Learn the case interview basics, practice with 200+ cases, and benefit from extensive test materials, and interactive self-study tools.
Expert case by Ian
Bain + BCG Hot Wheels - Part 2 WITH VIDEO SOLUTION
5.9k
Times solved
Beginner
Difficulty
Our client is Korean Car Parts (KCP), a multi-national original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of car parts based in Korea. They've recently seen a decline in profits and have brought us in to understand how to address this falling profitability.
=================================================
To get a deep-dive explanation of the case leadership behind this case, please read this article: Candidate-Led Cases: What to Expect With Example Cases
This case is part two of a series. The goal of this series is to demonstrate how an identical case prompt (and corresponding framework) could lead to multiple different outcomes. The goal is to train you to adjust to case information in an agile and adaptable way.
The 1st part of the series can be found here:
I. Geographic/Market Analysis
In the first phase, the candidate needs to figure out if there is an overall market and/or geographic reason for the client's falling profits. The interviewee needs to ask if we’re seeing differences in the different markets the client serves. They should also ask whether competition is universally seeing the same falling profits that we are.
II: Market + Competitor Analysis – Part 1
II: Market + Competitor Analysis – Part 2
III. Solution
Before making a final recommendation, a strong candidate will make sure that we have covered all bases. Below are good questions for them to ask and suggested answers:
Video Solution
Would you like to see this YouTube video?
Without your consent we cannot embed YouTube videos. Click the button below and accept the marketing cookies to allow YouTube videos to be embedded.
By allowing this service, you consent, in accordance with article 49 paragraph 1 sentence 1 lit. a GDPR, to your data being processed in the USA. The USA is not considered to have adequate data protection legislation. Your data could be accessed by law enforcement without prior public trial in court. You can change your settings regarding consent to external services at any time in our Cookie and Privacy Settings.
5.9k
Times solved
Beginner
Difficulty
Do you have questions on this case? Ask our community!
This case is part two of a series. The goal of this series is to demonstrate how an identical case prompt (and corresponding framework) could lead to multiple different outcomes. The goal is to train you to adjust to case information in an agile and adaptable way.
To get a deep-dive explanation of the case leadership behind this case, please read this article: Candidate-Led Cases: What to Expect With Example Cases
The 1st part of the series can be found here: Case - BCG Hot Wheels With Video Solution
==============================================
This is a candidate-led case, the style of which could be seen across a range of consultancies, but particularly BCG and Bain. The case is split into 2 main parts:
In addition to the above, this case tests a candidate's understanding of profitability, the automotive industry, globalization, and, of course, chart reading.
The following can be verbally provided to the interviewee if asked:
====================================================
Scoring Criteria: Use the following grading system for each skill area:
a. Structured Thinking (Frameworking):
1 = Lacked a coherent structure
5 = Pinpointed the appropriate issue, segmented it into a complete set of non-overlapping components (e.g., MECE), presented a plan to tackle the case, and offered valuable insights.
b. Numeracy/Math:
1 = Committed numerous errors and required assistance in setting up equations
5 = Performed calculations accurately and with confidence, identified implications, designed a clear and efficient approach, and demonstrated exceptional speed.
c. Judgement and Insights (Charts & Exhibits): 1 = Missed basic insights 5 = Connected findings to develop practical recommendations, made reasonable hypotheses, shared impressive insights, and flagged far-reaching implications.
1 = Overlooked fundamental insights
5 = Linked observations to devise actionable recommendations, formulated plausible hypotheses, conveyed strong, objective-driven insights, and highlighted impact.
d. Case Leadership (unless interviewer-led):
1 = Frequently disoriented and dependent on guidance
5 = Advanced autonomously and maintained focus on the question and the client's objective.
e. Creativity:
1 = Had difficulty generating original ideas
5 = Offered a variety of strong and diverse ideas, tailored to the industry and business context.
f. Presence:
1 = Not client-ready
5 = Exhibited professionalism, charisma, enthusiasm, and self-assurance.
g. Communication:
1 = Unclear and disorganized
5 = Demonstrated active listening, spoke precisely, and communicated concisely.
h. Synthesis (Final Recommendation):
1 = Failed to provide a coherent and well-founded recommendation
5 = Justified recommendation with key considerations, potential risks, and subsequent steps to address those risks.
During the Interview: As the candidate progresses through the case, take notes on their performance in each skill area. Be prepared to provide feedback at the end of the interview.
Post-Interview: After the interview, grade the candidate's performance in each skill area based on your notes and the scoring criteria. Share the scores and any specific feedback with the candidate to help them understand their level of readiness for the actual interview.
Improvement: Encourage the candidate to focus on areas where their performance was weak and provide guidance on how they can improve in those areas.