A frequent predicament of the consulting aspirant is how to interpret the objective of the case interview, and how to prepare for it. I don’t have an exhaustive answer, but believe that one observation can help along the way.
One of the propositions of a general management consultancy is its ability to see a client’s industry, its value chain and drivers in the most effective way, independent of industry orthodoxy. The identification of the right strategic goals and the best levers to attain them are built on this foundation.
But the first step to doing so is to be able to disintegrate a situation or problem into a broader and meaningful context. This is also invaluable when the perception of the problem is inaccurate to begin with. Sharp examples are seen in the way today’s experts are trying to interpret the US health care problem, convergence in media, or the challenge of global poverty.
The 3Cs, 4Ps, 7Ss and other “frameworks” are essentially breakdowns of popular problems that now find their place in the pop-lit of case preparation. However, they along with one dimensional glance at value chains lack one critical component – context of the problem.
Some sources suggest you should learn broad based frameworks (like the 3Cs or Porter’s 5) and then derive your own framework from them. What I have found most useful is to critically look at them as well as other intelligent decompositions of problems in areas commercial as well as non-commercial to respect the power of originality, and appreciate the eloquence of an efficient breakdown.
Until you get a first-hand sense of what is best practice and why, you will never decompose problems on your own. And, that is a problem: on interview day, nothing will differentiate and reward you like an intelligent shot at originality.
In practice we all do this in our daily lives – in deciding to buy a house, choosing where and why to do an MBA, and in classroom case discussions – but do so with varying levels of rigor. Worse still, case preparation books proposing to sell you a one size fits all framework essentially dumb you down. I would spend some time, surely, in glancing through these books and doing mock cases to familiarize myself with the interpersonal dynamics of a cross-table interview conversation. But, I would spend more time to see how experts and authors had abstracted out big issues in consulting publications, news articles, books, blogs and business school cases. And, try to improve them.
In summary, remember to be yourself, respect your common sense and class room learning, and see the interview as an opportunity to discuss how you thought about the problem.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
If payoffs could save marriages
In game theory, there is a particular 2-by-2 game matrix configuration called battle of the sexes. An oft-used humorous analogy is that of a man and woman deciding whether they want to go to the opera or to a sports bar for the evening. They need to select one without knowing what the other partner is going to pick. If they make the same choice, they at least get to spend the evening together (even though the man may not be thrilled about going to the opera, or the woman about going to a sports bar). As against this, if they made differing selections (for example, if the man ended up at the opera, and the woman at the sports bar), then they would both be worse off. Battle of the sexes models payoff scenarios where two parties enjoy different things, yet benefit by coordinating with each other.
This is staple theory. What struck me with deeper interest is that the same game extends to organizational behavior: passive aggressive behaviors or principal agent dynamics. I have always likened a marriage to an organization (it is an institution). And, using that example, imagine that the husband believes that the wife cares for him. Then, the husband will be more giving to the marriage. Simultaneously, if the wife believes the husband is giving, she will benefit from being giving, too. So, they attain the higher nash equilibrium. In contrast to this, if expectations are the other way round: the husband believes the wife doesn't care, and the wife believes the husband doesn't care, then both will settle for the lower NE. This is perhaps the reality of too many underperforming teams -- in organizations, or in marriage.
Expectations are a vital signal to use. But, what is more important is to understand that the only sustainable lever at your disposal is to be a good guy and have your partner know it. While you didn't need game theoretic evidence to drive home the point, the game matrix does let you see around the corner and understand at what personal cost we neglect this simple wisdom.
This is staple theory. What struck me with deeper interest is that the same game extends to organizational behavior: passive aggressive behaviors or principal agent dynamics. I have always likened a marriage to an organization (it is an institution). And, using that example, imagine that the husband believes that the wife cares for him. Then, the husband will be more giving to the marriage. Simultaneously, if the wife believes the husband is giving, she will benefit from being giving, too. So, they attain the higher nash equilibrium. In contrast to this, if expectations are the other way round: the husband believes the wife doesn't care, and the wife believes the husband doesn't care, then both will settle for the lower NE. This is perhaps the reality of too many underperforming teams -- in organizations, or in marriage.
Expectations are a vital signal to use. But, what is more important is to understand that the only sustainable lever at your disposal is to be a good guy and have your partner know it. While you didn't need game theoretic evidence to drive home the point, the game matrix does let you see around the corner and understand at what personal cost we neglect this simple wisdom.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Trading down my PCP
A recent WSJ article rightly shifted the spotlight on healthcare debate from who will pay and who will receive, to the less common question of who will serve. In the article, the author talks about the impending undersupply of primary care physicians (about 30% short), especially in the light of rapidly rising demand from the expected inclusion of 50 million uninsured Americans, and an inferior commercial outlook for these family doctors due to rising costs of service delivery.
As is well argued elsewhere, the most important lever is the bloated cost structure in every part of the US health care value chain.
While wellness-oriented health care can suppress the need for PCP contact hours, so can a revised model of health care that partially substitutes doctors for less trained nurses and assistants. And, to revisit the supply side of PCPs, could it be possible to harvest sanitized data on patient case files, diagnoses, chemical and biological information, and a deductive IT system that takes away the skill burden of primary care physicians? This would make substitution of PCPs easier (especially in rural areas, where the density of traditionally well-trained medical professionals is only worse), and training of a new generation of PCPs far cheaper.
In essence, moving towards partial commoditization of basic medical expertise in some sense will have other benefits: the cost of supply will fall, the complexity of training will be reduced (training the trainer, and scaling up the supply side will look brighter), the claim to the value chain surplus from these players will fall, the supply of primary care physicians will rise (although, by possibly enticing a different profile of students), and its distribution will grow geographically more even.
So, if it is indeed possible to supplant a part of primary care expertise (by therapeutic area, or complexity of medical expertise needed) with algorithm and knowledge management (Google Health in three years?), and sandbox it in an alternative service channel that is not burdened by traditional liability insurance, then existing technology can open up new business models that will directly lower the cost malaise, and match supply with demand within this part of the chain.
It begs the question: what is our alternative?
--
PS: Further reading informed me that DNP (doctorate of nursing practice) is a training program that hopes to be just such a substitution option, where better trained nurses expect to perform the function of PCPs. In fact, evidence going back to 2000 has found that randomly picked DNPs performed as well as PCPs. However, a half-measure is more dangerous than none. Hopefully, the DNPs will be brought to market in a sustainable environment that doesn't conflict with traditional roles, escalate liability burdens, or miss the objective of being a more efficient skill supplier.
As is well argued elsewhere, the most important lever is the bloated cost structure in every part of the US health care value chain.
While wellness-oriented health care can suppress the need for PCP contact hours, so can a revised model of health care that partially substitutes doctors for less trained nurses and assistants. And, to revisit the supply side of PCPs, could it be possible to harvest sanitized data on patient case files, diagnoses, chemical and biological information, and a deductive IT system that takes away the skill burden of primary care physicians? This would make substitution of PCPs easier (especially in rural areas, where the density of traditionally well-trained medical professionals is only worse), and training of a new generation of PCPs far cheaper.
In essence, moving towards partial commoditization of basic medical expertise in some sense will have other benefits: the cost of supply will fall, the complexity of training will be reduced (training the trainer, and scaling up the supply side will look brighter), the claim to the value chain surplus from these players will fall, the supply of primary care physicians will rise (although, by possibly enticing a different profile of students), and its distribution will grow geographically more even.
So, if it is indeed possible to supplant a part of primary care expertise (by therapeutic area, or complexity of medical expertise needed) with algorithm and knowledge management (Google Health in three years?), and sandbox it in an alternative service channel that is not burdened by traditional liability insurance, then existing technology can open up new business models that will directly lower the cost malaise, and match supply with demand within this part of the chain.
It begs the question: what is our alternative?
--
PS: Further reading informed me that DNP (doctorate of nursing practice) is a training program that hopes to be just such a substitution option, where better trained nurses expect to perform the function of PCPs. In fact, evidence going back to 2000 has found that randomly picked DNPs performed as well as PCPs. However, a half-measure is more dangerous than none. Hopefully, the DNPs will be brought to market in a sustainable environment that doesn't conflict with traditional roles, escalate liability burdens, or miss the objective of being a more efficient skill supplier.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Pull the plug on Orkut
One would wonder how many Googlers' 20% time it would take to fix Orkut, and make it a real offering.
Given the rapid product refinement, including open-platforming, of everything from Facebook to MySpace to LinkedIn, and the onset of a crowded fragment of niche social networks and derivatives, the wisdom around network effects and switching costs remain key imperatives.
Google believes in harvesting information. While I submit that true innovation in information management possibly lies in rethinking and reshaping how information is created, distributed, and consumed -- it still remains important to get in on current norms of online social networks. Most importantly, this lets you observe the first generation of adopters within your own backyard to understand what needs and benefits are at play today, and which will subsist into the next decade.
And, for this, Google's game needs to be much more than Orkut in its current form. What intrigues me most is not that this goes unseen at the company (for it surely doesn't), but that a decision may have been made not to play catchup through Orkut, and instead leapfrog social networking (or, its foundational needs and benefits) to get to the next generation.
For instance, a social network built on my Google username need not originate at a particular application (orkut.com) and be restricted to it. In fact, it would most likely cut across Google's services (much like Google chat does today, in an infant way), and transcend Google altogether, to enhance value in use and lock-in. Prototypes already exist through other social networks, social network aggregators, and make-your-own-social-network services. If Google succeeds in extending its content/interface experience, it could reinvent how we use and will use social networks. To begin with, the lower range of a social network's life could be shortened down to resemble a group chat (in the most extreme case) -- making creation and maintenance more varied and dynamic. Social networks could be defined around a calendar event, an article being read, a cross-functional team meeting that will last six months, or patients with a common medical condition. Transactions could be more fluid, varied, and collaborative. Some differences that illustrate feature options that may or may not have been considered, but have definitely not been offered.
But, in getting there, Google's image of "social networking" needs to rapidly move away from Orkut, and emerge from within the fabric of its usage.
Given the rapid product refinement, including open-platforming, of everything from Facebook to MySpace to LinkedIn, and the onset of a crowded fragment of niche social networks and derivatives, the wisdom around network effects and switching costs remain key imperatives.
Google believes in harvesting information. While I submit that true innovation in information management possibly lies in rethinking and reshaping how information is created, distributed, and consumed -- it still remains important to get in on current norms of online social networks. Most importantly, this lets you observe the first generation of adopters within your own backyard to understand what needs and benefits are at play today, and which will subsist into the next decade.
And, for this, Google's game needs to be much more than Orkut in its current form. What intrigues me most is not that this goes unseen at the company (for it surely doesn't), but that a decision may have been made not to play catchup through Orkut, and instead leapfrog social networking (or, its foundational needs and benefits) to get to the next generation.
For instance, a social network built on my Google username need not originate at a particular application (orkut.com) and be restricted to it. In fact, it would most likely cut across Google's services (much like Google chat does today, in an infant way), and transcend Google altogether, to enhance value in use and lock-in. Prototypes already exist through other social networks, social network aggregators, and make-your-own-social-network services. If Google succeeds in extending its content/interface experience, it could reinvent how we use and will use social networks. To begin with, the lower range of a social network's life could be shortened down to resemble a group chat (in the most extreme case) -- making creation and maintenance more varied and dynamic. Social networks could be defined around a calendar event, an article being read, a cross-functional team meeting that will last six months, or patients with a common medical condition. Transactions could be more fluid, varied, and collaborative. Some differences that illustrate feature options that may or may not have been considered, but have definitely not been offered.
But, in getting there, Google's image of "social networking" needs to rapidly move away from Orkut, and emerge from within the fabric of its usage.
Monday, March 24, 2008
Recruiting through Facebook
A possible Facebook application idea would be to float job descriptions, and have users vote any friend(s) they consider the best match for it. By seeing which users bubble up to the surface, recruiters will have a smaller, peer-vetted pool to screen.
On the benefit side, participating users could be awarded virtual money of the kind that could be spent elsewhere in Facebook for services (such as when friends send premium greetings or virtual tequila shots).
This would seem particularly beneficial to freelancers, and fit the demographic profile of demand (what FB users might need) and supply (what FB users could provide). Think website design, a marketing campaign for a not-for-profit, a fundraiser.
On the benefit side, participating users could be awarded virtual money of the kind that could be spent elsewhere in Facebook for services (such as when friends send premium greetings or virtual tequila shots).
This would seem particularly beneficial to freelancers, and fit the demographic profile of demand (what FB users might need) and supply (what FB users could provide). Think website design, a marketing campaign for a not-for-profit, a fundraiser.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Entrepreneurship without patents
When innovative entrepreneurship based out of India had not found its place in popular press, I would often wonder what was holding it back. Surely, the coincidence of intellectual and capital resources would have been one. But, more often, a drier patent pipeline would be offered in explaination. After all, one would need a protected window of time within which to build-out/roll-up without interference.
The Indian market (seen in numerous ways) is sufficiently unique so that a new operator might be able to simply tout a good business design as a competitive advantage. What might make it sustainable for some time is the friction (inefficiencies) in the Indian entrepreneurship environment (raising capital, overcoming absence of key path dependencies, understanding demand).
In addition, simply looking at consumer needs that have been created in western markets (say, Netflix), one finds a 1B strong market that has ample room to let concurrent entrants to coexist. In fact, new entrants would help bring scale to much needed complementors. Picture Seventymm.com and its clones making DTDC consider offering tailored distribution solutions.
In summary, the point is that India's untapped demand, and uncrowded supply, create an environment for the next few years where success could be driven singularly by strategies that effectively tap the value-net, without needing patent protections. Hopefully, as the buzz around Indian entrepreneurship and VC interest attains critical mass, it will be more easily observable which kinds of strategies get taken seriously.
The Indian market (seen in numerous ways) is sufficiently unique so that a new operator might be able to simply tout a good business design as a competitive advantage. What might make it sustainable for some time is the friction (inefficiencies) in the Indian entrepreneurship environment (raising capital, overcoming absence of key path dependencies, understanding demand).
In addition, simply looking at consumer needs that have been created in western markets (say, Netflix), one finds a 1B strong market that has ample room to let concurrent entrants to coexist. In fact, new entrants would help bring scale to much needed complementors. Picture Seventymm.com and its clones making DTDC consider offering tailored distribution solutions.
In summary, the point is that India's untapped demand, and uncrowded supply, create an environment for the next few years where success could be driven singularly by strategies that effectively tap the value-net, without needing patent protections. Hopefully, as the buzz around Indian entrepreneurship and VC interest attains critical mass, it will be more easily observable which kinds of strategies get taken seriously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
