Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

What a flatter claims unit saves

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.

Using the table above: the fictional insurer pays each manager about EUR 90,000 a year and each claims handler about EUR 50,000, both including social charges (illustrative numbers). How many manager roles does the new design remove, what does it save each year, and what share of the unit's people cost is that?

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.

Saving = manager roles removed x cost per manager
- Roles today: add each management layer (front line divided by span, layer by layer)
- Roles proposed: same method with the new spans
- Key: Saving as a share of total people cost

Exhibit 1

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

Claims unit of a fictional insurer in Spain: spans and roles today and proposed

Claims unit of a fictional insurer in Spain: spans and roles today and proposed
Level	Span today	Roles today	Span proposed	Roles proposed
Claims handlers (front line)	not a manager	960	not a manager	960
Team leaders	8	120	12	80
Claims managers	5	24	8	10
Heads of claims	4	6	layer removed	0
Director	6	1	10	1
All manager roles	total	151	total	91

So-what

Widening two spans and removing one layer cuts manager roles from 151 to 91 while the 960 front-line staff stay the same.

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: Team leaders today
What a strong candidate does: 960 handlers, 8 per team leader.
Team leaders today: 960 ÷ 8 = 120
Step 2: Managers today
What a strong candidate does: 120 team leaders, 5 per manager.
Claims managers today: 120 ÷ 5 = 24
Step 3: All manager roles today
What a strong candidate does: 120 team leaders, 24 managers, 6 heads and 1 director.
Manager roles today: 120 + 24 + 6 + 1 = 151
Step 4: All manager roles proposed
What a strong candidate does: 960 divided by 12 is 80 team leaders, 80 divided by 8 is 10 managers, the heads layer goes, and the director leads the 10 managers.
Manager roles proposed: 960 ÷ 12 + 960 ÷ 12 ÷ 8 + 1 = 91
Step 5: Roles removed
What a strong candidate does: 151 minus 91.
Manager roles removed: 151 - 91 = 60
Step 6: Yearly saving
What a strong candidate does: 60 roles at EUR 90,000.
Yearly saving (EUR million): 60 × 90,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 5.4
Step 7: Share of people cost
What a strong candidate does: Handlers cost 960 x 50,000 = EUR 48 million; managers today cost 151 x 90,000 = EUR 13.59 million.
Saving as a share of people cost (percent): 5.4 ÷ (960 × 0.05 + 151 × 0.09) × 100 = 8.77
Step 8: Realistic saving
What a strong candidate does: Not every removed role leaves the payroll. If half of the 60 people move into specialist roles (for example complex claims experts) at similar pay, only 30 roles of cost go.
Realistic yearly saving (EUR million): 60 × 0.5 × 90,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 2.7

The recommendation to listen for

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

The flatter design removes 60 manager roles and one layer, so decisions travel through 3 manager levels instead of 4. The headline saving is EUR 5.4 million a year, close to 9 percent of the unit's people cost; if half the people move into specialist roles, the realistic saving is about EUR 2.7 million. Before recommending it, check that a team leader can really coach 12 handlers: if claims are complex or staff are new, quality and customer complaints may suffer. Phase it in team by team and watch claim errors and handling time.

Risks a strong answer names: Quality falls if team leaders can no longer review complex claims; Good people leave if the change feels like a cut rather than a better job; The saving is lower if severance (payments to staff who leave) is large in the first year.

Next steps: Compare error rates of teams that already run at a span of 10 or more; Plan which roles become specialist experts instead of managers.

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.