Hi everyone.
Could you please give clearance on how a point of view can make the framework MECE/not MECE?
When talking about MECE framework structuring, I see the point in the definition (and I am aware it is not always possible to make it MECE), but I do not always understand if it is just not possible to make it MECE, or if I have to improve my skills.
Example (I won't go too deep to keep it brief):
Let's say I have to analyze a process of production. I can:
- Set a framework on “steps”
- Set a framework on “topics”
Starting with “steps”, 3 steps: input > transformation > output.
For both input and output I could list different points, but in common they would have, for example:
- Transportation
- timing
- costs (in & out)
- risks (e.g. refrigeration)
And this would make the structure MECE from the steps side, but not MECE for the topics side, as I am repeating the transportation.
I would then try the “topics” framework, so I can at least have the transformation as an independent bucket. If I structure the case instead looking at different topics (e.g. resources, capabilities, transportation, packaging), I would find under resources (e.g. quality controls) and transportation the sub buckets:
- To the facility (so input)
- Out of the facility (so output)
So in the “steps” framework, transportation is not MECE as listed in 2 steps, and in the “topics” framework, transportation is not MECE as both input and output, would be listed in resources as well.
This is the most frequent reason why I may go over time and forget to focus on tailoring to the case, while giving more importance to the MECE exercise.