The feedback portion of this was really, really valuable. Most videos have the interviewee basically nailing everything top to bottom super thoroughly, and it definitely seems like this guy did fantastic and provided a good solution, but all the feedback is something that makes this video stand out and that most videos don't provide. Other videos are hardly critical of the approach. There's value to showing was a great example is, but here you got the best of both worlds, and it seemed much more real than staged. That was all really valuable information.
She definitely possesses a distinctly intimidating presence as an interviewer, yet her aura is unmistakably professional! The way in which she pressed for greater depth, especially concerning storage costs, sent a shiver down my spine. Thankfully, I have sufficient time to hone my expertise and study more sample videos, thereby steeling myself for the rigors of future interviews.
Interesting that as of 14 minutes in, the trend away from on demand supply chain inventory shifts over recent years are not mentioned. Finished product inventory levels were not explored. Is storage or warehousing done in company or by a 3rd party provider? What Is the cost of storage/warehousing on a per unit basis over the last 3 years?
Thanks for the neatly structured video. I got quite a few tips and lessons from the feedback part. I think there would've been way more to learn if the case was more complex and realistic. Here's my 2 biggest annoyances with the case's premise: 1- There's no logical way that nobody in a US-scale manufacturer would not notice a 8-9 million $ increase in Storage & Warehousing costs in a two year period (+70ish %) or 6-7 mil$ in 1 year (+50ish %). 2- Even if we ignore that, how is it realistically possible for one national scale player to experience 70% hike in S&W costs while presumably the other ones experience decline in the same category? (I base this assumption on the case's claim of S&W being the root cause of the decline in profit for CookieCo). Even in this imagined situation, it's way more logical to have the root cause somehow related to the demand side rather than to the supply side. Significant supply side changes generally tend to be applicable to all the players of comparable size (barring stuff such as unrealistic management blunders i.e. missing out on an innovative/better/cheaper production style / raw material substitute that everybody else is shifting to, or missing significant shifts in the consumers behaviour obvious to the competition, or wrongly betting big on one, etc...) Of course I wouldn't rain on the parade of the interviewer(s) if I was in Edward's place, but I strongly hope the real cases wouldn't require the candidates to suspend their disbelief to get hired.
Hey there, Interestingly I had similar thoughts. In this case, high S&W costs is largely a demand side problem. I think it is a revenue problem i.e. not enough demand for the product variants sold. This is also seeping into high inventory costs/losses. The RCA of the high S&W costs is they cant sell enough because their products are not in the line with the demand in the regions they are distributing
To your #1, I imagine for the purpose of the case, the story starts with the profit issue leading to high S&W costs. But in reality it might be MBBs are brought in at the point that the co. understands it is a revenue issue, loss of market share and MBBs have to solve for growth strategy
does distribution cost fall under variable or fixed? I thought variable depending on product weight and length of travel but in his framework he states it as fixed
The feedback portion of this was really, really valuable. Most videos have the interviewee basically nailing everything top to bottom super thoroughly, and it definitely seems like this guy did fantastic and provided a good solution, but all the feedback is something that makes this video stand out and that most videos don't provide. Other videos are hardly critical of the approach. There's value to showing was a great example is, but here you got the best of both worlds, and it seemed much more real than staged. That was all really valuable information.
She definitely possesses a distinctly intimidating presence as an interviewer, yet her aura is unmistakably professional!
The way in which she pressed for greater depth, especially concerning storage costs, sent a shiver down my spine. Thankfully, I have sufficient time to hone my expertise and study more sample videos, thereby steeling myself for the rigors of future interviews.
She seems really personable and laughs, jokes plenty!
Interesting that as of 14 minutes in, the trend away from on demand supply chain inventory shifts over recent years are not mentioned. Finished product inventory levels were not explored. Is storage or warehousing done in company or by a 3rd party provider? What Is the cost of storage/warehousing on a per unit basis over the last 3 years?
Thanks for the neatly structured video. I got quite a few tips and lessons from the feedback part.
I think there would've been way more to learn if the case was more complex and realistic.
Here's my 2 biggest annoyances with the case's premise:
1- There's no logical way that nobody in a US-scale manufacturer would not notice a 8-9 million $ increase in Storage & Warehousing costs in a two year period (+70ish %) or 6-7 mil$ in 1 year (+50ish %).
2- Even if we ignore that, how is it realistically possible for one national scale player to experience 70% hike in S&W costs while presumably the other ones experience decline in the same category? (I base this assumption on the case's claim of S&W being the root cause of the decline in profit for CookieCo).
Even in this imagined situation, it's way more logical to have the root cause somehow related to the demand side rather than to the supply side.
Significant supply side changes generally tend to be applicable to all the players of comparable size (barring stuff such as unrealistic management blunders i.e. missing out on an innovative/better/cheaper production style / raw material substitute that everybody else is shifting to, or missing significant shifts in the consumers behaviour obvious to the competition, or wrongly betting big on one, etc...)
Of course I wouldn't rain on the parade of the interviewer(s) if I was in Edward's place, but I strongly hope the real cases wouldn't require the candidates to suspend their disbelief to get hired.
Hey there,
Interestingly I had similar thoughts. In this case, high S&W costs is largely a demand side problem. I think it is a revenue problem i.e. not enough demand for the product variants sold. This is also seeping into high inventory costs/losses. The RCA of the high S&W costs is they cant sell enough because their products are not in the line with the demand in the regions they are distributing
To your #1, I imagine for the purpose of the case, the story starts with the profit issue leading to high S&W costs. But in reality it might be MBBs are brought in at the point that the co. understands it is a revenue issue, loss of market share and MBBs have to solve for growth strategy
All of this is readily apparent to management of the company. Consultants are brought in for CYA, cover your ass, services mainly
does distribution cost fall under variable or fixed? I thought variable depending on product weight and length of travel but in his framework he states it as fixed
Variable
Can you plz share the steps used in it
That is the perfect intro. Xase.
No financials?
"distribution" counter
424 Niko Mill
What a geek