mckinsey hypothesis driven

The hypothesis-led approach is outdated.

Rather, you need to have a hypothesES-driven or, rather, and objective-driven approach. Your entire framework is a set of hypotheses and views as to how to solve a problem.

In my view, the more natural the better. I tend to say things like "My thinking here is x". or "Based on what I know about x and y, I think this'll likely happen" or "My inclination is x".

Please get away from saying any generic, i.e. hypothesis, framework, buckets, clarifying questions, etc.!

This Q&A Describes Better Hypothesis Thinking

https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/at-what-point-in-the-case-does-the-interviewee-state-hypothesis-9356

Remember that your framework is essentially a set of hypotheses. That's why I prefer to call this "hypotheses-drive approach" or "objective-driven approach"

You don't need to state it explicitly, but remember that 1) You need to always be thinking about one and 2) You need to be demonstrating your drive towards one.

Also, remember that a hypothesis isn't necessarily "I believe x is the cause". Be better hypothesis is "If we can see what's happening with A, and A is going up, and then we look into B and B is big, then x is likely the case".

A hypothesis is much more about what questions do I need to ask/answer and how, in order to see what's happening.

Another way of viewing it:

Your framework is your structure for approaching the problem. It consits of a few main areas you'd like to look at. Inherent in your framework is a view that "If I answer A, B, and C, then we have an answer"

So, for market entry:

1) If the market is big, and it's growing, then we still want to considering entering

2) If #1 = yes, then let's see if it's attractive...can we win there? Is our product good/better than our competition's? Etc. If yes, let's definitely consider entering.

3) If #1 and #2 = yes, then, when we do enter, are we sure we can win? I.e. do we have the right plans. Will implementation actually pan out? Do we have the expertise, capital, etc.? In other words, if #2 is the thearectical, #3 is the reality.

Then, your summary becomes "I believe we should enter the market, if we can prove it's a good market, the it's attractive to us specifically, and that we will win it".

^Now this is a hypothesis :)

Read these 2 Q&As for some great context + discussion:

https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/interviewer-led-case-interview-hyposthesis-and-ideas-7390

https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/forming-a-hypothesis-case-in-point-vs-victor-cheng-7311

Hope this helps! This is a tricky topic that's difficult to properly answer in writting...if you want a more thorough explanation, and training in the mindset shift required here, don't hesitate

"In structuring if I say…": What you say - is NOT a hypothesis. It is simply the buckets. A hypothesis would be like the following:

Revenue is declining, so either the volume could be an issue - with the following hypotheses:

• Size: Market is shrinking overall
• Market share: Competitors sell better products
• Consumer: Mismatch with preferences
• Price: Higher and uncompetitive
• Journey: Bad consumer experience
• Availability: Products not available

Or the price could be an issue with the following hypothesis:

• Prices are low due to competitive pressure
• Product mix is shifting towards lower price

So you see that hypothesis is actually a proposition of the solution itself.

Brainstorming

This is a lot about structuring and microstructuring the problem and to provide creative ideas for the question. It is not about hypothesis generation since you are coming up with ideas only.

The key issue to watch-out for in brainstorming is around follow-up questions. Most candidates become unstructured the moment interviewer asks - what else?

Maths/charts

I recently answered this question on PrepLounge - please have a look here. https://www.preplounge.com/en/consulting-forum/second-order-insights-11693

Hopefully this will help you

I think there are already good answers for the first two questions, so let me add something on the exhibit reading.

Candidates usually do two mistakes here:

1. They just describe what the slide says (e.g. segment X is growing by 10%"). There's no “so what”, no insight"
2. They bring up an insights but… not related to the problem you are trying to solve.

In both of these situations the real problem is that they are not being objective or hypothesis driven. You have to read the exhibit in the context of the problem you are trying to solve.

So the first question you have to ask yourself is: how does this influence the case recommendation? (e.g. “should we invest in market XYZ”?)? Is it supporting evidence or not? Once you find it, you have an objective or hypothesis driven insight.

Then you have to communicate it through the lens of the case objective (i.e., be very clear on whether it does or does not support certain recommendation).

I have prepared sessions just focusing on exhibit reading, as this is something hard to improve on your own. So feel free to reach out if you feel you would benefit from such a focused session.

Hey there,

Being hypothesis-driven can be displayed in several ways. You need to demonstrate a couple of things:

• Your ideas, insights are guided by specific reasoning (which you need to communicate so the interviewer understands your thinking process)
• You always have an idea on where to drive the case next (even though its interviewer-led, you should demonstrate the initiative for each question to move the case ahead)
• You are able to interpret and discuss results in math and insights of the chart (do not stop at the insights or the math result but interpret them in the context of the case)

Reach out if you need an honest McKinsey perspective and learn these skills first-hand.

Cheers,

Florian

Great question! Generally speaking, hypothesis are about establishing causality that cannot directly be observed but needs to be derived from the information at hand. This could be:

• The reason for decline in revenues (hypothesis regarding the root cause of an observed phenomenon)
• The future effect of an action in the present (hypothesis regarding the outcome of an observed/proposed action)

You can certainly structure with a hypothesis in mind, whereby your buckets are labeled on the basis of such cause and effect relationships. However, you would need to be articulate and convincing in your argument.

My advice would be to use where appropriate to show your ability to establish and work with hypotheses. However, don´t push it too far since McKinsey cases in particular tend to not “hide” anything and this would be more important for e.g. Bain, BCG, etc.