Victor Cheng Hypothesis & Frameworks : which is right?

Dear James,

I hope you’re doing well! I wanted to share my thoughts on your question regarding frameworks for case interviews. While I see the value in understanding various frameworks, I would advise against strictly applying them during your interviews for a few reasons:

1. Time Constraints: Interviews often have tight time limits, making it crucial to prioritize which avenues to explore right from the start. Relying on a rigid framework can hinder your ability to adapt.
2. Problem-Solving Focus: Interviewers are primarily interested in your ability to think on your feet and solve problems in real-time, rather than your memorization of frameworks.
3. Standing Out: Many candidates tend to apply standard frameworks. By doing the same, you risk blending in with the crowd of average candidates rather than showcasing your unique approach.

Instead of Relying on Standard Frameworks, Consider the Following:

• Understand the Problem: Start by clarifying the key issues at hand. Ask probing questions to fully understand the context and objectives of the case.
• Structure Your Thinking: Instead of a rigid framework, create a tailored approach based on the specific details of the case. Break down the problem into logical components that make sense for the situation.
• Be Flexible: Adapt your strategy as new information comes to light. Show your ability to pivot and explore different angles based on the data you uncover during the interview.
• Communicate Clearly: Articulate your thought process throughout the case. This demonstrates not only your problem-solving skills but also your ability to collaborate and engage with the interviewer.
• Practice Active Listening: Pay close attention to the interviewer’s feedback and guidance. This can provide valuable insights that help you refine your approach.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful! Feel free to DM me if you have any further questions.

Best regards,
Laura

Hey! 

This is a great question! I would say that when it comes to choosing between a framework and a hypothesis, both serve different purposes. Frameworks are tools for structuring your thinking and covering all bases, particularly in familiar cases like profitability, market entry, or M&A. They provide a systematic way to analyze all the relevant factors. Hypotheses, on the other hand, are used when you're unsure which direction to take, helping you quickly focus on the most likely causes or solutions. In real consulting, you're often working under time constraints, so a hypothesis-driven approach allows you to zero in on what’s important.

So I would summarize that the key is:

• Use frameworks for broad, well-known case types to ensure thorough analysis.
• Use a hypothesis when you're dealing with less familiar or ambiguous situations where you need to test assumptions and focus your investigation.

You can use both: apply a broad framework initially, but form a working hypothesis as you go deeper into the case to direct your focus and speed up decision-making. Victor Cheng generally emphasizes starting with a hypothesis to narrow the scope quickly, but frameworks help ensure you haven't missed critical details. The two approaches complement each other.

Does it make the difference a bit clearer? :) 
BR Alesasa

Hi there,

The simple answer is: If you want to receive an offer you need to learn how to create structures from scratch and move towards a first-principles problem-solving approach.

Move away from memorized frameworks and bear in mind that VC was at McKinsey before the turn of the century (!). Completely different times when he crafted his advice which I am sure was extremely valuable back then.

However, for modern cases and case interviews, you need to work on your problem-solving/case deconstruction skills, not memorization.

I am quoting a few portions of an article I wrote on the topic:

Consider the following recent prompts from consulting firm interviews:

• "A hotel has lower bookings: Who would you talk to?
• "Machines break down more often: What factors could be contributing to this issue?"
• "Airline customer satisfaction is down: How would you analyze the situation?

These scenarios cannot be answered through memorized frameworks. Trying to fit these unique problems into a pre-existing framework often leads to frustration and poor performance.

Why framework memorization fails

1. No points for problem-solving

Case interviews are designed to test your problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, not your ability to regurgitate memorized information. Frameworks are meant to be a guide, not a script. Using a memorized framework can make it obvious that you are not thinking critically about the problem at hand. Interviewers want to see tailored, relevant, and concrete analytical constructs. Using generic categories and ideas not tailored to the case will score poorly in problem-solving.

2. Creative and unique scenarios

Case interviews often involve unique and unpredictable scenarios. No two cases are the same, so a memorized framework will not apply to the specific problem you are presented with. For example:

"You are working with an operator of a specific type of machine. They break down at different rates at different locations. What factors can you think of why that would happen?"

Which Victor Cheng framework or Cosentino idea would you present here? There isn’t a single bucket that would work.

Even in more traditional settings, firms want to see your own perspective, no cookie cutter approach.

3. Limiting creativity

Using a memorized framework limits your ability to think creatively. If you always have something to fall back on, then your mind will automatically stop looking at new ideas and angles for a case.

When you try to fit the problem into a pre-existing framework, you may miss opportunities to come up with innovative solutions. Welcome to the 99% of non-offer holders...

4. Lack of rationale

Case interviews also test your ability to communicate and present your thought process effectively. When relying on a memorized framework, you may struggle to explain the reasoning behind your solutions. You have no clear hypotheses.

Interviewers want to understand why you think a certain way, not just what you think. Memorizing frameworks can hinder your ability to support and defend your choices.

The memorized framework approach was developed by Marc Cosentino, a career advisor with no skin in the game who has never seen a consulting firm's office from the inside. When I was at McKinsey there was a saying that his advice is preventing more offers than the actual difficulty of the interviews. Something that makes you think…

There is a reason why only 1% of applicants get the offer, yet everyone continues to rely on the faulty framework approach.

How to change this?

At the core, all consulting firms want to see creative ideas communicated in a structured manner, the more exhaustive the better.

Your goal should be to develop a tailored and creative answer that fits the question. The framework should - broadly speaking - follow these three characteristics:

• Broad
• Deep
• Insightful

You would need to go into detail and qualify your answer with practical examples and more details.

To work on this, please reach out either for coaching or the following: I am launching a free case interview foundations course and am happy to include you as a beta tester.

All the best,

Florian

Hi James, 

Your own hypothesis is correct - sometimes the framework is obvious, sometimes it's a mix of a couple things. 

Go in with this openness to mixing frameworks, and you'll be prized. 

A lot of times, you'll tell the interviewer the buckets in your "mixed" framework - they'll appreciate you thinking the question touches multiple frameworks, and then direct you to use one framework only, thus making it easier for you. E.g. "thanks for realising this isn't just a profitability analysis - I agree this needs an eye on branding as well - let's focus on profitability only for the sake of this interview". 

Hi James,

I would be happy to share my thoughts on your question:

• First of all, as you rightly mentioned, sometimes you need to “mix and match” different parts of structures to create a customized structure for the specific client situation. I am sure you will find a good balance between a generic, memorized framework and a lengthy first-principles approach over time. I developed the “Case Structuring Program” to help exactly such candidates like you who struggle with properly structuring any case study.
• Moreover, I would advise you not to overthink hypotheses and thereby institutionalize them. Ultimately, they are nothing more than opinions based on a limited but insufficient amount of data to call them truth. With some case studies, you can share your hypothesis about the client early on, while with other case studies you need some time and data to develop it.

You can find more on this topic here: How to succeed in the final interview round.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare for your upcoming interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen