Strategy& cases: reason aloud with evidence.

Strategy&'s UK first round includes a live case conversation and a structured case with a slide pack, with approximately ten minutes to review the pack before discussing recommendations. Confirm the process for your territory.

The word “unstructured” in the UK description does not mean your answer should lack structure. It distinguishes the format of the exercise. You still need a clear approach to the client’s decision.

Write down the expected output, reading time and discussion time from your invitation. If a detail is missing, ask a focused question before building your rehearsal around an assumption.

Explain the question you want to resolve first. Use a hypothesis to choose the analysis, state the assumptions and connect the result to a conclusion.

For example, a retailer says warehouse delays are hurting customer service. “I will examine people, processes and technology” names categories but does not yet identify a useful test.

A stronger starting point is: “I would locate where orders spend time between purchase and dispatch, then distinguish a capacity shortage from avoidable rework. That will tell us whether the priority is adding capacity or fixing the process.”

A hypothesis earns its place by changing the next question. Revise it when the evidence points elsewhere.

Here is an original miniature evidence pack. A warehouse is choosing one improvement project. It has a £250,000 investment budget and requires simple payback within three years. Service quality must not deteriorate.

Exhibit 1: project economics. Annual savings below are before each project’s new recurring costs. Assume savings and recurring costs begin immediately and remain constant.

Exhibit 2: operational observation. A small trial of A reduced rework. The trial covered normal demand but not the seasonal peak. B’s vendor forecast assumes the equipment can handle the warehouse’s full product range; compatibility has not been tested.

Exhibit 3: context. Management expects order volume to grow next year but has not supplied a committed forecast. The warehouse’s highest-value customers require reliable delivery during the peak season.

Before reading on, decide what you would recommend and identify the evidence you would cite.

Project A produces £40,000 of net annual savings, giving two-year payback. Project B produces £60,000, giving four-year payback.

Both fit the capital budget. Only A meets the three-year payback rule on the supplied figures. B’s larger gross savings do not make it the better option under the client’s objective.

A useful first conclusion is: “A meets the financial requirement; B does not. I would take A forward for peak-demand testing before committing, because the existing trial does not establish service performance during the period customers care about most.”

That answer uses all three exhibits without giving them equal airtime. Exhibit 1 decides the financial comparison. Exhibits 2 and 3 identify the remaining operational test.

Do not turn expected growth into guaranteed volume. Do not turn a normal-demand trial into proof of peak performance. Mark the boundary in the recommendation through a concrete condition, rather than a long disclaimer.

Your notes might contain just four lines:

• A: £40k net annual benefit; two-year payback.
• B: £60k net annual benefit; four-year payback, above hurdle.
• A’s peak performance remains untested.
• Next action: test service quality at peak workload before rollout.

Those lines are enough to support a discussion. Copying every sentence from the pack would leave less time to think.

Suppose the client relaxes the payback limit to five years. B becomes financially eligible, but that does not automatically make it preferable.

Compared with A, B requires another £160,000 upfront for another £20,000 of annual net savings. The incremental simple payback is eight years. You would need the project life, timing and other benefits to judge whether that extra commitment is worthwhile.

Now the discussion has moved beyond passing a minimum rule. You are comparing alternatives. If B also delivers a service improvement, quantify it where possible and test its compatibility assumption before including the benefit.

This is a useful follow-up exercise because it reveals whether you understood the comparison or merely selected the first option that passed a threshold.

The UK process description includes discussion of your background and motivation. Prepare a clear account of why strategy work interests you and what you have learned about Strategy&’s work in the relevant territory.

Use specifics from your research and experience. A project that required you to choose between competing investments can explain your interest more convincingly than a list of the firm’s credentials.

Ask questions that help you understand the work: how junior team members develop a point of view, how teams test a strategic recommendation or how a particular practice works with colleagues across PwC.

Give yourself a short reading period for the miniature pack, close the explanation and present your answer. Ask a partner to change the payback rule or challenge the service assumption. Keep the calculation available so you can explain it without rereading the entire pack.

Then choose a retail-expansion case from the case library and practise selecting evidence from its exhibits. The aim is to arrive at a supported view quickly enough to spend the conversation examining it.