Kearney case interview: make the numbers work.

Practise logical analysis and creative alternatives within a working conversation. Refine your hypothesis when the interviewer supplies useful feedback.

For the actual sequence, use your invitation and local recruiting team. For example, Kearney Belgium publishes three rounds of two interviews. Do not build your schedule around a different office's description.

Confirm whether you will solve a case live, analyse a written pack, present a recommendation or work in a group. Then practise that task with the time and tools you will have. Keep a separate preparation slot for your motivation and experience discussion.

Here is an original procurement exercise. A manufacturer needs 10,000 usable components per month. It pays for every component delivered, including defective ones. Defects are identified before production, and the supplier replaces nothing for free.

A quick comparison says B is 8% cheaper. That compares quoted prices, while the client needs usable components delivered to its factory.

Start by naming the common basis:

“I will compare the monthly cost of obtaining 10,000 usable components, including defects and freight.”

Using expected yields for planning, A requires approximately 10,204 delivered components: 10,000 divided by 98%. Purchase cost is about £51,020; freight brings the total to £52,020.

B requires approximately 10,870 delivered components: 10,000 divided by 92%. Its purchase cost is £50,000 before rounding delivery quantities; adding freight gives £58,000.

B costs approximately £5,980 more each month, despite the lower quoted price. Actual orders would use whole components and whatever batch sizes the contract requires; that small rounding adjustment does not change this decision.

Your next sentence should connect the calculation to the choice:

“Supplier A is cheaper on the stated requirement because B's higher defect rate and freight outweigh its lower price. I would retain A on these economics and check whether either supplier creates a delivery or capacity constraint.”

That is a recommendation with a specific remaining test. It gives the interviewer a clear position to question.

Avoid turning the answer into a list of every imaginable procurement consideration. Ask about the variables that could overturn it. If both suppliers already meet the delivery schedule and capacity requirement, move forward rather than repeatedly reopening them.

Suppose the interviewer asks, “Could we negotiate with B?”

You have a useful target. To match A's approximately £52,020 total cost, B can spend about £44,020 on components after paying £8,000 freight. Divide that by its required deliveries of roughly 10,870: its price needs to fall to about £4.05 per component.

This is roughly a 12% reduction from £4.60. A request for a 3% discount would not close the gap under the given assumptions.

Alternatively, hold B's price and yield constant. Its purchase cost remains £50,000, so freight would have to fall to about £2,020 for the totals to match. That directs the conversation towards shipment consolidation, sourcing location or freight terms, rather than vague “supplier optimisation.”

Matching cost is only the threshold for reconsideration. If changing suppliers requires qualification work or transition expense, B needs to provide enough additional benefit to cover those too.

Now imagine B offers a much better price. You should still explain how the manufacturer changes supply without interrupting production.

A sensible sequence might be to qualify a production batch, verify the assumed usable yield, confirm delivery performance, then increase allocation gradually while retaining a fallback. The important detail is what each step protects: production quality, delivery reliability or continuity of supply.

If the interviewer asks for a saving estimate, include the cost and timing of that transition. Do not apply a full year's new price to volumes purchased before the contract changes.

This is where operational judgement adds value. You can support the commercial idea while identifying the work needed to realise it.

A strong case discussion makes your reasoning easy to inspect. Explain why you need a figure before requesting it, and acknowledge information that changes the direction.

For example:

“I had prioritised price because the initial brief suggested comparable suppliers. The defect and freight data change that. I will compare delivered usable cost before looking at negotiation options.”

If the interviewer simplifies a variable, work with the simplification. “Assume both suppliers can deliver on time” is a signal to stop investigating logistics reliability for this exercise. You can state that assumption once and continue.

Work through the official preparation material, then use a fresh example to test whether you can identify the right cost basis without being prompted.

Repeat the supplier exercise with one change: the supplier now credits defective components, freight becomes variable, or the client's required volume doubles. Rebuild only the parts of the calculation affected by the change. Explain why the answer moves.

For your experience interview, prepare a story about improving an outcome with other people. Be specific about your role, disagreement, evidence and result. A credible account of a modest improvement is more useful than a grand claim you cannot unpack.

Finally, choose an unfamiliar practice case and ask your partner to challenge the implementation of your recommendation. You should be able to answer what changes first, who needs to act and which assumption deserves testing before the client commits.