The 5 Ways To Be MECE In Case Interviews
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2024
- If you've found this video helpful, you're gonna LOVE our free course at www.craftingcases.com/freecourse -- click the link for more info.
**
Find more about the 5 Ways To Be MECE at www.craftingcases.com/MECE
**
I wouldn't be a good McKinsey consultant if I weren't able to create MECE structures.
The MECE principle (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) is used every single day by McKinsey, BCG and Bain consultants to structure their client's problems just like you see in case interviews.
When I was preparing for my case interviews I was constantly afraid I was not being MECE when solving my cases. Everyone told me that I should be MECE: Victor Cheng, Case in Point, and all the other "experts".
But one thing they did not tell me was HOW to be MECE.
Well, I'm here to solve your problems. In this video, I'm sharing with you The 5 Ways To Be MECE - 5 practical techniques you can use to create your own customized frameworks.
Without these techniques, you have to wait for a structure to pop up into your head and hope it's MECE. Not a great plan to get an offer.
With these techniques, you have a limited set of things to learn and a limited set of techniques to choose from when structuring your cases. Sounds like a feasible plan to get multiple offers to me!
Whether you learn intuitively or from this video, you can't get an offer at McKinsey, at Bain, at BCG or at any other management consulting firm without The 5 Ways to be MECE!
Tell me in the comments if you've liked this video and what you've liked about it.
Table of contents (so you can find stuff later in the future):
02:13 - The 1st Way to be MECE: Algebra Structures
07:33 - The 2nd Way to be MECE: Process Structures
12:07 - The 3rd Way to be MECE: Conceptual Frameworks
16:00 - The Three Core Structuring Techniques
17:06 - The 4th Way to be MECE: Segmentations
20:56 - The 5th Way to be MECE: Opposite Words
If you've liked this video, make sure you click the Like button and leave a comment below! (This lets TH-cam know this video's good and will make it show it to more people).
If you want to hear more from us, click Subscribe (and click the Alarm Bell button if you want to get notified whenever we release a new video).
If you have any questions, ask it in the comments below - I'll read and answer each one of them and may even make a video about it, who knows!
And if you know someone (or someones) who might benefit from our videos, make sure you share it using the Share button next to the Like button.
Hope the best for your case interview preparation and I'll see you on the next video :)
Bruno
Music in the video:
"Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com)
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License
creativecommons.org/licenses/b...
![[TH]FFWS SEA Spring 2024 Knockout Stage - Day 18](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/IfsyX-nCiZQ/mqdefault.jpg)
If you've found the 5 Ways to be MECE helpful to improve your MECEness, you're gonna find our free course 3X more helpful. That's because we show you how to answer any case interview question in a step-by-step method through our signature system "The 6 Building Blocks". Join now at www.craftingcases.com/freecourse
It's not only for case interviews. Its a way to think.
Hey, just wanting to let you know, for my interview all I did was mostly watch this video, and ended up with a McKinsey offer. Thank you so much!
Based on my understanding of the video I would like to highlight my key takeaways :-
1. Algebraic framework based on Mathematical equations. (Pros: Highly Quantitative, Cons: Not Qualitative)
2. Process framework based on underlying process (Effective in Manufacturing, hiring, sales etc.) (Pros: Useful in specific cases Cons: Specificity, Non-quantitative)
3. Conceptual framework based on fundamentals of Market like 3Cs, 4Ps, 7Ps etc. (Pros: Highly Qualitative, Cons: Less Quantitative)
Above 3 are the core frameworks used to breakdown a problem into components in a MECE way. Apart from that there are 2 ancillary ones.
Here are the other 2:-
4. Segmentation based on breaking a set into sub-sets. (Pros: Effective in mix-effects Cons: Not strategic)
5. Opposite Words (Self-Explanatory isn't it?) (Pros: Easily Communicable Cons: Overrated, Neither too qualitative or Quantitative)
great content, as all the content on your channel. Thank you Bruno and Julio!
Thank you for this content. It is well explained and straight to the point! Thanks
Thank you CraftingCases! I love your videos and how you really dwell into the details. By far the most helpful videos out there for consulting case interviews!
OMG this thing makes so much sense. Thank you very much for explaining this critically important concepts about being MECE
This was a very good video, covering a big part of the preparation but leaving it with the good amount of details, thank you!
Thank you for making such great content and sharing it with us in a structured manner. I love these videos and the course content that you have put together on your website. THANK YOU!
Your videos are highly valued by me thanks a lot for sharing them for free!!!
Your videos deserve more attention for aspiring consultants!
Thank you for explaining it in a way that is detailed, yet still capture the principle understanding behind it.
You are a great teacher Bruno!
Thanks!! This has been very useful. Direct and straight to the point!
I cannot believe such good stuff is out there for free, thank you craftingcases for the great content! It's hard to find alternative ways to tackle consulting cases when everyone seems to follow the mundane framework.
The best video I have seen so far in explaining how to build a unique structure for any case!
I never say this, but all of your content, here and on the website, is out-F...-standing. It's much more than just preparing to a job interview, it's more than just business culture, however fine it might be... Your links to other sources prove that getting a big picture and being able to explain it in a structured way are skills that take time to mature. Thanks for sharing your knowledge.
Super insightful video- couldn't thank you enough!
amazing video thank you so much im so incredibly happy i found this channel
Hey, just want to thank you for uploading quality content. I am paying a senior McKinsey consultant 3k to tell me the same, and train me in building issue trees. Everyone else seems to be grinding frameworks and .. yeah, it might be enough for analyst-level job, but not consultant.
Hey Charlie, thanks for the comment!
I'm really really glad the video has helped that much.
Curious to know, what other content besides issue trees would help you the most? Also, are you currently a consultant, trying to become one or just learning the skills for another job?
This video is golden. Thank you very much!
Thanks for giving me a light. This subject was so nebulous to me...This is just the first video, I hope to learn more from the next ones.
Hey! Thanks for the content. Waiting for more videos!
Thanks Bruno for this! I have a clarification regarding the example given for the Process structure. The process that you've portrayed will all lead to a decline in revenue and NOT necessarily market share. Since the question is asking for market share, you can use the 4th example from mathematical structure as the 1st layer and then break down the decrease in revenues using the process structure example that you've shown as the second layer of the tree.
What was helpful to me was knowing that how certain MECE structure would be more relevant for certain problem types. Till now, i would mostly apply them what would come to my mind at that time. Now i will probably be able to evaluate them quickly and use the right one during the case
your content is SO good it's incredible it's for free
Thank you very much for your contents, the best of the internet!
Thank you for this very insightful material. I am preparing for some case interviews and this helped me a lot to improve my techniques in structuring issues!
That’s good to hear! What helped you the most?
No doubt the best material i've seen on "MECE" so far. Also, great to learn some new cases (specially one that has been done in a final round at MkC). Thank you very much, Bruno and Julio!
Glad you liked it dellanina!
We'll put out other videos, specifically on each technique in the next couple of weeks!
you are more than awesome
really that will help alot
thanks
I went through the 6 videos. High quality content. Thank you.
Hey Eugene, thanks for letting me know. I took a long time to put these videos together, so it's humbling to hear that you actually went through all 6 of them!
the best free coaching video
Enjoying your classes sir.
Best video on the subject, really useful, thanks for sharing! For the initial framework my favorite one definitely are Conceptual Frameworks, but the other structures will be really useful for brainstomings or just organizing my speech.
Thank you Carol! I do agree conceptual frameworks are the most useful when starting the case, unless it's a case where you have to find the root-cause of the problem first (e.g. profitability case), in that case it's better to go with a more numerical issue tree that allows you to focus the problem and ignore the other parts.
Thank you so much for this. It is very insightful.
You’re welcome!
Super useful video, thank you so much. :)
Thank you, subscribed
Very good video and its such a pity that too few people have viewed this to reward you for your effort. Thanks a lot!
Daniyar, I’m glad you like it! We’re getting more and more people to view our videos as time goes. If you’re able to tell people about our work that’d surely help us a lot!
great video. thank you
Best video I have ever seen on being MECE.
Glad this video and the rest of the series is helping you out Yuthpati
Awesome video!
That's great material - as always! :-)
Hi Bruno,
I'm just beginning training for my case interview's and I have to say I've been through countless resources on the net and read books and I find them way to broad and lacking detail, which ironically those resources say is a complaint of interviewers, your stuff really is top notch. I signed up for your free course on your website but have stepped back because you advise doing 20 cases first, but these videos really are helping me understand structure of a case interview. Your approach to explanation is methodical. It reminds me of when I was growing up playing baseball. I played competitively and on my team I was mid-rang but when it came to coaching younger less skilled players I was always the first one called. I spent time with my teammates to figure out what this was, and I learned that a lot of my better teammates would learn basic skills, and then advance. Once someone learned the basics they'd forget about them because it was already muscle memory, while I continued to practice the basics and could therefore help coach new players because I was always bringing them back to the fundamentals. I like your approach because it seems like you're doing the same thing you're going back to the mechanics of thinking through the problems.
Glad you enjoy our approach Avinoam! I think you'll love our free course.
INSIGHTFUL!!👌👌👌
I don't know why I never came across your videos but they are truly amazing. I am going through the 1-week course on your website and this truly augments that. Thanks for these great videos
Glad this is helpful Raunak!
I have one question: which other channels related to case interviews were you watching? Did you search for any information regarding this before and found other stuff? Trying to do my homework so we're more findable in the future.
@@CraftingCases My friend suggested your course. I have been watching some videos related to 1-1 case-solving, which included a few of your videos(Julio interviewing Bruno). However, I reached this playlist from the 1-week program on your website
And my searches primarily include "Case Solutions" and similar searches. So I have not directly searched for the methodology to solve cases.
@@raunakkochar3630 Got it, thanks!
1001st like created by me, YEAH! Great content!
Tqs for the presentation bruno
Man, You're a genius! been watching several other videos until yours explained me the best! Thanks!
Hey Oguzcan, very glad you like it!
I wish I were a genius, by the way, but I'm just a guy who has spent a lot of hours teaching these concepts to people!
amazing video. Thanks!
Glad you like it, Sneha!
Fantastic.
Its like using a MECE structure to discuss MECE structures. This is called "consulting inception." haha This video was awesome!
02:13 1st 3:30 start
07:38 2nd 8:35 start
12:08 3rd 12:44 start
17:12 4th
20:58 5th
Thank you so much for this quality video. I am working on being a consultant and you are making it easy for me.One question, where can i get solved case interview problems well explored like you just did?
Check out our free course in our website - tons of practice examples there.
Amazing...
Would you please explain why 3C framework is MECE? I can think of other conceptual aspects that may impact a business such as supply and regulation
Thank you very much
You're welcome! What kind of video would help you the most if I were to make one just for you?
Top demais! Valeu
very good stuff
Hey Peter, very glad you liked it!
Good intro. Sorry, could you please explain the maths behind your equations for market share and why they are proxes for market share?
They're not proxies, they're exact. The first equation calculates market share as driven by their share of machines in the market (because they can't sell capsules unless people have the machines, but not every capsule used in a nespresso machine must be nespresso's). The second one, as driven by their share of customers (because only nespresso customers buy nespresso, but they can also buy other brands). The third equation as driven by points of sale (as they can only sell nespresso in points of sale that sell nespresso, but there might be points of sale that sell other capsules as well).
Question about the opposite words technique. It seems like if you're not careful, the technique is just creating a really large category labeled "other." Any tips for avoiding that, other than just being aware of the potential pitfall and not doing it?
thanks
🥰🥰🥰🥰😘
lovely
The structure at 9:18 where you apply a process framework to Nespresso’s falling market share problem is not MECE. I can think of a scenario when none of the outlined hypotheses is true, yet the company still loses its market share: sales are growing at a slower-than-market rate. This means the proposed structure is not exhaustive.
when done that segmentation part of example ... i was like 😵😵😵
please make a video on how to communicate with clients under various situations. you might make it to a big consulting company but lose your job quickly if you talk like a college student. (then you may also want to change your company name to 'crafting consultants')
Hey! I was like nice comment, who wrote this 😆
Hey guys, in 4:20 why are we not considering the capsule also bought in boxes by the person who got Nespresso machine and who doesn't have one?
Which one of the 5 Ways To Be MECE are you going to start using more in your case interviews? Can you remember of a case question you couldn't find a structure for and now you would be able to? Share with us and our community so we can all learn from each other!
Great content!
can anyone recommend any good book on MECE?
Thanks :)
The Pyramid Principle by Barbara Minto covers the topic well. It doesn't talk just about MECE, but structured thinking and communications in general.
What is the best structure (or combination of structures) to use when solving for conersion rate questions - Improve the onboarding conversion by 4% or There has been a decline in onboarding clients on to app by 5%?
Great explanation but the fonts are so small.
Hey Bruno, thank you so much for the amazing video. One doubt though - how is percentage of capsule customers who buy Nespresso and percentage of capsules they buy are are Nespresso are different (when you were talking about the Nespresso question)? May be I might be understanding it in a wrong way but would definitely appreciate if you could clarify on this.
It's the percentage of customers who but nespresso at all( maybe they buy from nespresso only sometimes) x % of capsules that they buy which are nespresso. Just an example, maybe they have 50k people who buy their products. But out of these 50k, only 60% of them buy their capsules exclusively from nespresso while the other 40% buy from other providers 50% of the time.
@@Aaron-zk6jn One piece of the equation is missing. What if Nespresso's customers are just buying less compared to the rest of customers. Their market share would decline even if both their share of customers and share of wallet are stables.
Hello Bruno,
Thank you for the video.
My question is in the algebraic structuring, I assume nespresso pods can fit in other types machines and other machines may take nespresso pods also. So, in the first bucket you may need "other machines that take nespresso capsules". In the second one it may need to be "% of capsules customers who buy capsules" times "% of the capsules they buy that are nespresso" What do you think?
Many ways to skin a cat. As long as you consider (1) not all machines take the nespresso format, and (2) not all pods used by machines that support the nespresso format are made by nespresso, you’ll be okay
I use MECE issue trees for solving issues in product design.
Super cool! Would you give an example of that in practice? I'd love to know
CraftingCases
Multiple ways to do:
--------------------------------
When locating problems in a flow, I the process steps are MECE
I strive to define the steps of a data input process to be as MECE as possilble (e.g. personal data/non-personal data)
I strive to define personas as MECE as possible (no income overlap, no age overlap, etc.)
I strive to define usage scenarios for software as MECE as possible (eg. 10.000-50.000 users a day, 50.000-100.000 users a day, 100.000+ users a day)
So what are all the possible reasons?
GOAT!
I don't know how to thank you Bruno
Hi Bruno. Do you think that everyone is able to create their own framework at the end? From the sound of it, this ability sounds amazing. However, I found myself in the dust when I was met with new "odd" problems like the one on your website. Do you think I can do it?
Everyone who took our free course and reported back said they were much more able to do that than before.
It seems hard, but it truly isn’t. You just need to learn how to think through it in stages.
@@CraftingCases So which method is the best to learn from your channel? By web or youtube videos? Can't wait to get started!
We have a video course available for free. Www.craftingcases.com/freecourse
13:04
me : how to crack the case interview
MBB Chad : Just be more MECE bro!
Your course is a MECE in itelf.
(mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive
I want to ask whether this is MECE or not?
The problem is how to increase the approved Credit Card
Approved Card = Sales Incoming × Approval Rate
Sales Incoming = Approved Card + Not Approved Card
Approval Rate = Approved Card / (Approved Card + Not Approved Card)
So the MECE way to structured this problem is to focus on two things:
Sales Incoming
Approval Rate
Is this the right way to structured the problem?
I can’t say if it’s MECE or not because the problem isn’t well defined. “How to increase the approved credit card” doesn’t mean anything specific to be honest (perhaps it’s the wording).
One thing, though... your reasoning has circularity, which is a big problem. Both variables depend on a common variable (“approved card”) and that variable is exactly the same variable as the one you’re trying to get by multiplying the two of them.
Maybe it’s how your worded it, but it doesn’t make sense the way it’s written.
@@CraftingCases so let me clarify the business case. This is a credit card business problem. The process of a credit card acquisition up until the credit card can be used and activated by the customer is as follows:
1. Credit card sales make an acquisition / customer apply for a credit card (incoming)
2. The number of credit card incoming is then processed by an underwriter and analyst to verify and check whether those incoming are eligible (able to payback) to use credit card.
3. Incoming then will be decided to be approved or not approved based on the eligibility.
4. Approved card then will be delivered to the customer, and ready to be activated and used.
Based on that process, how to structured this problem. If my aim / goal is to increase number of card that are ready to be activated by the customer (approved card).
@@CraftingCases out of all those process i can simplify those problem into an algebra formula:
Approved card = incoming card × approval rate
Where:
Incoming card = approved card + not approved card
Approval rate = approved card / (approved card + not approved card)
Algebraically it is a correct formula since in the end the left hand side is the same as the right hand side.
@@CraftingCases thus based on the process and algebra formula that i have stated in my previous comments, how do we structured this problem to be mece.
@@faisalibrahim2217 Got it.
The problem of your structure is not a lack of MECEness, it's a lack of causality in the structure that brings in the circularity.
In other words, your equation is correct, but it doesn't help you solve the problem. There's a similar example in one of the videos in the playlist (I think it's the Algebra Structures video) that shows that sometimes people break down a "How to improve Market Share" problem into "Revenues / Total Market Size". Mathematically that's correct, but it doesn't show causality (you can't impact total market size without increasing your revenues) and thus doesn't help you solve the problem.
So let me be super clear: MECE is not the end goal. Solving the problem is the end goal. MECE is only important because it helps you solve the problem in a clear and rigorous way, but if your MECE structure doesn't help you solve the problem, you have a bigger problem and it's irrelevant if your structure is MECE or mathematically correct or whatever.
So, what's the issue with your structure? A few things:
1) Breaking down "Incoming card requests" into "Approved cards + Not approved cards" doesn't show causality as these levers aren't actionable. When a request comes you don't know a priori if that request is of an approved or a not approved card... Nor can you target each specific segment to increase the number of incoming requests (and if you could there'd be no point in targeting the "not approved" segment. In other words: this breakdown is neither measurable a priori, nor actionable. It doesn't help you identify the source of the problem nor increase that metric. A better breakdown could be "# of people reached through marketing * % of those that request a card", though it depends on which marketing channel you're using for this breakdown to be good or not.
2) Your approval rate formula is again using the same variables so it's "mathematically correct" but useless from a problem-solving perspective. You're just defining how the approval rate can be calculated, but not going into the DRIVERS of approval rate, which is what would give you some causal relationship. A better way would be to breakdown a funnel showing the causes that people get unapproved. I don't know the causes (would need to brainstorm and validate with the interviewer, but it'd look something like this: "Approval rate = % of requests filled with correct information * % of those with a good credit score * % of those that pass the company's risk tolerance* % of those that live in an area covered by the company", etc. You can add as many steps in this as there are criteria that the customer needs to pass to be approved.
There are many ways to be MECE, only a few are actually useful to solve the specific problem you're facing. You need a check on both to have a good structure.
Hope this helps.
gjls
Play at a speed of 1.25x . Thank me later 😊