply here.
• Having a MECE structure is important but the content of the buckets is what really matters.  Candidates are expected to go deep in their analysis and justify each factor by describing why exactly it is important, through examples or otherwise. Knowledge doesn't matter here but rather creativity and the ability to ‘imagine’ what could be the case and convey with confidence.
• If the candidate fails to provide anything but generic responses, press to get some concrete factors. Don't let them get away with one-word answers.

It's always well seen when candidates propose the next steps themselves, as opposed to just waiting for the interviewer to ask the next question.

Note for Interviewer

• Provide the candidate with the exhibit when you're asking the question and allow them up to 30 seconds to digest, if they ask for time (which they should - feel free to encourage them)
• Candidates should outline basic and obvious facts (Step 1) but not dwell on describing those facts any further without doing analysis
• Good candidates will proactively propose and carry out some number-crunching (Step 2), whereby the real insights are unlocked. If they don't get there themselves, push them a little. The numerical result is the foundation for the next question.
• Great candidates will try and contextualize this answer and raise important points e.g. “Depending on % of driver commission, this could be a viable model with a good side income for drivers”

It's always well seen when candidates propose the next steps themselves, as opposed to just waiting for the interviewer to ask the next question.

Note for Interviewer

• Good candidates will communicate a 2-step approach top-down before executing any math. If they start crunching numbers without aligning the approach, ask what they're about to do, which they should be able to explain from beginning to end.
• The result from previous question i.e. 2.5 US$/ride is key for this question.
• If the candidate struggles, help them along a little without disrupting the flow too much.  The numerical result is the foundation for the next question.

Note for Interviewer

• Provide the candidate with the exhibit when you're asking the question and allow them up to 30 seconds to digest, if they ask for time (which they should - feel free to encourage them)
• This section is quite hard, and you should allow the candidate some extra time to think this through as they're coming up with an approach.
• Approach should be margin in year 1 and then scale everything but fixed costs by 10% annually, until 10% margin is exceeded.
• If the candidate struggles, help them along a little without disrupting the flow too much.
• Good candidates will get to the right answer i.e. year 3 without too much support (some small hints/support is always OK)
• Great candidates will try and contextualize this answer and raise important points e.g. “The margin is generally not very high and perhaps some costs could be reviewed e.g. the generous compensation structure, because any percentage point we don't pay to drivers is added to our bottom line - assuming we don't compromise their motivation and therefore topline growth.”

It's always well seen when candidates propose the next steps themselves, as opposed to just waiting for the interviewer to ask the next question.

Note for Interviewer

This is a typical brainstorming question and candidates should be given some time (30-45 seconds) to develop some ideas, that may or may not be nested in a little MECE structure (ideas more important than structure). There may be some overlap with the initial structure from Q1, which is OK. Candidate should provide at least a handful of aspects and demonstrate some creativity. Same principle applies as in Q1, which is a focus on well-formulated factors with supporting hypotheses, as opposed to a mere listing of single words. Importantly, this question is referring to you, so make it personal!

The case ends here with no “final recommendation”, which is typical for McKinsey cases. However, it's always well seen when candidates put the synthesis of their answer into the wider case context and propose next steps themselves, as opposed to just waiting for the interviewer to ask the next question.