Structuring style significantly differ between McK and BCG/Bain?

Hi there,

To answer your 2 major questions:

1) All firms care about a MECE, objective-driven, comprehensive answer. In general, McK wants more depth/breadth (more extensive), and, in general, BCG wants more creativity

2) You do not have a good framework. Root cause analysis, solutions, and risks, is NOT a framework. It's what happens on every single project. Please please do not do frameworks this way!

=================FRAMEWORKING=============

Honestly structuring is the hardest thing to solve on your own. I highly highly recommend a coach because there's nowhere else you can get direct feedback/advice based on your specific frameworking/structuring.

I've collated some of my past advice on structuring/problem-solving here, which I hope can help you regardless of coaching or not!

Frameworking/Case Driving

First, remember that casing isn't just about memorizing every step, industry, case type, etc. It's about learning how to be adaptable and nimble. So, always be prepared for the unexpected.

1. All cases are structured, wheather you realise the structure or not. It's your job to keep it organised and keep it to a good flow/framework!

2. Figure out what data/information you need and ask for it: The interviewer won't just give it to you (just like your client won't know what you need from them). Use your framework to dive into areas! If your interviewer insists they don't have data in that area (after you've gone specific), then go into another area of your framework (or expand out).

3.In this case try and keep a mini framework in your head. You can write as you talk as well.

When you say "not those kinds of questions an interview-led style would ask" this shows me that you're limited in your preparation....don't come in expecting a certain format/style! Be ready to drive your own case if needed. Think if you were on a real life project and asked to lead it...this is what they need you to demonstrate!

Frameworks

If there's anything to remember in this process, is that cases don't exist just because. They have come about because of a real need to simulate the world you will be in when you are hopefully hired. As such, remember that they are a simplified version of what we do, and they test you in those areas.

As such, remember that a framework is a guide, not a mandate. In the real-world, we do not go into a client and say "right, we have a framework that says we need to look at x, y, and z and that's exactly what we're going to do". Rather, we come in with a view, a hypothesis, a plan of attack. The moment this view is created, it's wrong! Same with your framework. The point is that it gives us and you a starting point. We can say "right, part 1 of framework is around this. Let's dig around and see if it helps us get to the answer". If it does, great, we go further (but specific elements of it will certainly be wrong). If it doesn't, we move on.

So, in summary, learn your frameworks, use the ones you like, add/remove to them if the specific case calls for it, and always be prepared to be wrong. Focus rather on having a view, refering back to the initial view to see what is still there and where you need to dive into next to solve the problem.

HOW to learn/think in the right way.

1. Frame based on the objective: Identify exactly what the objective is, then think about the areas you would look at to solve the problem.
2. Think of buckets as "building blocks" - understand the 10-odd buckets that exist out them (Market, Product, Company, How to Enter, etc.). Learn these, and what their used for, then think of them as ingredients that you then pluck out and tailor to your framework.
3. Practice with Introduction, then End, then framework:
   1. ​ Practice a number of cases where you hear just the introduction, then build a framework.
   2. THEN, look at the end of the case and what conclusion was made, and re-do your framework.
   3. THEN, look at what framework(s) was/were proposed as the answer.
4. Read the Economist religiously: The Economist is an excellent, longer-term base knowledge/thinking resource for you. I've found that reading the Economist over the years has been instrumental in helping to shape my thinking and holistically understand problems, whether political, economic, social, or anything in between. Feel free to throw in the Financial Times or BCG Insights into the mix!

Song, 

This is a great question. 

It's difficult to teach something that I do during coaching sessions in a Q&A answer, but yes, there are some differences. 

Let me just focus on the core one. 

McKinsey structures tend to be broad, deep and insightful. Predominantly, they're exploratory; they want to understand the nature of the problem, and they want to get a comprehensive view of the problem. 

By comparison, BCG/Bain structures tend to be more narrow, and focused on the emerging hypothesis that the client has. 

This difference is triggered primarily by the difference in the case format. For candidate-led (BCG/Bain) it's important to get a sense of the hypothesis / the direction of the case as early as feasibly possible and follow that thread. For McKinsey-style questions, it's rather important to deliver excellently on a question-by-question basis as the interviewer asks them.

Sharing with you a material on structuring techniques that you might find helpful:

• Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

Good luck!
Cristian

———————————————

Practicing for interviews? Check out my latest case based on a first-round MBB interview >>> CodeWave  

Hi there,

You're asking the wrong question. The right question would be this:

"What purpose does the initial structure serve at McKinsey vs other firms, and how does that change my approach?"

There is indeed a HUGE difference and the ‘structures’ serve completely different purposes. Hence, they're not even comparable and my answer will go way beyond MECE/not MECE.

As a former McKinsey interviewer, let me try and answer shed some light on this.

WHAT MCKINSEY DOESN'T WANT: McKinsey doesn't want you to solve the case! Correspondingly, their case openings are not about an actionable framework that leads you down an analytical path of exploration and discovery to solve the case.

WHAT MCKINSEY DOES WANT: McKinsey wants you to answer questions about a case, which is different from solving a case. Firm interviewers will ALWAYS ask you a question after the prompt, which is generally a version of “What do you think are the important things to consider in situation XYZ?". In this case, you're NOT being asked to solve the case but to hypothesize as to what the answer to the question could be. You are asked to come up with ideas that are well formulated thoughts as to what may drive a certain situation and those thoughts have to fall within MECE categories. However, you have to internalize first the principle of answering the question and not wanting to solve the case. Once that's done, MECE will be SO MUCH EASIER.

By the way, as a McKinsey interviewer, I was much more interested in people being able to formulate hypotheses and coming up with good ideas in response to my starting question. However, most people spent their energy on structures that were very nice and tidy but hollow and void of well formulated thoughts. If I had to choose between great ideas or a great structure, I would choose great ideas (with a bit of a messy structure) any day of the week!

I have a video on this particular topic with plenty of exercises and specialized sessions. Feel free to get in touch if interested.

Best of luck!
Moritz

_______________________________________________________
>> Need a specialized McKinsey coach & mentor? 
     See my full profile 
>> Need real McKinsey cases?
     Zero Carbon Mine (hard)
     Car Convenience (Intermediate + brand new)

Hi there,

A coach would definitely help you on your structuring skills. Happy to keep talking about this in private, just send me a message.

Best,

Alberto

—

Check out my latest case based on a real MBB interview: Sierra Springs