Tuesday, November 10, 2009

McKinsey 2nd Round Case #2



  1. Did you get any feedback on the particular cases, like which cases you did well on or not?

  2. No, no feedback on any individual case...just generalities...good structure on all, appeared well practiced, clear and concise...not creative enough in interpretation

  3. I actually had this as a practice case. Key points I also hit:

    (1) Is the product's compatibility with existing fuel infrastructure - can you use the same pipes, trucks, pumps, etc?

    (2) Does better "gas milage" translate to a higher fuel density? If so, the client should aim for higher value fuels, i.e. jet fuel.

    (3) Marketing - I thought this fuel would be best, depending on the initial production capacity, to market and sell to a fleet operator - buses, garbage trucks, taxis. Here the need for fewer refuelings could be highlighted in the savings of fleet time spent refueling along with the number and distribution of fueling centers.

  4. This is true, although a fuel that costs more and provides additional mileage requires a cost-benefit analysis of some kind to determine if the savings from additional mpg translates into real savings when there is an additional marginal cost per gallon...ultimately your statement may be true, but required an analysis that was never performed. Although if you are just referring to a marketing ploy, perhaps making a statement like that isn't completely out of left field.

    I have no idea what fuel density is so didn't mention that.

    I also assume all infrastructure is the same as it's mixed with gasoline and then distributed so should be in the same pumps, trucks, lines, ect... although that might be a point for clarification just to make sure.