The 5 Ways to be MECE

That’s 13 structures!

We could make better structures by combining these techniques to create custom issue trees.

I’m doing this so you can realize that for any given problem, you can create MANY
structures that fit.

There are three core techniques that you must learn. These are “Algebraic structures”,
“Process structures” and “Conceptual frameworks”. The other two, “Segmentations” and
“Opposite words” are easy to learn and will help you get out of tricky situations, but they
aren’t as important. Conceptual frameworks are by far the toughest technique to master. You
should expect to spend quite a bit of time working with them because they’re also the most
versatile tool out there (especially for strategy cases).  

The first group of structures are “Algebraic structures”. These are math equations. Many
problems management consultants face are related to optimizing a certain metric. If this is the
case, finding equations to that metric is one way of breaking down the problem. The most
famous Algebraic structure is “Profits = Revenues – Costs”, but you can create equations for
just about any metric, as I did for Nespresso’s market share problem.

A second group is called “Process structures”. You can look at some problems as a process
with a beginning, middle, and end. Each step of the problem is a part of your structure. A
coffee capsule market share problem, for example, can be seen through the eyes of the
journey your customer goes through to choose your capsules in the store. A drop in your
market share should be an issue in at least one part of that process.

The third core structuring type are “Conceptual frameworks”. Many call these “qualitative
frameworks”. These are categories of ideas. One example of these are the 3Cs of strategy
(Customers, Company and Competition). Another example are the 4Ps of marketing
(Product, Pricing, Placement, and Promotion). It is much harder to build a MECE list of
qualitative categories than to verify if an equation adds up or if a process has all the steps, so
these structures are the hardest to use.

One way you can do that is to borrow models from academia (such as the 3Cs and the 4Ps)
and adapt them to your specific problem. I did that for the Nespresso’s case,  but it will only
take you so far. Unless you spend hundreds of hours studying obscure frameworks from
business textbooks (as I once did), you’ll be caught off-guard when you get a strange
business problem or even a public sector problem in a case interview. These cases are getting
more common every day.  A reaction to the spread of candidates using standard structures
that interviewers hate.

Another way is to learn to create your own conceptual frameworks from scratch. It is tough,
but we can help you with that.

They’re hard, but conceptual frameworks are the most flexible technique you’ll always learn.
They’re also key to developing strategy. That’s why McKinsey used the 3Cs for so long and
also why we developed the Landscape Technique to help you create your own structures.

These three core techniques are the ingredients of building custom issue trees. They’re also
basic knowledge before you can learn a couple more advanced techniques to build structures
from scratch.

Two more techniques render a MECE breakdown: segmentations and opposite words.

Segmentations are slices of the problem. Just like slices in a pizza, the parts you segment
aren’t necessarily that different from each other. This is why they won’t get you to the root
cause. But they are useful to help you get a feeling of the problem and create tentative
hypotheses.

Let me use the pizza example to show what I mean by “getting a feeling”. Suppose only half
of your pizza tastes good and you had to find out why. Say you segment your pizza into eight
slices and four of them, all neighbors to each other, are burned. The other half are good.
You probably have an issue with your baking process. You could rule out problems such as
inferior flour quality or rotten tomatoes. The segments aren’t the root cause, but they may
very well help you get a feeling of the problem.

Same with Nespresso’s market share problem: if your share is only dropping on the corporate
segment, and not on restaurants or consumers, you probably have an issue with sales or
pricing. You still have to fact-check that.

Segmentations are also the key to the “mix effect”, an issue you’ve got to keep in mind
because it appears in about 50% of all case interviews and is the cause of many rejections.
More on that in the specific article on segmentation.
Three core techniques that enable you to break down any case interview into a structure that
gets your interviewer delighted. Add to that segmentations as a great add-on to help you get a
feeling for the problem and find “mix effect” types of problems. What, then, is the role of the
“Opposite words” technique?

It is to get you instant structure on demand.

Opposite words as a way of structuring are never powerful. Any parrot can say “external vs.
internal” or “supply vs. demand”. Really, you’re never going to impress any interviewer
doing that. But opposite words are a powerful way to generate instant structure when you
most need it. And it takes five minutes to master.

Master these 5 techniques and you’ll NEVER run out of structures again.

These techniques will enable you to create simple structures to any problem. Eventually
you’ll want to learn how to create more sophisticated structures. To do that you’ll need to
learn three techniques: issue trees, context-driven structures (unique conceptual structures
you can create via the Landscape Technique) and objective-driven structures (the holy-grail
of structuring a problem, the best of both worlds).

If you learn these three more advanced techniques, you’ll never run out of GREAT structures
again.

The next is on Algebraic structures. These are one of the three core techniques to structure
any problem, and they leverage a skill you already have (math).
Algebraic structures are: applied algebra. You can structure any numerical problem by
breaking it down into an equation with real variables. Not x’s and y’s, but “revenues per
customer” and “hiring costs”. Doing this is vital for consulting work as well as case
interviews.

No wonder consulting firms use estimation cases so much. That’s the quickest way to test this
skill. But many candidates never realize they can use this to structure other types of problems
as well.

Most organizations use numbers to measure their performance, and these metrics are often
tied to the performance of the executives who run these organizations. Many case interviews
are about an executive trying to improve a particular metric. Profits, Revenues, Costs, Market
share, Customer evasion rates, Production efficiency, Literacy rate, you name it. Each of
these could be the goal of an executive.

If your case revolves around a specific metric, you can break it down into the algebraic
components. Profits would be either “Revenues – Costs” or “Revenues * % Margin”.
Customer evasion = “Customers we ourselves stopped serving + customers who moved to
competition + customers who stopped using this type of service”. Hiring costs = “# of people
hired * cost per hire”.

Algebraic structures guarantee MECEness because a formula has to yield the target metric.
It’s how math works. You can check for MECE using simple high school-level dimensional
analysis. Another pro of this technique is that you can quantify how much effect comes from
which source. If hiring costs have gone up is 100% of the effect coming from more hires? Or
did we just hired 20% more people and our cost per hire has soared abruptly?

Algebra equations are a great way to structure a numerical problem, but you gotta be mindful.

When using this type of structure, the more number-oriented candidates tend to just focus on
the numbers and ignore reality. Don’t fall into this trap. You’re not being hired to simply find
the right formula. Be mindful. Go a level further – why are we hiring more people? What
drives hiring costs?
Here are two structures for the same problem: a company’s hiring costs are going up. What
do you see? Which structure is better and why?

Notice how these structures are like an equation. “# of hires” * “Cost per hire” = “Hiring
Costs”. “New hires to replace leaving employees” + “New hires to grow the company” = “#
of hires”. Finally, the “Cost per hire” = “Cost to bring in a new candidate” + the “Cost to
select new candidates”.

Equations are clear and accurate. Precisely what you’re looking for when doing MECE.

But do only the algebra and you sound like Dr. Obvious. To generate real insight, you should
go a level deeper and mention a few qualitative issues that drive each numerical variable of
your structure. No need to be MECE here, although you could if you combined Conceptual
Frameworks with Algebraic Structures .

(Here’s a few examples of structures that can easily be created by making equations – a lot of
candidates would be stuck with these case questions, or would just wing it without
structures.)
But beware, there are two limits for these types of structures. You can’t use them in purely
qualitative cases and they’re hardly the best option in long-term, strategic cases.

In consulting world two types of problems aren’t well solved with these structures.

The first kind is purely qualitative problems. Because these structures rely on numerical
variables, you can’t use them. Examples of these cases are: “what are the risks of such a
move” or “what would a customer take into consideration when deciding to buy a certain
product?”

For these qualitative problems, you can use either Process structures or Conceptual
frameworks, the other two types of core structuring techniques we’re gonna see next.

The second type are long-term oriented strategic questions. M&As, Market entries, Long-
term growth strategies, etc. Although you could use algebraic structures here, they’re
typically not the best option. When thinking long-term, the numbers don’t mean much. In real
engagements you can’t even find the numbers. Not even McKinsey has a crystal ball to
predict the future. The most important things are qualitative and the relationships between the
numbers.

For example, you can’t know what Coca Cola’s revenues and market share will be in the far
future, but you can assume their brand will still be recognized, that their distribution footprint
will be better than their competitor’s. You can also know some numerical relationships will
be true: that the higher your price, the lower your market share; that the lower your costs, the
cheaper you can charge.

The focus on these long-term problems should be on the qualitative issues and the
relationships between the variables. Anyone trying to predict profits or other performance
metrics without considering those is being delusional. To take that into account, anytime you
get a case like that, consider using a conceptual framework instead.
...

Algebraic structures are all about using the power of equations to be accurate and clear when
structuring a problem. It’s a great, underused skill. But you can’t solve every problem in the
world using math. We’ve seen a couple of cases where you’ll stumble upon problems if you
try to do that.

To avoid getting stuck on those, you need to learn two more core structuring techniques:
Process structures and Conceptual frameworks.

A lot of the problems management consultants solve are related to processes. In fact, you can
think of anything big businesses and governments repeatedly do as a process: manufacturing,
logistics, maintenance, sales, hiring… The list goes on.

The great thing about processes is that they have a beginning, some steps in the middle and
then an end. Breaking down any problem that has an underlying process into its steps is a
sure way to be MECE. You can’t miss a thing because you’re covering the whole process and
everything happens within that contained reality.

For example, imagine you need to find reasons why the manufacturing cost of a widget has
increased. You can break this problem down to each manufacturing step, check if the cost has
gone up in that step and if so, examine why. If manufacturing cost as a whole has gone up, at
least one step’s cost must have gone up as well. Same if you need to find ways to increase
sales efficiency: just break down the sales process into its steps and find ways to increase
efficiency in each step. Or even eliminate a whole, useless step.

The only risk you run is to miss a part of the process, which is something you can check with
interviewers by showing them how you think the process is like and validating if it really
happens that way. This is exactly what you do with clients in a real project, so it’s safe and
sound.
Here are a few examples of how you can break down the problem’s underlying process to
have a clear, MECE structure to solve different problems:

Notice how breaking down the process forces you to think “outside of the box” and be
thorough. Most candidates who aren’t systematic in the “cash collection cycle” case miss
ideas from one or two steps (this varies by candidate). On the “product development” case,
having a clear process structure helps us quickly know in which phase are our clients faster,
saving a lot of guesswork coming from random hypotheses. The third case, in my opinion, is
the one that shows the full power of this type of structure: the vast majority of candidates
who aren’t proficient in using process structures forget all of the parts of the lifecycle of a car
but the usage. They miss four different steps that have significant environmental impact.
These are people who’ll have a hard time getting an offer.

Some things are not usually thought of as a process but can if you just stretch the mind a little bit.

Take one example: telecom customer satisfaction. Because telcos are a business based on
recurrence, they’re usually concerned about customer satisfaction levels (I know, many times
it doesn’t seem so…). Now, most folks wouldn’t think of customer satisfaction as a process,
and the reason is that it’s not a real process. It is also a hard variable to break down during a
case. So, imagine your interviewer had asked you possible reasons why a telco’s customer
satisfaction levels have dropped. How would you give a MECE answer to that problem?

Well, let’s do a bit of mind stretching. A telco customer changes its satisfaction levels with
each interaction. People get mad at telcos when they’re dealing with them somehow: dropped
calls, poor internet signal, poor customer service and so on. Luckily for us, telco customers
interact with them following a certain (irregular) pattern. In other words, a process. Here’s
how a typical customer might interact with a mobile provider, and how we could structure
this case based on that:
In a real interview, you can think the process on the left out loud before you create your
MECE structure (such as the one on the right). You could even use t

he raw steps laid out on the left as your structure.

I often tell people to do just that, to stop and think out loud about the problem. Their concern
is always the same: “won’t I take too much time to do this?”. Absolutely not. 

Here’s a rough statistic: every single candidate I’ve applied this case on has given me
hypotheses regarding usage. 80-90% of them regarding the call center. 20-30% regarding
contracting the service. No candidate has ever included billing in their structure. Guess where
the answer to this case lies? That’s right. This telco has a billing issue that is causing massive
dissatisfaction among customers, who are being charged the wrong amount.

Interviewers LOVE the candidate who takes the time to come up with the right structure
because this will be the consultant that solves the client’s problem the fastest. You’ve all
heard that phrase: “Give me six hours to chop down a tree and I will spend the first
four sharpening the axe”, right? Well, as a consultant, your axe to chop down a problem is the
structure you use. Well worth it spending a couple of extra minutes to get it right. Your
interviewer will be glad that you did when you nail the case afterwards.

...

When coupled with these mind-stretching skills, process-driven structures are highly flexible:
they work with almost any operational (i.e., day-to-day) issues companies and governments
face.
As in the Algebraic structures, you will cause a better impression on your interviewer if you
include qualitative issues after each MECE element of your structure – this shows insight
along with the logical thinking, and both are valued.

But some problems aren’t numerical problems nor processes. Even if you practice mind-
stretching, you can’t really find an underlying process to it. 

Or maybe it’s a long-term problem, and the qualitative issues and interrelationships between
the parts are more important than the parts themselves. What do you do, then?

Then it’s time to use the third core structuring technique. A technique so powerful you can
arguably solve any case through it, but difficult enough to take more time to learn than all
others combined.

Conceptual frameworks are their name, and it’s much more than memorizing the 3Cs and the
4Ps: it’s about creating your own from scratch.

How do you solve any high school physics problem?

Most people would look for the appropriate formula to solve that specific problem. A few
complicated problems would require a few formulas instead of only one, but it doesn’t go
much further than that. In real-world physics, you would need to design experiments, interact
with other researchers and do a bunch of other stuff. But in the simulated environment of a
classroom, knowing the right formulas and how to adapt them to each problem-set is enough.

How do you solve any case interview?

One answer is to look for the appropriate conceptual framework: the combination of relevant
concepts for that specific problem. Real world consulting involves doing other things, such as
cleaning databases, leading teams and changing clients’ minds. But in the simulated
environment of a case interview room, knowing the right frameworks and how to apply them
goes a long way.
Case interviews are much more complex than high school physics. There’s a lot more moving
parts and often no correct answer. Knowing the right framework to that problem is
not enough, but a huge help. As you’re going to see, this does not mean you should start
memorizing every framework you see in front of you. If you’ve got that itch, hold on and
give me a chance to change your mind.

Conceptual frameworks are the hardest type of structure to achieve a MECE result, but using
them is essential to many cases. If the problem cannot be broken down as a formula or as a
process, conceptual structures are pretty much the only way to go.

And even some cases that could be structured using algebra or as a process would be a better
fit for a conceptual framework.

Conceptual frameworks are structures based on categories of concepts. They usually come

straight from theory but can be adapted if you understand it well enough. Examples of these
frameworks are the 3Cs, the 4Ps and Porter’s 5 Forces.

But there are others, lesser known, as well. When I was at McKinsey, a simple framework
that consultants commonly used for simple organizational problems was the “People,
Process, Systems” framework. Any simple organizational problem can be pinned down into a
problem with People, a problem with (or lack of) Processes or a problem with (or lack of)
Systems. Another example of a lesser known, but widely used framework is the Trust
Equation, which says to build and maintain trust you need four factors: Credibility,
Reliability, Intimacy and (a lack of) Self-Orientation.

Your final goal should be to be able to build a conceptual framework from scratch. This is the
holy grail of case interview structuring, and it can be done with enough understanding and
practice. I’ll show you how on another occasion. But most people need to memorize one of
two before learning to build their own. And that is fine for now. Think of these as training
wheels. They’re useful, but you want to get rid of them eventually! 

Although highly useful, there are three risks of using conceptual frameworks:
I’ve never seen a candidate who wasn’t proficient with the use of conceptual frameworks get
an offer, so you gotta learn this if you want a high chance of getting the job. Let’s go into
each of these risks to see how they manifest themselves and what can you do to minimize
them.

 Not knowing a framework good enough for your specific situation

I remember when I was preparing for my interviews the first time. I hated that there were so
many frameworks. Case in Point alone had 10 or 12 of them. They were all crammed in a
single page or two. Weird trees with arbitrary words written on them. No context given, no
explanation of why they were set up that way. I knew it must have some logic, but I couldn’t
fully grasp what it was. And how could I possibly memorize so much stuff?

Then I found Victor Cheng’s method: two simple frameworks, once conceptual and one
analytical. They were fairly well explained: the questions they asked were ones with a high
probability of being relevant. I started only using those structures, and they worked most of
the time! The exceptions were some weird cases that weren’t really common, I thought.

But when I started interviewing, you know, in real firms with real interviewers. I realized
most cases were, in fact, “weird”.

And when that happened, those frameworks stopped working for me. I was rejected on the
first round from all firms, except for McKinsey. I got lucky there. I tried my best to learn to
create my own structures from scratch before the final round, but I didn’t have enough time
and was finally rejected. It took me another year and months of preparation to learn how to
structure so well I smoothly got a double offer.
Most candidates think they have two options: learning to use one broadly useful framework
(usually Victor Cheng’s or one they create themselves), or memorizing many. Unfortunately,
neither option is good enough to get an offer from McKinsey, Bain or BCG.

But there are two more options: to learn a few useful frameworks and adapting the hell out of
them or to learn to create your own frameworks from scratch.

A framework is like a toolbox. A great craftsman has not one generic toolbox, but at least a
few, each with a specific function. Craftsmen may have a toolbox to work with wood, another
one to work with metals, a third to work with softer materials and a generic one to have
widely useful tools so they always have the right one for the job. Call a person like this for a
specific job and they will bring the right toolbox, not a random one. Not only that, they will
also bring in additional tools from other boxes that will make the job even easier.

Learning a few frameworks is like having different toolboxes to choose from when a job is
given. Conceptual frameworks are toolboxes for decision-making. The 3Cs framework, for
instance, has a handful of tools to understand the customer demand, and a few tools to
understand your company and your competition. Structuring the case well is showing your
interviewer you can set up a toolbox that is specific for your job. That you know what to do
with each tool.

You can’t have one toolbox that is perfect for every problem, but you can assemble a toolbox
that is perfect for each job if you have a few different boxes to choose your tools from and
you have familiarity with them.

Knowing how to use well a few different frameworks is exactly like that. It is to know a few
different frameworks and to have familiarity with them so you can adapt each to the specific
job you’re given. You can solve almost any case if you know the right ones AND you know
them intimately enough to adjust well. Sadly, memorizing the 3Cs, 4Ps and Porter’s 5 forces
won’t do it. This skill runs a bit deeper than that.
But even being a master adaptor of structures will leave you with a (small) blind spot: some
cases are just too novel to be solved with any structure you might know.

My last case when I was interviewing with Bain involved a large company being acquired by
a competitor. The owners of this company were already decided to sell and wanted me to
come up with a way to bring more of the merger’s value creation to their side vs. the
acquirer’s side. In other words, they wanted to sell for more money rather than less money.
Naive candidates will try to make the perfect sales pitch, as I’ve seen several coaching
candidates do. But being the second time I was applying and given my level of preparation, I
was far from naive. I knew I needed a framework on how to get more money when selling a
company to a competitor. I also knew no framework on this and had a strong hunch that my
interviewer did not expect me to have one, but did expect me to create one. I was lucky my
skills were sharp, so that’s what I did. I created a framework for a problem I had never
pondered about before, on the spot.

Creating your own frameworks from scratch is HARD. But consultants do it everyday, so
partners expect you to do so as well. Consultants are craftsmen, and many world-class
craftsmen make their own tools. Programmers build software to help with their own software
building. Some surgeons build their own surgical tools. Musicians create new tools to make
music as well. With the right techniques and enough practice, you too can learn this skill.

And I highly recommend you to.

I have been interviewed using memorized frameworks on my first try and knowing how to
create structures from scratch on my second try. I can tell you it is much more pleasant to be
the second guy. No problem is scary, and the conversations with the interviewer just flow
naturally. You’re super confident; all your answers are received with a broad smile. You fear
no situation. It’s case interview heaven.

 Not being able to adapt the chosen framework to the specifics of your
situation

You’ve chosen a framework that fits, but have you adapted it well enough?

The second risk of using a conceptual framework is to be unable to adapt it to the specifics of
your situation.

Every case is unique. And most interviewers choose to use cases that aren’t best solved by
using the common structures 95% of candidates use. I’m sorry to bring the bad news, but they
know which structures you guys use in every single case. As you know from practicing,
everyone else is using the same old structures.

Even if you found a suitable framework, or created one yourself, be sure to adapt it to your
case.
To do that effectively, you need to know which specifics does your specific case require. You
can’t assemble a toolbox from a set of tools or build a custom toolbox without knowing what
the specifics of the problem you’re solving are and what that implies to the tools you need to
be using.

Using a poorly adapted framework will get your interviewer asking you questions. You better
know how to answer them.

Great candidates, as great consultants, use a different structure for each different problem.
Every problem has specifics, take them into account.

 Not seeing how your framework connects with other potential structures

If you happen to create and adapt a good framework for your case, you’re in good shape. But
there’s one last mistake you can make: not being able to see how your framework connects to
other potential structures you could use to solve that case.

Usually, when you start a case you’re given some information on the nature of the problem,
but little (if at all) on the nature of the data you will have available to solve it. The goal of the
initial case question is to see if you can come up with one reasonable structure / plan to solve
the problem. Any structure that is able to solve that problem is fine, and for any given
problem there are many possible structures.

But as you start solving the problem, your framework may not be fit to the way the data is
organized. The most common instance this happens is when your framework is more
conceptual and heavily relies on qualitative data and your interviewer’s data is more
numerical. Or vice-versa.
There is nothing bad about starting with the “wrong” structure as long as it could solve the
problem. Your job when structuring is to develop an effective plan to solve the problem, not
to guess what data your interviewer has or what’s in his mind.

In fact, this happened to me at a Bain final round. The interviewer had told me I was in
charge of opening a call center for an automotive company and had to figure out how many
people to hire. He asked me how would I do that. I came up with an elaborate conceptual
framework involving demand fluctuations, productivity, desired service levels and a few
other factors, but all he was looking for was a basic, in-depth estimation. I quickly switched
from my original framework to the estimation structure and secured my offer. I might’ve
gotten extra points in that partner’s mind for being able to change from one structure to the
other seamlessly.

But here’s the thing: most candidates cannot do what I did. Even final round candidates.

If they build a conceptual structure, they can’t see how it would connect to an algebraic issue
tree. If there’s an underlying process, they can’t see it unless they’ve chosen to use a Process
structure. Having the mental flexibility to switch structures at will is critical when working
with other people, both in case interviews and in real projects.

I remember a math teacher I had in high school. He was the guy who really taught me math.
He would explain the same concept in many different ways. Many different proofs to the
Pythagorean Theorem, the same geometrical problem solved through the lenses of geometry,
trigonometry and calculus.

This is the same level of thinking flexibility you should aim to achieve with your structures.
Say you have a market entry problem: a company wants to enter a certain market. You should
be able to solve this problem using a numbers approach (how profitable can we get), using a
purely conceptual approach (assuming no numbers are available), or using a mixed approach
(using numbers where they exist and concepts where they don’t). These approaches are
different, have slightly different premises but should reach the same result. The decision to
enter or not should be the same given different valid approaches.

You could solve a problem involving sides of a triangle by merely memorizing the
Pythagorean Theorem, but you need to really understand triangles to how different proofs
connect with each other. 

The same goes from quickly switching from one structure to another: you need
to understand why each part of the structure is there and how it connects with another. A
good start is to realize how the 3Cs connect with the Profitability Framework.

Conceptual frameworks are hard and risky to use. So, why bother?
 

Because mastering these structures will give you superpowers.

You’ll be able to quickly devise a way to solve just about any problem. You’ll discuss highly
complex issues with razor-sharp focus. While others are confused with a complex problem,
lost in a sea of interconnections and “what-ifs”, you’re three steps ahead, prioritizing
solutions based on key issues you’ve distilled from your break-down of the problem.

And I don’t mean this just for case interviews, but for real world problems as well.
Remember, a case interview is a simulation of the real job.

If you’ve ever seen a partner from a top firm speak and was astounded by how clear and
quick their thinking is, be aware one way they do it is through their incredible structuring
ability. You can learn that as well. I was terrible at structuring and I did it.

And there’s another, more urgent reason: if you want to get an offer from a top management
consulting firm, if you want to go seamlessly through the process and never fear another case
again, there’s no better skill to learn than to create your own conceptual frameworks from
scratch.

...

If you learn the three core structuring techniques, you can structure any case.

Breaking down equations, breaking down processes and organizing concepts with conceptual
structures are truly all you need to build MECE structures. They are the bread and butter.

But man does not live by bread alone.

In the next two parts you’ll learn about Segmentations and Opposite words, two techniques to
add flavor to your interview. They are great complements to the three staples. Segmentations
are like spices: they add nuance. Opposite words, in contrast, are like olive oil, they’ll make
just about anything taste better (until you use too much of it).

These two techniques are as quick to learn as reading the article on them, so why not do it?
In the next part I’ll show you how to use segmentations to refine your structures, and why
you shouldn’t rely on them as much as many candidates do.

Almost every great structure has a lot of nuance to it. One way to add nuance is to embed a
few relevant segmentations within it.

Segmentations are mostly overused as a way to structure a problem in part because they’re
easy to learn, in part because they’re easy to teach. Most case interview resources out there
show you how to be MECE using segmentations as examples. That’s lazy. It is lazy because
while they’re good at adding nuance, they aren’t often strong enough to solve a problem on
their own. I am not going to be lazy, and neither should you.

Segmenting is essentially cutting a slice of the problem. For instance, you could segment a
company’s customers by age group (0-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61+), by gender (male, female), by
country, etc. Another example: you could segment a company’s revenues by product line, by
country, by type of customer, by month, etc. Notice how segmenting is different than finding
the mathematical drivers (the essence of the Algebraic structures) in that you have a clear
criterion to slice the data here.

The problem with using segments is that while MECE, you structure will only generate
insight if you have chosen the right segmentation criterion. There are dozens of ways to
segment almost any problem and if you don’t pick the right one, you will waste your time
instead getting closer to the answer. What candidates tend to do in this case is to try another
segmentation pattern. Do this enough times and your interviewer will grow bored with the
impression you’re guessing with no systematic approach. You’ll get mentally rejected soon
enough.
There are situations in which you might wanna use segmentations to create your structure, however.

One is when the case gives you clear indications that the key of the case lies in one specific
segmentation pattern. This can be due to industry specifics, such as in the Diaper example
above or due to information on the case question or throughout the case, such as in the Hotel
Chain example.

A second situation where you might want to use segmentations is when you’re suspecting
there might be “mix effects” skewing the averages around. A “mix effect” is an effect that
comes up often in case interviews, in which the average performance changes not because
underlying performance has changed, but because performance is different across segments
and the weights of the segments have varied throughout time.

For example, a company’s average price for a product may have dropped despite no change
in pricing policy. Instead, customers might have started shopping in channels where the
company offers a lower price point.
In the example above, a diapers company has seen its average price drop from 30 cents per
diaper to 25 cents per diaper. One might think prices actually dropped to customers, and that
someone in the company or on the retailers has changed the price. In reality, nothing changed
but the mix: customers started buying online and diapers in this market are, and always have
been cheaper when bought online. This change in mix of distribution channel was the only
cause behind the price drop.

Although the change in mix is an excellent hypothesis on this case, the segmentation criterion
that would reveal that is far from obvious. Instead of distribution channel, it could be that
customers are moving from packages with few diapers to bulk packages, which have a better
price per diaper. It could be that the company is growing larger in less developed countries
and that they charge less in those countries. How can you know which one is the right
segmentation criterion? You can’t. You have to guess and hope to be right.

If you suspect there are “mix effects” in the case you’re solving, by all means segment the
data to check that out. From our observation of real case interviews our clients have solved
with management consulting firms, just over half of all case interviews have “mix effects” as
an important element to find the solution, so make sure to keep it on your radar. Short term
performance changes, many which happen in profitability cases are especially prone to this.

But even then, it is best to use segmentations as a complement for another structure type.

If you rely too much on segmentations as a way to break down your problem, you will soon
have an impatient interviewer thinking you’re guessing too much. The interviewer’s feeling
should be that you’re using a structured, systematic approach to solve your problem.
Anything short of that will get them impatient, and segmentations are a less systematic
approach than others.
The best situation, then, to use this type of structure is as a complement to another, more
insightful type of structure. Segmentations are excellent complements, even though they
rarely generate enough insight to solve the case on their own. Think of them as spices and
herbs in cooking. A dish made of only spices and herbs is not really a dish. But take a simple
dish and add a few well-chosen spices, and you have a delicious meal!

Using segmentations this way is enough to cover all situations where you must use
segmentations, that is, industry-specific situations, case-specific ones as well as “mix
effects”. It is also safe to use segmentations as a complement whenever you feel you’d get
useful nuance in a case. Used in addition to other types of structures, there’s no problem if
your guess on the criterion / pattern isn’t right. You’re testing hypotheses, and it’s okay if a
hypothesis is wrong as long as you have a backup plan in your main structure.

...

Adding a couple of segmentations here or there in your core structure is an excellent way to
add some spice to your problem-solving approach. But you can’t do this too much, no one
likes an over spiced dish.

What to do, then, when you want more structure? Or when you can’t find a structure for a
specific question?

There’s a way to instantly generate a structure to answer any question, case interview or not.

You can use this technique to create structure where you can’t find one or to add a lot more
logic to the way you speak. That’s the power of Opposite words. I’m gonna teach you this in
the next part of this series.

But remember, with great powers come great responsibility!

Imagine if I could teach you, in less than 30 seconds, a way to structure any case interview
question. Too good to be true, right?

Then let me share a story.

When I was a kid, I loved Tic Tac Toe. I was a competitive kiddo, so I was always playing to
win. Then I found out a way to never lose again. It’s a simple algorithm, and it guarantees
you either a victory or a tie. It took less than five minutes to learn, and now I could win every
single time.

And suddenly the fun was ruined.

My friends quickly realized what I was doing, and they started doing the same. All matches
would end in ties, so we stopped playing the game altogether. I had great power, but I didn’t
use it with responsibility.

No simple algorithm guarantees success in any case interview. If there were, I’d be out of
business. But by using opposite word pairs, you guarantee MECEness in answering any
question.

Supply and Demand. Financial and Non-financial. Strategic issues and Operational issues.
External and Internal factors. Short-term and Long-term. Make and Sell. There are dozens of
pairs of words that mean the opposite. Because they mean different things and consider the
whole problem, they provide a way to break down the problem that has no gaps and no
overlaps. They guarantee MECEness.

Many candidates who stumble upon this method take this wildcard of opposite words as a
blessing. They can now structure any case and never fear another case interview question
again. The best part? You can learn this in thirty seconds.

And so can everyone else.

You will never get an offer if you rely too much on these opposite word pairs to structure
your cases. One reason why is that any person can do it. It’s not good recruitment practice to
select based on what anyone can do. Another reason lies in the reality of the consulting
work…

Imagine a consultant who structures everything using opposite word pairs. A risk assessment
project quickly becomes an assessment of External and Internal risks. A client in search of
higher performance needs to think Strategically and also look for Operational improvements.
A merger study soon becomes a study of Financial and Non-financial reasons to merge. Soon
this consultant will be making Supply/Demand studies, lists of Pros and Cons and discussing
the different implications of a decision in the Short-term and the Long-term. This consultant
will have a structure to any problem, but absolutely no depth, no insight.

Structuring problems using opposite word pairs is a bit like cheating. You may feel smart at
first, but soon interviewers realize what you’re doing, and you’ve just lost all your advantage.
In the case of my Tic Tac Toe matches, my friends started using the same technique against
me, and the game got boring. Had I used the algorithm less often, they’d never find out, and
I’d win more often. In case interviews, using opposite word pairs to structure your problems
is the lazy way out. Your interviewer knows it. It feels tempting to use regularly, but you
won’t bring insight nor depth to the table.

So, am I suggesting you should never use this structuring technique?

Of course not!

Use opposite words, but use them wisely.

Two appropriate times to use it are when you need a quick structure just to organize speech
and when you can’t find another type of structure to work with.

Using opposite words to structure communication can make your interviewer perceive you as
a more structured candidate. You can use these quick structures to improve your
communication when structuring is a nice-to-have and not a must-have.

But beware, this seldom happens in case interviews.

Almost every question you get asked requires structure. “What are a couple of reasons this
company lost profits” needs structure. “What would you consider doing if your competitor
dropped prices and stole your market share” needs structure. Any question. So when’s a good
moment to use opposite word pairs? As a deeper layer of another structure.
Say you have a 1-layer or 2-layer structure to answer a question. You can always add an extra
layer with little effort by using opposite words. This extra layer is a nice-to-have, and it’s
really nice to have it. You should use all resources at hand to improve the interviewer’s
perception of how structured you are.

Another situation to use opposite words as your main structure when you can’t find another
structure. This is akin to doing my Tic Tac Toe trick: it’s ok to pull it off once in a while, but
don’t use it too often – others will notice you’re a one-trick pony.

...

Opposite words are the last trick of the arsenal.

And they’re a lovely trick. Being able to generate instant structure is not only useful, it also
helps with anxiety. You’ll never fear getting stuck again.

In this series we’ve seen the 5 techniques you need to master if your goal is to create MECE
structures on demand. But that’s not your real goal. Your real goal is to impress your
interviewer so much they’ll be thrilled to be interviewing you. You want to be so good they
can’t reject you.

And to do that, you need not to create MECE structures on demand, but to create amazing,
customized structures on demand. The easiest way to do this is to create customized issue
trees, and I have good news for you. Creating a customized issue tree that delights your
interviewer is no harder than to tie these 5 techniques together.
You’re already 90% of the way there. And the final 10%, how to tie there techniques
together, is in the next part of this series.

Remember this chart from Part 2 of this series?

It showed you if you learn the 5 techniques to be MECE you’ll never run out of structures
again. That you can find several MECE structures to any question your interviewer raises to
you.

And as we’ve seen in Part 1, being MECE is wonderful, because it enables you to do several
remarkable things on interview day:

1. To know how to start any case, no matter how uncommon, with a structure that
is sure to solve the problem
2. To show strong confidence on interview day
3. To effortlessly connect with your interviewer during the short time you have
together

So far we’ve covered each of the 5 techniques, and you know what each one is for, what their
strengths are and common risks and pitfalls. If you learn this well, you’re ahead of 9 out of 10
candidates. You will never get stuck again.

But if you invest just a bit more effort you will learn a superpower.

If you learn to tie-up these five techniques in a coherent way, you will learn to create issue trees from
scratch.
 

[Update: I’ve recently written The Definitive Guide to Issue Trees, which is a comprehensive
guide to learn and practice how to create issue trees.

I’ll be honest with you: when I was preparing for case interviews, I didn’t care a whole lot
about issue trees. For me, it was just a name they gave to these weird diagrams that, even
though they divided the problem neatly, were hard to make and didn’t seem valuable. 

Oh, was I mistaken!

Issue trees are not only easy to build; they’re golden!

They’re a blueprint of how the minds of MBB consultants work. Sometimes consultants will
use it explicitly, but often it’s implicit, in the back of their heads. I could get any conversation
between two people from McKinsey, BCG or Bain and draw out the issue tree that’s implicit
in their conversation.

In fact, this is how many people took notes of meetings within McKinsey.

Draw out an issue tree specific to the case your interviewer gives you and you’ve caught their
attention. Now they know you think as they do.

Thankfully, issue trees are super easy to build once you know the 5 ways to be MECE. Learn
this and you will have an incredible advantage over other candidates, those who come to
interview day using the same frameworks they’ve used in every single practice occasion.
While they can’t draw issue trees because they haven’t mastered the 5 techniques, you’ll be
speaking your interviewers’ language and showing them you think as they do.

Here’s how you build an issue tree.

First, you break down a problem into a MECE structure like the ones in the chart above. You
can use any MECE breakdown, but some are better than others (we’ve discussed principles,
pros and cons of each technique in the articles related to each). This is your issue tree’s first
layer.
To build the second layer, you pick each part of your 1-layer structure and break it down
again. You can do this using the same technique or a different one than the first level. For
example, if on the first layer you broke it down using an Algebraic structure, you can do the
second layer using Conceptual structures. You can even use different techniques in different
parts of the same layer. There are no hard rules as long as you keep each breakdown MECE.

Rinse and repeat until you have as many layers as you need.

Once you’ve broken down the problem enough times, you’ll have a custom, MECE structure
for the specific problem you’re solving. Welcome to the elite club of those candidates who
build their own structures.

Here’s an example of an issue tree for the Nespresso Market Share case that was built using
the very approach I just described.

Is this the best structure ever for this case? Not really. Does it show the interviewer you can
think in a structured way about this unique problem and that you’re not using memorized
frameworks? Certainly!

I have never seen a candidate who gets double offers who can’t do this. Most candidates who
get one offer are proficient. If you’re not willing to count on luck, please do yourself a favor
and learn this. I swear it isn’t hard after a few tries.

Really, just try it!

The “science” part is pretty straightforward: to break each layer down using a MECE
structure that is rooted at one of the 5 ways to be MECE. But not all MECE structures are
created equal. Some are better than others. This is the “art” part of the skill.

Let me show you some nuances of the issue tree above. Later I’m going to show you a tree
that isn’t very good despite being as MECE as the one above.
First, let’s look at the positives

The first positive is that the first breakdown uses the algebraic technique in an elegant way.
This is highly useful because (i) it leads to some insight (that the market share problem could
be caused by a problem in selling devices as well as capsules) and (ii) it is quantifiable.
Because it is quantifiable, the interviewer knows with just a little bit of data you could
pinpoint the source of the problem and ignore the other half of the problem. This saves a lot
of time and is a smart way to work. Had you started with a conceptual structure, you’d have a
hard time quantifying the case in a way that allows you to minimize the amount of work
needed by eliminating whole parts of the problem.

Another interesting (and positive) aspect of this structure is the double structure within
machine share: I segment by market to quantify, but let the interviewer know I will use a
conceptual (3Cs) structure to analyze why there was a share drop in any segment that’s
performing poorly. I’ve chosen the 3Cs because these segments have different demands and
competition. Even our own operations must be a little different. I used one technique to
quantify and another one to reach insight. Since I couldn’t find one breakdown that was good
for both, this was the next best option.

A third cool feature of this structure is that it uses 4 of the 5 techniques. The core techniques
tend to be to the left (on the upper layers, because they tend to be more insightful). But I also
use “segmentations” and “opposite words” to make the issues more granular to the right side
of the tree, where problems are more specific. More techniques in a single tree don’t
necessarily mean it’s a better tree, but if you’re thoughtful on how you choose the
breakdowns, you’ll tend to get a better result.

If I were an interviewer, I’d be pretty satisfied with a candidate who showed me a structure
like this one.

Now here’s an example of a MECE issue tree for the same problem that isn’t built with
enough skill. It almost feels it was put together mindlessly, as if actually solving the problem
wasn’t a concern in the candidate’s mind.
This structure is as MECE as the last one! But it’s not as good… For three main reasons.

First, the initial breakdown brings neither the ability to focus nor insight on the nature of the
problem. On the last structure, the first breakdown was not only quantifiable (which helps
you focus), but also insightful (it showed market share depended on share of machines AND
share of capsules, two completely different things). This one is neither. Internal vs. External
can be used to almost any problem, and thus it isn’t the best option to any.

The second issue with this structure are the random segmentations. Why dividing product
attractiveness by business segment? Do customers change the type of product they prefer is
they consume at home vs. in the office vs. in a restaurant? Perhaps, but not likely. Is there any
evidence or logic behind segmenting a change in consumer’s preferences or behaviour by
income level? I don’t know, it seems to me age or other factors could be equally important.
The pattern you choose to segment your structure with should lead to an insightful
hypothesis, otherwise it is just random (which will give you random chances of doing well in
your cases).

The third issue with this structure is the reuse of the 4Ps – it is used to break down “Internal
factors”, and a modified version is used to break down “Competitors have changed”. While
this isn’t as critical as the last two reasons, it shows the candidate could’ve reorganized the
structure better to avoid redundancy. The 4Ps could be only mentioned once if it were being
used to compare Nespresso’s marketing against its competitors (that is, working with them in
comparison, not studying each in isolation).

These three shortcomings are aspects of underlying reasons that make the first structure good
and the second structure poor. MECE is the first principle of structuring, but there are others
that are important as well. It’s a lot like driving: good drivers put safety first (that’s the first
principle), but great drivers are also fast, economical, aware of other drivers (these are some
of the other principles). While both structures are MECE, the first is more insightful and
efficient in solving the problem.
So, to create issue trees from scratch, you need to combine the 5 techniques to be MECE in
breaking down the problem. MECE is only the beginning, however. You’re aiming to be
insightful as well.

Notice most breakdowns in both structures were already present in the first chart of this
article, where I got back the 13 MECE structures to the original problem from Part 2 of this
series. You need to combine the five techniques skillfully. Otherwise, your structure will be
MECE, but poor.

Mastery of structuring issue trees is having both the science AND the art.

But why would you want to learn to structure issue trees again?

As I’ve said, issue trees are representations of the inner workings of the mind of a top
consultant. Not only are they the easiest way to structure a case from scratch, but they’re also
the foundation of the other two methods we teach candidates to structure from
scratch: context-driven structures and objective-driven structures. Each method has its
advantages and is better for certain situations, but issue trees are the fundamental technique.
They’re the backbone of the reasoning, whether you use them explicitly or not.

Before you move on to the last part of this series…

An inch of action is worth more than a mile of intention, so before you move on, I have a
small challenge for you.

Recall the last case you’ve practiced with someone and try to come up with a MECE issue
tree created from scratch that would fit that case perfectly. Try to apply all the principles and
techniques that we’ve gone through in this series and this will help you internalize them.

Grab a cup of coffee (or tea) and a piece of paper and do it.

I’ll be waiting for you in Part 9.

...

Now that you’ve learned the 5 ways to be MECE, is it time to leave?

No no.

In the last part of this series, I’ll show you a synthesis of what you’ve learned here (in a neat
way that lets you “get it”) and what are the next steps on your journey to master structuring
and solving case interviews.

I know you’re short on time, so I made it count.

I don’t know about you, but whenever I finish reading something that could be useful for me
to achieve something I really want to achieve, I am always left wondering what to do next.

I don’t want you to get that feeling, so I’ll give you some next steps on how to learn to
structure MECE issue trees here. And by learning, I mean really learning it. Learning to build
them for realistic, tough case interview problems, not the simplistic ones you find in “case
interview prep La-la land”.

The ability to create MECE structures as you need them is an unfair advantage you can have
over other candidates. Most people just can’t do it, and they can’t because it’s hard. But you
can learn it with the right tools, techniques, and with enough dedication. I’ve learned it and I
was VERY POOR at structuring when I started out.

As we’ve seen in previous parts of this article, to craft MECE structures as you need them,
you need to master three core techniques and have two additional ones as back-ups. Here’s a
handy chart that shows the pros and cons of each of the 5 ways to be MECE.
You can choose to build a structure using one of these techniques, or to put many together in
an issue tree format and end up with a beautiful, tailored structure to your problem.

Most candidates will take the easy road. They will memorize a framework or two, or maybe
create their own structure that they replicate in every case they get. “It’s what everyone else
is doing”, they’ll say. Well, guess what? Everyone else is getting rejected. Less than 3% of
candidates join McKinsey, and, ask anyone who’s been through the process, it is no easier to
get into BCG or Bain.

I know it’s tempting to take the easy route and try to skip learning this structuring thing. But
you know better. You know that the effort required to learn to create custom structures to
each case is NOTHING compared to the frustration of going through dozens and dozens of
case practice sessions and ending up in the same place. Nothing compared to the grief of
getting a series of “thank you for your time, good luck with other firms” at the end of the
process.

It is so much better to do your work right now. So much better to actually learn the skills
consulting firms are looking for in their recruiting process. To go to the interviews not
anxious, but completely sure you’ll be able to solve the case. Not counting on luck, but
counting on skill. Not hoping for the best, but knowing you’ll craft your own success and
impress your interviewer while showing your personality and truly having a good time.

I’ve been in both situations. I’ve helped other candidates to get from one point to another. It
is just so much better.

By reading this article series and understanding the 5 techniques to build customized MECE
issue trees for any case you’re already halfway there. But there’s some more work to do to
actually perform during the interviews…

You need to put these techniques into practice to master the skill.

I clearly remember one thing when I was first preparing: there was a vast difference between
studying for school and for case interviews.

School is largely about memorizing material. You can master material by reading only. But
solving case interview problems is an applied  skill. What you know isn’t the key driver of
performance. Instead, what you do with it is.

In a way, preparing for cases is a lot like learning to play a sport or a musical instrument, or
learning to write well. What you do and how you do it are far more important than what
“material” you know.
Ask any athlete, musician or writer and you’ll be quick to learn that the key to be a high
performer in those fields is to practice A LOT. Not practicing randomly, which is why you
need to proper technique, but doing a lot of quality practice. This is what it takes to excel in
applied skills, both quantity AND quality.

To learn to structure well, you need to practice. Here’s how you can practice this skill.

First, pick a case.

Any case. Even a case you’ve solved before in the past. Chess masters re-examine games
they’ve played in the past and study what they would’ve done differently in hindsight. They
did this to become chess masters, not after they did. If you want to be a “Case interview
master”, that’s probably a good idea as well.

Second, find as many ways to break down the problem as you can. At least a one from each
type of structuring technique. Do it just like I did for the Nespresso’s market share case in
part 2 of this series.

In the first cases you practice this you will get fewer possible structures than I got for this
case. That’s normal, you will improve with time. But aim for at least five different
basic structures.

Third step: pick ONE of these breakdowns to start your issue tree. This will be the first layer
of your structure. Since all your structures from your list will be MECE, prioritize according
to insightfulness and efficiency. Insight means you’re showing fundamental characteristics of
the problem. Efficient means you can prioritize or eliminate whole parts of your structure
with just a little bit of data.

There’s no need to overthink step three. There’s usually a few breakdowns that work well for
every problem. If you’re in doubt between two, build an issue tree for each and later compare
the differences. If you happen to pick the second best, your structure should be good enough.

Step four: build the rest of the issue tree by breaking down each bucket of the first layer. You
can use some of the structures from the list of structures you came up with in step two to do
that and also create new ones. Make sure they all come from one the five techniques. This
guarantees MECEness. You’re gonna get something like this:

Step five is the most important: to evaluate your structure.

This is the hardest one.

To really master structuring you need to create lots of these techniques. But you also need to
know you’re doing it with quality. The easiest way to evaluate your issue tree is to have
someone do it for you. Ask a consultant or ex-consultant to check it out and point out 2-3
good things and 2-3 bad things about your structure. But this is not always feasible, I get it. It
is hard for most candidates to find such a person and harder still to know if they’re being
thoughtful in their feedback.

In that case, there are a couple of ways to self-evaluate.

A favorite one is to practice with cases for which you have examples of good answers. If
there are explanations of why they’re good answers and what their flaws are, even better.
We’ve helped dozens and dozens of candidates get better by using structuring “drills”. These
are exercises we’ve recorded answers for. Candidates will get a case question, try to structure
on their own and then watch or listen to our answers. By doing this, they can compare what
they do against our proposed solution and because we explain our answer thoroughly, they
can get the nuances and understand if their structure is good or not (even if they’re different
from ours).

A second way to self-evaluate is to compare your structure against the principles of

structuring. Imagine you’re evaluating if a driver is skilled or not. You can contrast that
against the main principles of driving: does he drive safely? Economically? Is he quick?

The same logic applies to case interviews. If you understand what are the principles of a good
structure and why, you can check if it’s good or not. Being pragmatic, you could have a
checklist with principles and compare your structure against the checklist.

After evaluating your structure comes step 6: to improve your structure. Improving is quite
easy after you’ve evaluated it, and important because this is how you get better.

This may seem like a lot of work to do just for one structure. I know I got anxious to do all
six steps when I was preparing. It always felt like time was running and I needed to do more
cases. 

But it really only takes 20 minutes to do the whole process, and it’s a process that guarantees
improvement. You don’t need to be PERFECT in each structure you make and nor should
you strive to. You just need to get better.

But shouldn’t I spend those 20 minutes doing more cases?

 
If your problem is on structuring, doing whole cases won’t help you as much as focusing on
structuring. 

You will improve as much (or more) by building one custom structure than practicing one
full case with another candidate. Practice makes permanent, so either you learn the skill well
before you practice or you’ll be making the same old mistakes over and over again. Then you
will convince yourself the mistakes aren’t so bad after all. Good luck convincing your
interviewer otherwise.

And really, it is so much more time efficient to do these drills! Let’s do some math together.

A quick case takes about 30 minutes. And then you need to give a case to the other person.
That’s one hour. If you’re lucky. Decent feedback takes an extra 10 minutes each way –
anything less than that isn’t specific enough for improvement. It’s just generic feedback that
could’ve been given to any candidate, regardless of performance. You know the kind: “you
should’ve been more structured”. Add in the time to find case partners and schedule the
meetings and we’re talking about 1.5 to 2 hours spend per case solved.

In 120 minutes you could’ve done 6 structuring drills. Without the risk of getting a case
partner that isn’t interested in giving you good feedback or who just isn’t skilled enough to
help you. Without the risk of your case partner flaking on you five minutes before. Without
the risk of the case you’re given not covering your improvement areas.

If you do only three of these drills every day for a month I plainly GUARANTEE you’re
gonna learn to create your own structures from scratch and get your interviewer delighted.
That’s 90 structures. Have you ever met a candidate who’s created and thought about 90
custom case structures? I’ve met only a few, and they were all working at MBB.

It takes a bit of time and effort to put these skills into practice. I’ve never told you it was
going to be easy. But I did tell you it was going to work. And I know it will because I’ve seen
it working with candidates from different backgrounds over and over again. Even those who
didn’t have an MBA from a top 10 school. Even those who’d never worked in business
before. Even those who had a lot of trouble structuring even the simplest cases.

And now it’s your turn.

I have a challenge for you. Try doing just one of these drills per day for the next five days.
Start the first one right now. I’ll even give you the case:
“Suppose Amazon is worried because of a recent surge of theft in its warehousing facilities.
How would you help Amazon mitigate this problem and bring it back to normal levels?”

Start with this one. Set up a timer for 20 minutes to build a damn good structure following the
six steps of practice. Then if you feel like, practice another one. Or just wait until the next
day to do another one. But do at least one of these for five days. If you like it and feel
improvement, you can do more per day. And maybe for more than a week.

You’ll see amazing results!

PS: Keep these three things in mind to self-evaluate your issue trees for this and other
problems:

 Did I pick the technique that will bring me the most insight to do the first break-
down? The first layer of your structure is critical because it determines the rest.

 Am I missing anything? One way to test this is to google the topic of the case
(in this case “warehouse theft”), read a couple of articles or news about it, list
down the issues/ideas/hypotheses that come up in those articles and see if
there’s a place for each in your structure. If there’s not, it’s probably not
MECE.

 Try explaining your structure to someone else (a friends, your romantic partner
or even your dog will do!) and see if you sound like a human being going
through your structure. If you don’t, it’s probably too complex or too
“buzzwordy”.