Interview Prep experience: Weird Problem statements

Here is an instance of a case where problem definition is weird and we are essentially looking at solving these types of cases in pressure situations.

This case was discussed once in prep practice by group 5.

First the characters in the story:
Interviewer: Narayanan (aka Mama)
Interviewee: Venkat
Case fished out by: Guru (also the observer)

Case statement: A hamburger manufacturer in the US has acquired a meat processing facility. The cows can be made to walk into the processing machine or run into it. What should they do?

Interviewee’s approach:
1) Tried to define the problem. What exactly are we trying to do?
2) What exactly is the difference between walking and running? Understanding the process.
3) How does it effect the output? Are there quality issues?
4) What is the processing capacity?
5) How does walking over running impact the capacity? (Lame question. Of course make the cows run will increase the quantity of meat produced)
6) How does it impact the cost of processing?
7) Questions on various cost aspects (lot of hints were given by interviewer)
8) Conclusion: On a per unit level, Its cheaper to produce by making the cows run. So that’s should be the approach

Interviewer’s comments:
1) Structure could have been better
2) Too much time spent on walk vs run. Interviewee should straight jump to the real issue which is “How can we improve our profits by doing one over another”?
3) How is the facility being used? Captive consumption Vs Selling to outsiders as well. If only captive, overproduction of perishable item like meat would result in wastage losses. Also can we sell to outsiders?
4) How will a process improvement at the facility impact revenues of the burger chain? Can we translate the cost savings into lower prices and ultimately better margins?
5) Charts could ve been used to understand the process (Thinking aloud)

Key takeaways:
1) Structure-Structure-Structure---Ask the right questions
2) Don’t get overawed by the weirdness of the problem. Walk Vs Run doesn’t mean anything unless it impacts the bottom line. Ask intelligent questions to get out the real problem and define it to obtain the agreement of the interviewer.
3) Think about both cost and revenue aspects. Similarly from an operational output stand point match supply to demand.
4) Think aloud and try to present pictorially your understanding of the process. Interviewer may throw hints if there is something wrong.
5) Listen carefully. In case of weird problems like this, there are enough hints in the initial answers which would help a candidate to come up with a good problem definition and structure

(This case is adapted from the case given in Pg 40 of the Harvard MCC case interview prep guide. Those interested may go over the case for a better understanding and numerical details. This case was repeated in the mock interview session with Yashraj from BCG and his comments have been incorporated at appropriate places)

Interview Prep session by ATK

After the success of the Mckinsey workshop, the Consulting Club continued its series of interview centric information sessions with a session from the A.T. Kearney (ATK) team, conducted on Saturday 2nd December 2006. The session was conducted by Saurine Doshi, Supratim Banerjee, Anshu Gupta and Kunal Malani.

The ATK team gave a brief overview of the firm and highlighted the features which differentiate ATK from the other Consulting majors. The speakers illustrated the differences by recounting their own experiences and emphasizing on the service delivery methodology followed by the firm. The focus of the session was interview preparation from the point of view of cracking ATK interviews. The following are the most important qualities that ATK tries to assess in the candidates through the interviews:

• Strong intellectual capabilities
• Ability to work in ambiguous environments
• Intellectual capital development
• Long term partner potential

The candidates are evaluated on certain broad aspects viz, – problem solving skills, personal qualifications, and client impact potential. Supratim also emphasized on the fact that everyone in ISB has come in with experience and hence the firm gives a lot of credence to a candidate’s prior work ex. The interview procedure is designed in a way so as to assess the candidate’s flare for consulting and whether he/she will be an appropriate fit for the firm or not. One question that is frequently asked on the interview is “Why ATK?” The candidates need to carefully think through this and assess whether their skill sets and qualifications are a good fit with the firm’s culture and how best they can leverage upon their own experience and proficiency in order to differentiate themselves.

The session ended with the ATK team conducting mock interviews with volunteers. After the interview, the team provided their feedback and perspective on how good or bad the interview was and what are the key areas of concern that need to be worked upon. As in the Mckinsey case session, the mock interviews were immensely useful not only to the observers but also the volunteers themselves as they got a thorough understanding of what they need to do and how they should go about doing it, in order to crack ATK interview.

Case Interview workshop by McKinsey and Company

The mercury has really started rising when it comes to the placement fever. With the D-day fast closing in, preparations have begun in full swing. Amidst this high pressure environment, the Consulting Club organized the Mck case workshop, which caught the pulse of the atmosphere on campus. The event was eagerly awaited which was quite evident from the number of people that swarmed AC 7 Max theatre on 1st December 2006. The workshop was conducted by Nigel Andrade, Venkatesh Srinivasan, Raj Kamal, Gaurav Bhalara and Rohit Kapoor and focused on the dos and don’ts for case interviews.

Nigel kick started the session by giving a general overview of what was going to be covered in the workshop and what would be the key learnings at the end of it. He defined the framework within which he was going to conduct the session and asked the student body for their expectations from the workshop. The key concern that Nigel sought to address was the evaluation criterion used to ascertain the success of a candidate in a case interview.

After the expectations had been laid down, Nigel switched gears and jumped straight into the methodology of preparing for and tackling case interviews. He stated the 4 key things that Mck looks for when evaluating the performance of a candidate on a case interview

• Intellectual horsepower / Problem solving ability
• Business judgment
• Drive and aspiration
• Leadership qualities

He then elaborated on the various stages that a candidate must pass through in order to crack the case. The emphasis is on the thought process rather than getting the correct answer.

First and foremost is the understanding of the problem and correctly defining it. The candidate must delve into each and every aspect of the problem posed to him and ask questions in order to completely understand the problem at hand and define it appropriately.

Once the problem has been identified and delineated, the candidate must work towards structuring the problem. This stage is very important as it can help the interviewer judge the thought process of the candidate and assess whether he is on the right track or not.

The third and the most important stage is the “test of creativity” which highlights the candidate’s ability to think out of the box and bring out new ideas and solutions to the problems. At this stage, the candidate must aim towards being as creative and innovative as possible as it will help the interviewer get an insight of the personality of the candidate and assess whether he would be a good fit with the organization or not.

The last stage is the problem solution or conclusion. In this stage the candidate needs to tie all the lose ends together and synthesize the ideas and link it back to the problem definition. A successful case interview is one which ends with all the loopholes plugged and all the ideas and solutions tied back to the original problem, and not necessarily getting the “correct” answer.

The above mentioned process of tackling case interviews was illustrated through a mock case simulation where volunteers were called upon and given a case to solve. Volunteers were made to handle a single stage of the case interview and after each round; the team gave feedback on what the volunteers should or should not have done. This approach made the whole learning experience extremely enjoyable as students could understand and grasp all the techniques required to crack a case by observing the volunteers solve cases on the spot. The session was immensely useful especially at a crucial time like this, as it gave a clear understanding of the line of attack to be adopted to successfully crack case interviews.

Hierarchy in Trade up

A very interesting article by Michael Silverstein, Vice President and Director, The Boston Consulting group. The article was published in the brand equity section of the economic times on Dec 6th 2006.