Conceptual Frameworks: The 3rd Way To Be MECE In Case Interviews

[@CraftingCases]

If you've found the 5 Ways to be MECE helpful to improve your MECEness, you're gonna find our free course 3X more helpful. That's because we show you how to answer any case interview question in a step-by-step method through our signature system "The 6 Building Blocks". Join now at www.craftingcases.com/freecourse

[@danilbelyakov6945]

Yo, guys you are the best! Currently I'm working as a part-time intern at MBB and preparing for my upcoming interview. Not only i am excited about your insightful videos but also how close your techniques to a real consultant project experience! TY again for your commitment and I wish you both a big success in developing this channel!

[@CraftingCases]

Hey Meurdoc, glad you like it! Indeed we've created these techniques inspired on real consulting work, which is why they're so similar. Let us know if you have any feedback or suggestions.

[@JohnEarleBand]

As someone who aspires to work in consulting for the public sector, I appreciate the less business examples such as the law firm and b-school. Very easy to understand and helpful!

[@georgeakanza270]

best online resource i've come across!

[@dariakhmeleva9500]

Hello Bruno! And thanks for your videos, I've found some very insightful things over there. However, I'd like to leave a comment under this particular video. And to be even more precise, I mean your example on the quality of a law firm staff. The 1st level branches of your issue tree don't seem to be MECE at all, since there might be people, who are smarter, more experienced and better educated at once. I reckon, that it'd be more logical to have an issue tree with the following 3 branches: 1) they can hire "better" people (and this branch may have sub-branches of smarter, more experienced, better educated etc.); 2) they can fire "bad" people (lazy, rude, those who are always late etc.); 3) they can change existing people (train them, give them more challenging tasks etc.). I suppose, this structure seems more mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive.

[@CraftingCases]

Hey Daria, how are you doing? I do agree your structure is better than mine for that case - I wouldn't have been able to use it in this video had I thought of that because it's not a conceptual framework and I wouldn't make my point, but from your perspective as a candidate, that doesn't matter! You can just focus on finding the best structure regardless of type. Now, one point to get straight, which is a source of confusion - my structure wasn't MECE not because a person can be smarter, more experienced AND better educated, but because I didn't use the "firing bad people" part of yours. This is a source of confusion because of the term MECE implies true mutually exclusiveness, but what management consultants mean when they use the term is just that the factors are independent from one another. True mutually exclusiveness means that if I'm going to Rome next weekend, I can fly, go by land or go by sea, and ONLY ONE OF THEM. But some problems can be attacked from multiple sides, and here you're just aiming for independence. A person can be smart without being educated or experienced. Or they have really good education without any experience and without being particularly smart (although this is less common, it happens). Even on your structure, this firm could hire better, fire some people AND change existing people all at once. These things are independent but not really ME. So, summing up, your structure is indeed better than mine, the one in the video wasn't fully MECE because I didn't consider firing people (my mistake!) and when you're building MECE structures, aim for independent factors rather than concerning too much with truly mutually exclusive things. (One thing to notice: some independent factors might have interdependencies, for example Price and Quantity, or Smartness and Educational level - all of this is fine as long as you're aware of those). By the way, what specific things have you found insightful in our channel? And I see you've registered to our free course - welcome :)

[@seuzer]

Hello Daria, Your structure also does not seem to be MECE as I can see it. Your suggestions on step 2 and step 3 kind of overlap with each other as, if some employees are "bad" we can always train them and show them the right way which would solve the problem in some cases if not all. These two groups in your suggested structure does not completely isolate the root cause. A better way of structuring this case would be 1) Improve the quality of new hires (and break it down further with a process structure) 2) Improve the quality of current employees (trainings, more exposure to challenging projects etc)

[@Chachiboyss]

@@seuzer But in your structure, you omit an important element which is filtering/getting rid of the "bad" people, right? So still not complete imo.

[@sindyzhang15]

@@CraftingCases hi Bruno, would you think we could use the hiring process framework for the example on the quality of law firm staff? Perhaps extend it beyond hiring to include employee promotion, performance review, goal setting, etc.

[@5iveblades606]

The tailor analogy is great

[@alisherzhakaibekov1620]

First, thank you for your material, I find it really helpful and practical! I just wanted to comment on one of your structures. At 7:58 I would structure the law firm case in the following way: [Layer 0]: 1. Hiring/firing solutions 2. Development solutions [Layer 1]: 1.A. Hire better people 1.B. Fire worst people 2.A. Train people 2.B. Give the people more motivation (different/additional responsibility, increase wage) [Layer 2]: 1.AA. Hire more educated people 1.AB. Hire more experienced people 1.AC. Hire smarter people 1.BA. Fire the least performing people This is just off the top of my head. I may have missed something tbh, but my structure also stipulates the firing element, which could also increase the overall quality of staff

[@farrashafizh741]

I think at 8:10 you could segment it first with [Hire more people + Train the existing people] before breaking it down into conceptual framework *Not that crucial actually just to make it easier to read

[@dinocollins720]

Thanks Bruno these videos are awesome!

[@yuthpatirathi2719]

Bruno ! simply amazing explanation

[@Knowledge_Nuggies]

Porter's 5 forces is actually one of the few textbook frameworks that are really helpful. Once I had to analyze the impact of digitalization on the profitability of the retail industry. 5F was a good mental checklist to start with and then add some further points that didn't quite fit into the framework.

[@CraftingCases]

Indeed it is, though it runs a high risk of being pure bullshit too. In my experience most candidates, even MBAs don't know the model in enough depth to be able to explain why each factor is important and how they relate to others in a specific scenario. I love Porter's 5 forces, but have never seen a person use it effectively in a case interview (even though I've seen hundreds of people try).

[@Knowledge_Nuggies]

@@CraftingCases Good point. I remember when I first learned it and didn't put much effort into digging deeper into each of the five buckets and thought it was quite useless. Some months later I read a 30 page explanation of it that thoroughly explored each of the buckets and their interdependencies. From then on I was a big fan of that framework. :)

[@CraftingCases]

@@Knowledge_Nuggies I know. I too thought it was bullshit at first. Then I read Porter's book and fell in love with it. But how many people have read Porter's book or a long explanation and use that in interviews? Very few. Also, if your interviewer is biased into thinking it's bullshit, that's a whole 'nother problem. PS: See you're watching quite a few videos in the channel -- what are you thinking of them so far?

[@Knowledge_Nuggies]

@@CraftingCases You have a clear way of explaining things which I like. The content is also very interesting to aspiring consultants. I wonder if some videos in the sense of "consulting lifestyle", e. g. what is it really like being a consultant, could also be very interesting to your target audience. There aren't too many channels covering this stuff. Some questions/points you might address: pros/cons of travelling a lot, how much influence do consultants really have, working hours, consulting culture (hustle, competitiveness, in/up/out etc.), exit options etc. Just some ideas for future content. :-) Just discovered your channel; gonna check your homepage and its content soon, too.

[@CraftingCases]

I like the specifics of your content ideas! Btw, make sure you go through our free course - it’s by far our best content in terms of case prep.

[@DannyLi-u1n]

Hi Bruno, can you elaborate more about people process and systems often used in Mckinsey？ I searched but only show PPT( people process technology).

[@CraftingCases]

It's the same thing, systems = technology

[@novak4life]

Hey Bruno, For the Tesla example what if instead of using your 3Cs+P, I break down the issue tree first level into: Current products and New products. level 2 is finding ways to increase "Price" or "Volumn ". Level 3 uses 4Ps to find ways increase Level 2 framework? Not sure if you understand what I mean or not. It's not exactly the same as yours but also a bit similar. Can you explain the differences pros and cons of this approach to yours?

[@yvonnema6202]

Hi Bruno, thank you so much for your contents and insights! I've watched a lot of your videos and they have really helped me to understand case interviews and to not be afraid of them. I interned at a BB investment bank during the summer and realized that I didn't like it at all and consulting just seems to be so much more creative and impactful. So I'm on a pressing timeline for interviews. Is there anything that you would suggest me to do to get ready and land my dream job now at an MBB?

[@CraftingCases]

Go through our free course and work hard to internalize every step of every building block we teach there in your live case practice. If you do it, it's hard not to do well in your interviews.

[@yvonnema6202]

@@CraftingCases Thanks so much, you guys! I will start with the 7-day course today. Very excited!

[@mosespsalm_1108]

@@yvonnema6202 Hey, did you pass ?

[@sajidar]

Hey Bruno, I would like your feedback on a structure i have prepared on the law firm e.g. Quality can be enhanced via a) attracting new good quality candidates, and b) retaining existing quality candidates Under a) some of the hypotheses are hire smarter people, more experienced people, better educated people, people from other law firms...etc. Under b) we can further break it down into providing good training, provide good working environment, improve remuneration, improve exposure, monitor performance, and then followed by hypotheses on each bucket... Look forward to your response. Thanks and Regards Sajid

[@CraftingCases]

You're missing a third bucket of improving the poor-quality people, but you're in the right path!

[@evgrzkv4019]

Hi Bruno, i am just getting to the cases world with your videos, but would like to share an idea. May be, creating a new conceptual framework is 'stunning' because you don't believe that person on the other side will believe in you judgement, that you covered all sides of the picture, the CE part of MECE. If you take existing framework (or slightly adapt it), you can always tell and show that this is common standard and industry practice, not just your made-up.

[@CraftingCases]

Hey Evg, I agree that part of the problem is in the "believability" of the framework. The problem with taking an "existing" framework that is "industry standard" is that you still have to convince the client that among many tools, that specific one you chose is the best one for their situation. "Industry standard" isn't a good enough argument for someone paying millions of dollars for advice. We teach how to build strong, customized conceptual frameworks for case interviews in the "Frameworks" module of Case Interview Fundamentals, our free course. Check it out.

[@leduyhoang3966]

Hi Bruno, thank for the video. Regarding the examples "Improving the quality of staff" and "Improving the quality of school education", shouldn't we clarify how the client is measuring their quality. Chances are that the client has a scoring system for their quality. Because if they don't, how do they know their quality is going down or will be improved or not. So my point here is for a conceptual problem, we can try to push for further info in clarifying questions in order to quantify the problem before start solving it.

[@CraftingCases]

Yes, you CAN do that, and it is good practice to do so. However, don't limit yourself to JUST doing that. Sometimes (many times) clients measure things wrong or incompletely, and if the problem is strategic you need a complete measure (and also ways to measure the "unmeasurable"). When you can go quantitative, go for it, but there are problems that aren't easily quantifiable. That doesn't make them less important.

[@somnathbanerjee4993]

When we do a planning for growing revenues can we not use the ANSOF matrix?

[@CraftingCases]

Only if the two drivers that make sense are the two that the ansoff matrix comprehends. There are many growth drivers that it doesn’t consider such as increasing market share, increasing prices, etc. Because of this, using it alone is rarely a good framework in a real case.

[@ruchisingh8517]

Hi @crafting cases! Love your videos and thank you for the written explanation for the same! I do have a question here and if you could please help answer: As you mentioned process structuring work best in places where the case involves a process such as manufacturing, hiring or sales. May I know how this is different that we could not have come up with a Process structure for this? Like the stages of sales and then reducing friction in those stages? Would be very very keen on learning this.

[@koekerd1000]

Hi thanks for the material, its great so far! I hope you still see this. I have a quick question on the Tesla part. Why didn't you devide it into: price and volume, and focus on what you can do on the volume part and pricing part? Thats what I did.

[@CraftingCases]

Hey Brenda, that’s because I’m trying to teach conceptual frameworks in this video, not algebra structures!

[@lavenderloo5940]

@@CraftingCases Hi Bruno! Is it fair to say that both conceptual framework and a revenue framework (increasing number of cars sold and average price per car) will equally work? Just wondering when should we consider it in a more straightforward algebra approach vs a long-term strategy approach. I started off structuring the Tesla question using the revenue framework but realised that it was difficult to keep the "increase number of cars sold" bucket to be MECE. Do you have any advice on this? Thanks!

[@NaifAlqahtani]

At 7:55, I know you are structurally listing your ideas, but to an interviewer it seems like you are just listing ideas from the top of your head. How can we show the interviewer/client that I am not just listing ideas but rather following a set structure. In a sense, how do I convey my structure if at the end I am simply listing the ideas themselves in a list format. Could it be that the differentiating factor between naively listing and your method of listing at 7:55 be the verbal preface of saying "I will be structuring my ideas around the 3 C's as well as focus on product and infrastructure". By saying this phrase beforehand, I am now following a clear structure whereas if I don't, I would be naively listing ideas? Is that the only difference?

[@Han-ve8uh]

This episode was the most confusing. I still couldn't get what conceptual structures should look like beyond 3C 4P 5Forces. The law firm and business school buckets especially felt like a random sprinkling of ideas. What is the one unifying criterion for them? I see that for the law firm, it's all about changing people (but i wonder if staff quality can also be addressed with non-people issues like processes eg. whistleblowing channels, fairness policies), while for business school it's about improving the typical ingredients to an education. My initial idea to the business school question was to break it into 1. Before entry (advanced placement test, open houses and expectation setting, getting to know seniors) 2. During schooling (everything you mentioned) 3. After schooling (alumni relations, industry career services/ guidance to higher education in same/other institutions). In this case i may have gone beyond the scope of the problem if what was expected was the during schooling experience. How can I clarify that and is attempting expanding the scope encouraged?

[@CraftingCases]

Highly recommend you take the Frameworks module in our free course, Han. It goes into detail into how to build conceptual frameworks (one method at least, I show another one in our other course). The trouble you're having, btw, is that each conceptual framework has a different unifying principle/criterion. E.g. 3C's unifying criterion is players that can act on the market, Porter's 5 Forces unifying criterion is things that can "cut" profitability out of your business, 4P's is marketing tactical levers. In the Frameworks module I teach one unifying criterion you can always use that'll help you create frameworks for any situation. They won't always be "the best framework for that situation", but they'll always be good enough to drive the case forward, show your thoughts in a structured manner and do well on the interview.

[@Han-ve8uh]

@@CraftingCases Alright, I was still at brainstormings part of course before being led to the 5 steps to be MECE. I will check it out soon.

[@mikael777111]

Hi Bruno! Amazing videos! I just have one question regarding the examples of the law firm and business school. Would it not be more appropriate to use the process structures as it kinda falls into "hiring"? Im just trying to wrap my head around when to use what. Possibly this maybe only shows that the power is in my hands to decide what structure im more confortable in using or are there particular reasons for why a conceptual framwork would be better in those examples? Keep up the amazing work:)

[@CraftingCases]

Hey Mikael, yes the power is in your hands! Often times you can choose between two or three structural options that make sense or even look at the problem from more than one side using more than one structure (though this obviously adds to the workload).

[@manrisaw]

hi Bruno. on the example on improving curriculum, are the steps listed not part of an overall process? Wont process framework work here?

[@farahbkz.8014]

Hi Bruno! I’ve been doing your 7-day course and I absolutely love it so far. I just wanted to ask- my upcoming interview is for a summer intern position at Bain, and it is said to be 40 min long. 10 min for personal questions, then one case for around 25 min. What type of case would you think they’re most likely to focus on?

[@CraftingCases]

Profitability, Market Entry and Valuation cases are short and Bain loves them. Make sure to keep your frameworks short (while being able to expand on them as needed).

[@farahbkz.8014]

thank you so so much. Best of luck with your work and channel it is absolutely amazing.

[@piotrw4629]

Hey, I wanted to say that your videos are really helped me to improve my understanding of the MECE principle! 1 Question though, In the Tesla example, Bruno proposed structure as follows: 3C's (Customers, Company & Competitors) + Product + Infrastructure. I wonder if there's an overlap between Product and The Company bucket. He explains the Product section: "you want to compare it with the competition" - Is that really MECE? Please explain!

[@CraftingCases]

You can think of the company EXCEPT its products in one bucket, and the product as another bucket. And when I say "compare the product with the competition", what I really meant was: "compare the product with the competitor's products". In a sense, it's just semantics. We go more in-depth into this in our free course, in the "Frameworks" module. (May I ask you a question, btw? Have you already joined our free course? And if not, why?)

[@juliay3833]

you are a star!

[@sinagaagustinus2484]

Hi Bruno! Thank you very much for the insightful lesson! I just have one question regarding this specific type of framework. You said in the video that it is hard to make this conceptual framework Collectively Exhaustive. In the case interview, if we somehow missed one/two aspects that should be included in the analysis (for example, in the Tesla case, we forgot to include the Infrastructure aspect), would the interviewer just go with the structure or would they instead just tell us to add Infrastructure to it? Thank you very much!

[@CraftingCases]

They might just go with the structure or they might ask you what is missing. They’d never “give tou the answer” so to speak

[@sinagaagustinus2484]

@@CraftingCases Thank you very much for your response!

[@charliefasurf1000]

Hi Bruno, you're the best. Thanks to you I realised I need to reschedule, and got extra 2 months... it would be like playing Lotto if I went to an interview after prep I did (about 20 cases with random people). You're a PRO. However I can't access your free 7-day intro course, I plug in my e-mail but get nothing on the inbox (checked spam)

[@CraftingCases]

Hey Charlie, Sorry to hear the link didn’t work for you. I have checked our e-mail system and it seems to have delivered the other e-mails quite well so I don’t know what went wrong. I even tried to look for a person named Charlie there to see what happened, but did not find you. Here are two things you can do: 1) Try again, it’ll probably work as it is working with everyone else. 2) Send me an e-mail to [e-mail] and let me fix it for you. Eager to talk to you! Bruno

[@anuragprabhakar3333]

Bruno you're a f******g G!

[@SH-sb5ky]

play on x1.25speed, thank me later

[@SienaCosta]

way better!

[@PetGuerreiro]

Hello Bruno, I got a little question in my mind when I was seeing your free course: has conceptual frameworks any relations with stakeholders analysis? or is it a stakeholder analysis by itself?

[@CraftingCases]

Hey Ian, there are some parallels, but it is NOT the same thing. Stakeholder analysis is one specific conceptual framework, but not the only one. As you can see in this video, there are many others (Porter's 5 Forces, the 4Ps, SWOT analysis - most academic frameworks are conceptual frameworks) and as you've seen in the free course you can always build a new type of framework. Now, the technique we use to teach you to build your own frameworks in the free course DOES involve stakeholders, but it is not stakeholder analysis for three reasons: (1) you shouldn't put ALL stakeholders in that analysis, just the ones that have the power/leverage to change your plans/decision, (2) while in traditional stakeholder analysis, the main concern is on who to involve to execute a project, in our context-driven structures, the main concern is on decision-making (and thus the hypotheses change), (3) we also include interfaces (such as the product, and the culture, and the law) in some cases because our goals are different. I'd say the context-driven structures we teach there have more a role of being able to "see" the situation from different angles than to consider all stakeholders and what they want. I think its closer to game theory, in the sense that you want to be able to anticipate the moves of other players in the chessboard before making your own move, but yes, there are some parallels. One thing, though, not ALL conceptual frameworks have parallels with stakeholder analysis. Porter's 5 Forces, for example, certainly does not. In our structuring course we teach a different technique (which we call objective-driven structures) that also has no parallel to that. Does this make sense?

[@PGG-o6r]

Hi, thanks a lot for your videos. They are really helpful when it comes to preparing to problem solving interviews. I have a question about the case about the quality of law firm personnel. Don't the concepts, the 'groups' chosen overlap? And therefore not MECE? I mean, experienced people can be smart and well educated as well.

[@CraftingCases]

The person may have several characteristics, but the individual concepts don’t overlap. Being experienced doesn’t make you smart, being smart doesn’t make you educated, being educated doesn’t make you experienced. At most there’s some correlation in how often you see these characteristics in people, but they’re independent dimensions.

[@PGG-o6r]

@@CraftingCases Thank you a lot for the clarification.

[@lavnishsingh7200]

Could you help with the guesstimates questions asked in the interview?

[@CraftingCases]

Yes, our free course has a module on estimation questions (better than anything else you'll find out there on this topic) and if you want to dive deeper, we also have a course just on estimations called Master Market Sizing. I suggest you start with the free course first. It will probably be enough.

[@lavnishsingh7200]

@@CraftingCases i have started the course thanks a lot, what do you feel is the weightage of behavioural questions in the interview??

[@CraftingCases]

@@lavnishsingh7200 It's 50%, but the variance is much lower. Most people (who get to the interviews, at least) can do reasonably well in the behavioral and it's hard to be outstanding in the behavioral through more preparation (though not impossible). In cases, however, most people suck (even some people who prepare a lot, if they're preparing the wrong way) and you can get to the level of outstanding through deliberate practice. So the weight is 50/50, but I'd say your investment in preparation should be 90/10 or something (90% cases, 10% behavioral) because of the variance/control element.

[@lavnishsingh7200]

@@CraftingCases you are awesome man!! thanks a lot , i have recommended your channel to my friends too!

[@LukeryaPereprygova]

God bless you

[@Knockknock12348]

I wonder why you would choose to be a KZbinr to teach how to get into McKinsey when you can have a rewarding career inside? I question this because the answer would determine whether this is a reliable source or not. If your philosophy did not match with the firm, then I think one should refrain from learning these structures from you, as you could not work things out with their target employer.