Case Interviews
Should every case be hypothesis-led?
I'm trying to become more hypothesis-driven, but I'm not sure whether every case should start with a single explicit hypothesis. Is a hypothesis-led approach different from a normal framework, or is the framework itself really a set of hypotheses about how to solve the problem?
Ian’s Answer
Honestly, the hypothesis-led approach is outdated. Rather, you need to have a hypothesES-driven or, rather, and objective-driven approach. Your entire framework is a set of hypotheses and views as to how to solve a problem. In my view, the more natural the better. I tend to say things like "My thinking here is x". or "Based on what I know about x and y, I think this'll likely happen" or "My inclination is x". Please get away from saying any generic, i.e. hypothesis, framework, buckets, clarifying questions, etc.! Remember that your framework is essentially a set of hypotheses. That's why I prefer to call this "hypotheses-drive approach" or "objective-driven approach" You don't need to state it explicitly, but remember that 1) You need to always be thinking about one and 2) You need to be demonstrating your drive towards one. Also, remember that a hypothesis isn't necessarily "I believe x is the cause". Be better hypothesis is "If we can see what's happening with A, and A is going up, and then we look into B and B is big, then x is likely the case". A hypothesis is much more about what questions do I need to ask/answer and how, in order to see what's happening. Another way of viewing it: Your framework is your structure for approaching the problem. It consits of a few main areas you'd like to look at. Inherent in your framework is a view that "If I answer A, B, and C, then we have an answer" So, for market entry: 1) If the market is big, and it's growing, then we still want to considering entering 2) If #1 = yes, then let's see if it's attractive...can we win there? Is our product good/better than our competition's? Etc. If yes, let's definitely consider entering. 3) If #1 and #2 = yes, then, when we do enter, are we sure we can win? I.e. do we have the right plans. Will implementation actually pan out? Do we have the expertise, capital, etc.? In other words, if #2 is the thearectical, #3 is the reality. Then, your summary becomes "I believe we should enter the market, if we can prove it's a good market, the it's attractive to us specifically, and that we will win it". ^Now this is a hypothesis :) Hope this helps!
