Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

Where the value of a new system leaks away

You run the case. Read the prompt, answer questions from the notes below, and share data only when the candidate asks for it or gets stuck. Score at the end.

Case timer

00:00

Target length:

1. Read the prompt aloud

Read it slowly, then pause. Let the candidate ask questions before they structure.

Use the chart above. A relationship manager is a banker who looks after a set of clients. The fictional bank's business case assumed every relationship manager would use the new client system fully. Each would add MYR 20,000 of extra revenue per year (illustrative). Six months in, the bank says the system "is not working". Measure adoption, find the biggest drop, and put a number on the gap.

The prompt refers to Exhibit 1. After reading it, say: "Open Exhibit 1 now."

2. Answers to clarifying questions

This case has no scripted clarifying answers. Answer from the prompt, and say "assume what you think is reasonable" if the prompt does not cover it.

3. A model structure

Compare the candidate's structure with this one. A different split can be just as good if it is clean and fits the problem.

Value delivered = full users x value per full user
- Adoption at each step: trained, weekly use, full use
- Key: People lost at each step: where is the biggest drop?
- Value planned against value delivered

Exhibit 1

The prompt uses this exhibit, so the candidate opens it right after you read the prompt ("Show exhibit 1" on their screen).

Adoption of a new client system at a fictional Malaysian bank, six months after launch(relationship managers)

So-what

Fewer than half of relationship managers use the system fully, and the biggest drop is between weekly log-in and full use.

4. The working, step by step

Each step shows how a strong candidate works it out. Share a new fact from it only when the candidate asks or is stuck, and let them do the math: the result in the dark box is what they should reach.

Step 1: Trained share
What a strong candidate does: 1,080 of 1,200 relationship managers.
Trained (percent): 1,080 ÷ 1,200 × 100 = 90
Step 2: Weekly users among the trained
What a strong candidate does: 864 of 1,080.
Weekly users among trained (percent): 864 ÷ 1,080 × 100 = 80
Step 3: Full users among weekly users
What a strong candidate does: 540 of 864.
Full users among weekly users (percent): 540 ÷ 864 × 100 = 62.5
Step 4: Drops at each step
What a strong candidate does: 120 never trained, 216 trained but not using it weekly, 324 using it weekly but not for every meeting.
Largest drop (weekly users not using it fully): 864 - 540 = 324
Step 5: Value planned
What a strong candidate does: 1,200 full users x MYR 20,000.
Value planned (MYR million a year): 1,200 × 20,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 24
Step 6: Value delivered
What a strong candidate does: 540 full users x MYR 20,000.
Value delivered (MYR million a year): 540 × 20,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 10.8

The recommendation to listen for

At the end, say: "The CEO walks in. What is your recommendation?"

The system is not failing; adoption is, so the bank gets only MYR 10.8 million of the MYR 24 million a year it planned. This is because only 45 percent of relationship managers use it fully (540 of 1,200). The biggest leak is the 324 people who log in but still run some meetings the old way. That drop is larger than the 120 never trained or the 216 trained but not using it weekly. Find out why (ask them, and watch a few meetings), then fix that first. For example, make the system the only place to record client meetings. And add full use to managers' targets.

Risks a strong answer names: The MYR 20,000 per user may itself be too high; check revenue of full users against others.

Next steps: Interview 20 weekly users who do not use it fully; Report adoption by branch every month so branch heads own it.

Score the candidate

Score each criterion from 1 to 5. A 2 or a 4 sits between the descriptions.

Structuring

1: No clear structure, or a memorized framework that does not fit the problem.
3: A sensible structure, but with some overlap, a gap, or no clear priority.
5: A structure built for this problem, with no overlap and no gaps, a stated hypothesis, and a clear first step.

Math

1: Frequent errors, no units, or needed heavy help to finish.
3: Right answers but slow or messy working, or one error caught late.
5: Accurate and clearly narrated, with units, a sense check, and what the number means.

Exhibit reading

1: Read the chart aloud without finding the number that matters.
3: Found the key number but gave only part of the so-what.
5: Pulled the right number quickly and said what it means for the case.

Synthesis

1: Summarized what was done, with no clear answer.
3: Gave an answer, but with weak reasons or no next step.
5: Answer first, then two or three reasons with numbers, the main risk, and next steps.

Communication

1: Hard to follow: long silences, no signposting.
3: Clear most of the time, with some rambling.
5: Calm and concise, signposted each step, and checked in with the interviewer.

Total

0 out of 25

Score all five criteria to see the band and the feedback template.

Next: another case in Partner mode

Swap roles and run the next case, so you both practise answering and scoring.

Run the next case: Home appliances in Saudi Arabia: size and share by segment Choose another case