Interviewer view · keep this screen to yourself
Partner case: should Minesaka Railway replace its branch line with buses?
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
1. Read the prompt aloud
Read it slowly, then pause. Let the candidate ask questions before they structure.
Minesaka Railway is a private railway company in Japan. Its main line is profitable, but a 40 km rural branch line loses money every year as the valley's population ages and shrinks. The CEO asks whether to close the branch line and replace it with buses. The partner says: "What would you tell the CEO, and how would you handle the prefecture?"
Format note: Partner-led: a judgment case with public-interest issues. A little math anchors the answer; most of the time goes on stakeholders and pushback.
2. Answers to clarifying questions
Give these answers only if the candidate asks. If they ask something not listed, give a sensible answer or say it does not matter here.
If asked: How many people use the branch line, and what do they pay?
Answer: About 1,000 trips a day, every day of the year, at an average fare of JPY 400.
If asked: What does the line cost to run, and who helps pay?
Answer: About JPY 876 million a year, including staff, trains, and track upkeep. The prefecture pays a subsidy of JPY 300 million a year toward the loss.
If asked: What would a replacement bus service cost, and is any big spending coming?
Answer: About JPY 250 million a year. The team expects about 20 percent of riders to stop using public transport if the train goes. A bridge on the line needs about JPY 3 billion of repairs within five years.
3. The hypothesis a strong candidate states
Listen for an early, testable guess like this one. It does not need to match word for word.
Rural lines with this few riders rarely cover their costs, so my hypothesis is that a bus service is far cheaper, and that the harder part of the answer is how to make the change with the prefecture and the towns, not whether the numbers work.
4. 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.
- Keep the line, replace it, or change it?
- Economics today: loss per year and per trip
- The bus option and the saving
- Key: Stakeholders: prefecture, towns, riders, staff
- How and when to make the change
5. 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: Trips a year
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "About 1,000 trips a day for 365 days gives:"
Trips a year: 1,000 × 365 = 365,000
Step 2: The rail loss
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Fare income is about JPY 146 million a year against JPY 876 million of cost, so before subsidy the line loses:"
Annual rail loss before subsidy (JPY): 876,000,000 - 365,000 × 400 = 730,000,000
Step 3: Loss per trip
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Each trip costs about JPY 2,400 to provide and earns JPY 400, so every trip loses about JPY 2,000."
Loss per trip (JPY): (876,000,000 - 365,000 × 400) ÷ 365,000 = 2,000
Step 4: The bus option
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Buses cost about JPY 250 million a year. If 20 percent of riders stop traveling, fare income falls to about JPY 117 million, so the bus service loses:"
Annual bus loss (JPY): 250,000,000 - 365,000 × 0.8 × 400 = 133,200,000
Step 5: The saving
What a strong candidate does: Candidate: "Switching saves about JPY 597 million a year. And the JPY 3 billion bridge repair equals about five years of that saving, so waiting makes the choice harder, not easier."
Annual saving from switching (JPY): (876,000,000 - 365,000 × 400) - (250,000,000 - 365,000 × 0.8 × 400) = 596,800,000
Step 6: Pushback 1: the prefecture
What a strong candidate does: Partner: "The governor will be furious, and we need the prefecture for our station redevelopment projects on the main line." Candidate: "That is a real cost I had left out, and it changes how we do this, not whether. I would not announce a closure. I would take the numbers to the prefecture privately with a joint plan. Its JPY 300 million subsidy covers well under half of the loss today; the company still carries about JPY 430 million a year. A bus network would cost less than the subsidy alone, so the prefecture's money could buy a better service."
Loss the company carries after the subsidy (JPY a year): 876,000,000 - 365,000 × 400 - 300,000,000 = 430,000,000
Step 7: Pushback 2: the riders
What a strong candidate does: Partner: "Buses are slower, and many riders are elderly." Candidate: "Agreed, so the plan must answer that directly: low-floor buses, more departures than the train has today, which the saving easily pays for, and stops closer to homes than the stations are. In the upper valley I would test small on-demand buses. If ridership falls much more than 20 percent in the first year, we should revisit the design."
The recommendation to listen for
At the end, say: "The CEO walks in. What is your recommendation?"
Recommend replacing the branch line with a bus service, agreed with the prefecture rather than announced to it. First, the line loses about JPY 730 million a year before subsidy, about JPY 2,000 per trip, while a bus service would lose about JPY 133 million, saving about JPY 597 million a year. Second, the JPY 3 billion bridge repair equals about five years of that saving, so delay makes the choice more expensive. Third, the prefecture's JPY 300 million subsidy alone is more than the bus network's JPY 250 million running cost, leaving money for more departures than today's trains, so riders can gain frequency even as they lose the train. The main risks are the relationship with the prefecture and access for older riders. Next steps: share the numbers privately with the prefecture, design the bus network with the towns, and set a transition date before the bridge work must start.
Risks a strong answer names: The prefecture may block or delay the change, which would affect other projects with the company; More than 20 percent of riders may stop traveling, especially older people; Local media may frame the change as abandoning the valley.
Next steps: Meet the prefecture privately with the numbers and a draft joint plan; Design routes and timetables with the towns and a group of regular riders; Plan redeployment for the line's staff to the main line or the bus service.
Strong versus weak
A strong answer
Anchored the answer with three quick numbers (loss per trip, the saving, the bridge), then spent most of the time on the prefecture and the riders. Treated the governor pushback as a fact that changes the plan, not the answer, and turned the subsidy into part of the solution.
A weak answer
Recommended closing the line on the numbers alone and had no answer when the partner raised the governor, or dropped the recommendation entirely at the first sign of political difficulty.
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?
Total
0 out of 25
Score all five criteria to see the band and the feedback template.