Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself

Should a Malaysian furniture maker build a plant in Mexico?

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.

A fictional furniture maker in Malaysia sells 200,000 sets a year to US retailers. Per set: factory cost USD 100 in Malaysia against USD 112 for a new plant in Mexico; freight USD 9 against USD 4; stock in transit and in safety stock 50 days against 10, at USD 0.05 per set per day. Goods from Malaysia face the 10 percent US Section 301 tariff; assume the normal duty is zero and that Mexican sets would qualify under the USMCA. The Mexican plant costs USD 8 million. The board wants a payback under three years. Should it build?

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.

Build if payback = plant cost / yearly saving is under 3 years, and it survives a tariff test
- Landed cost per set: Malaysia and Mexico
- Yearly saving and payback
- Key: Tariff needed to justify the plant

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: Malaysia landed cost
What a strong candidate does: Factory, freight, 10 percent tariff, 50 days of stock.
Malaysia landed cost per set (USD): 100 + 9 + 100 × 0.1 + 50 × 0.05 = 122
Step 2: Mexico landed cost
What a strong candidate does: Factory, freight, no tariff, 10 days of stock.
Mexico landed cost per set (USD): 112 + 4 + 0 + 10 × 0.05 = 117
Step 3: Yearly saving
What a strong candidate does: USD 5 a set on 200,000 sets.
Yearly saving (USD): (121.5 - 116.5) × 200,000 = 1,000,000
Step 4: Payback
What a strong candidate does: Plant cost divided by yearly saving.
Payback (years): 8,000,000 ÷ 1,000,000 = 8
Step 5: Saving needed for a three-year payback
What a strong candidate does: USD 8 million over three years, per set.
Saving per set needed (USD): 8,000,000 ÷ 3 ÷ 200,000 = 13.33
Step 6: Tariff that would justify the plant
What a strong candidate does: The tariff on Malaysian sets that makes the gap USD 13.33, as a percent of the USD 100 factory cost.
Break-even tariff on Malaysian sets (percent): (116.5 + 8,000,000 ÷ 3 ÷ 200,000 - 100 - 9 - 2.5) ÷ 100 × 100 = 18.33

The recommendation to listen for

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

The furniture maker should not build the Mexican plant now, because it saves only about USD 1 million a year and pays back in about 8 years against a 3-year target. First, the 10 percent tariff adds USD 10 a set, but Mexico's higher factory cost takes back USD 12 of it. Second, the plant would only meet the target if the tariff on Malaysian goods rose to about 18 percent. The risk is that tariffs rise or the USMCA changes; both could swing the answer. As a next step, test a Mexican contract manufacturer for a small share of volume, which keeps the option open without the USD 8 million commitment.

Score the candidate

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

This case has no exhibit. Score Exhibit reading on how the candidate used the data you gave them: did they pick out the number that matters and say what it means?

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.