GreenLife Bank expands into Asia (McKinsey 2nd round)

This problem can be thought of as a process. First, you would need to determine the current state; then, you would need to define the objectives; then, you would need to develop the training programme; finally, you would need to implement it and evaluate its success. See an example framework below:

1. Understanding the current state
   1. What is the current process of training new customer service staff in EU?
   2. How well did they respond to it and what sort of gaps remain?
   3. How do we monitor completion of training?
   4. What else will EU staff need to learn once we enter the Asian market?
2. Defining the objectives
   1. What is the objective of this programme and how will success be measured?
   2. How long do we have to develop and deliver this project?
   3. How much funding is available?
3. Development and implementation
   1. Development. What are the key elements of the programme? What are the best practices in designing and delivering the programme? How will the training be tailored to account for different levels of experience? How will the programme be tailored to account for regional differences in terms of culture and the types of products we offer? How do we make the programme disability friendly?
   2. Implementation. Will training be delivered online or in person? Do we have the professionals to deliver the programme, or do we have to hire them? Do we have the digital architecture to support this programme? What is the timeline for implementing the programme? What support will staff require during training?
4. Measuring and evaluating success
   1. How will we measure success?
   2. How will we monitor the completion of the programme?
   3. How will we support staff that learn slower?

Alternatively, we could think about the structure as a project plan, with the main areas being the core project phases: diagnostic, design and implementation.

The candidate should assert that we must double our workforce for the virtual platform to make sense. Whether or not we pursue an aggressive expansion into Asia, it makes sense for us to future-proof the organisation by delivering a training programme that may be easier to customise and adapt to future regulatory or business changes.

Some of the potential risks you could have discussed:

1. Adoption. Staff may be resistant to change and may not complete the training or simply skim through it. This could be mitigated by providing staff with ongoing support and resources and checking their knowledge with short quizzes after the completion of each module.
2. Operational. Integration of the programme into our digital architecture might be technologically more difficult than anticipated, causing disruptions. In addition, staff training may interfere with their daily duties and cause disruptions for our customers. To mitigate this, platform integration and training should be performed outside of business hours or on a rotational basis.
3. Financial. There is a possibility that programme development will be delayed and incur additional expenses. Furthermore, there is a possibility that the programme will not provide an optimal return on investment. To mitigate this, we will need to establish clear expectations and deadlines, as well as conduct a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of the selected training method to ensure that there are no better alternatives.
4. Regulatory. As banking institutions are highly regulated, the programme could easily violate local regulations and requirements, such as those pertaining to insurance sales. To mitigate this, we will need to collaborate with legal experts and regulatory authorities throughout the program's development, as well as monitor updates to local regulations and adjust the programme accordingly.

The candidate should claim that we would need to hire 11 more people to oversee our employees. Given that one external supervisor would only deal with a single team, the candidate should argue that this is inefficient and request that we look into whether one of the supervisors can take on an additional team, or whether we can form larger groups to reduce the number of supervisors required and their implicit costs. Considering that the computations were relatively straightforward, your insights and recommendations are key to set yourself apart from other candidates! 

Some of the cost reduction strategies that candidates can suggest: 

1. Reduce costs in current compliance monitoring strategy:
   1. Increase assessment team size
   2. Increase efficiency of HR professionals (more teams per HR member)
   3. Reduce costs of HR professionals (by renegotiating salaries or hiring cheaper staff)
2. Design new compliance monitoring strategy:
   1. Virtually (quizzes after the completion of each module)
   2. Classroom based exercises with fewer supervisors
   3. Written exams graded by a single HR professional (longer turn-around)
   4. Send employees to third-party certification service
   5. AI-based solutions that track all activity on the computer as well as eye movement
3. Remove compliance monitoring:
   1. Trust people to comply with training (Risky)
   2. Boost personal accountability (incentives or fines)

A distinctive candidate would also proactively weigh the costs and benefits associated with the most likely/most important cost reduction strategies.