--- name: "enterprise-consulting-methods" description: "Use when you need McKinsey/BCG-grade strategy work — problem decomposition, hypothesis testing, storyline building, decision memos, stakeholder mapping, synthesis, meeting prep, workshop design, and native PowerPoint chart production. Covers 15 consulting methodology patterns from Situation-Complication-Problem-Recommendation (SCPR) through MECE issue trees, hypothesis trees, Minto Pyramid writing, and the 4-agent deck pipeline. All chart outputs are native python-pptx objects, editable inside PowerPoint." version: "1.0.0" author: "JPeetz (adapted from Sruthi Chintakunta — github.com/sruthir28/enterprise-ai-skills)" license: "MIT" metadata: hermes: tags: - consulting - strategy - mckinsey - powerpoint - python-pptx - deck-pipeline - issue-tree - hypothesis-tree - decision-memo - stakeholder-map - synthesis - meeting-prep - workshop-design - scpr-framework - minto-pyramid - prioritization - business-strategy - enterprise - presentation related_skills: - "mckinsey-charts" - "issue-tree-builder" - "storyline-builder" - "decision-memo-builder" - "meeting-prep-kit" - "stakeholder-map" - "top-down-memo" - "hypothesis-tree" - "mckinsey-critic" - "workshop-designer" - "prioritization" - "synthesis" - "scpr-framework" - "ai-use-case-scorer" --- # Enterprise Consulting Methods A comprehensive meta-skill package containing 15 battle-tested consulting methodology patterns from a former McKinsey consultant. Each encodes a specific consulting move so you don't reinvent the structure every time. All deck/chart outputs produce **native python-pptx objects** — editable inside PowerPoint, right-click → Edit Data. --- ## Overview | Category | Skill | What It Does | |----------|-------|-------------| | **Framing** | [SCPR Framework](#1-scpr-framework-situation-complication-problem-recommendation) | Structure arguments using Situation-Complication-Problem-Recommendation | | | [Issue Tree Builder](#2-issue-tree-builder-mece-decomposition) | Break down problems into MECE components | | | [Hypothesis Tree](#3-hypothesis-tree-day-1-hypothesis) | Commit to a Day-1 answer and design tests that could kill it | | **Analysis** | [Synthesis](#4-synthesis-insight-extraction) | Turn raw inputs into 3 insights with evidence + so-what | | | [Prioritization](#5-prioritization-frameworks) | Score features using RICE, Impact/Effort, Value/Complexity | | | [AI Use-Case Scorer](#6-ai-use-case-scorer) | Score AI use cases on Value × Feasibility × Safety | | | [Data Insights](#7-data-insights) | Analyze datasets and answer key questions in plain English | | **Writing** | [Decision Memo Builder](#8-decision-memo-builder) | 1-page memo forcing a yes/no decision | | | [Top-Down Memo](#9-top-down-memo-minto-pyramid) | Answer-first writing using the Minto Pyramid Principle | | | [Storyline Builder](#10-storyline-builder) | Build slide narratives where each line = a slide title | | **Meetings & People** | [Meeting Prep Kit](#11-meeting-prep-kit) | Pre-read + agenda + talking points + objections | | | [Stakeholder Map](#12-stakeholder-map) | Map the room onto Power/Interest | | | [Workshop Designer](#13-workshop-designer) | Design sessions that end with committed artifacts | | **Decks** | [McKinsey Charts](#14-mckinsey-charts-native-powerpoint) | Three workhorse charts as native python-pptx objects | | **Quality** | [McKinsey Critic](#15-mckinsey-critic-em-review) | Review decks/docs like a McKinsey engagement manager | --- ## When to Use Use this meta-skill whenever you need to apply structured consulting thinking to a business problem. Common triggers: - **Strategic question → recommendation**: Issue Tree → Hypothesis Tree → run tests → Decision Memo - **Customer research → memo**: Synthesis → Top-Down Memo (or Decision Memo) → McKinsey Critic - **Board deck**: Issue Tree → Storyline Builder → Charts → Deck Pipeline → McKinsey Critic - **Big decision with politics**: Stakeholder Map → Decision Memo → Meeting Prep Kit (for each 1:1) - **Offsite or alignment workshop**: Workshop Designer → Meeting Prep Kit (pre-1:1s) → Top-Down Memo (post-send) - **Any high-stakes presentation**: Use the 4-agent Deck Pipeline (Strategist → Builder → Critic → Fixer) - **Analysis paralysis**: Hypothesis Tree to commit to a Day-1 answer before boiling the ocean - **Exec communication**: Top-Down Memo for emails/briefs, Decision Memo for yes/no asks --- ## How to Use ### Quick Start — Full Deck Pipeline ```text Build me a McKinsey-style deck on [topic] for [audience]. Run the full top-down workflow: 1. Use issue-tree-builder to decompose into MECE branches 2. Use storyline-builder to turn it into 8 claim-shaped slide titles 3. Use mckinsey-charts for the data slides (bar+callout, waterfall) 4. Use deck-pipeline (strategist → builder → critic → fixer) to produce the final .pptx ``` ### Individual Method Calls Each of the 15 methods below can be invoked individually. Pick the pattern that matches your current stage of work: - **Framing the problem**: SCPR Framework → Issue Tree → Hypothesis Tree - **Understanding the data**: Synthesis → Data Insights - **Deciding what to do**: Prioritization → Decision Memo - **Communicating the answer**: Top-Down Memo → Storyline Builder → Charts → Pipeline - **Getting buy-in**: Stakeholder Map → Meeting Prep Kit → Workshop Designer - **Quality gate**: McKinsey Critic on any draft before it ships --- ## Workflow: Full Strategic Engagement This is the canonical top-down workflow for turning a fuzzy strategic question into an actionable recommendation: ``` Phase 1: FRAME SCPR Framework → Issues Tree → Hypothesis Tree (Structure the problem, commit to a Day-1 answer) Phase 2: ANALYZE Synthesis / Data Insights → Prioritization (Process raw data, rank what matters) Phase 3: RECOMMEND Decision Memo Builder → Top-Down Memo (Force a yes/no, communicate answer-first) Phase 4: COMMUNICATE Storyline Builder → McKinsey Charts → Deck Pipeline (Build narrative, create charts, produce deck) Phase 5: STRESS-TEST Stakeholder Map → Meeting Prep Kit → McKinsey Critic (Map politics, prep meetings, get EM-level review) Phase 6: EXECUTE Workshop Designer (Align the team, leave with committed artifacts) ``` --- ## Methodology Reference ### 1. SCPR Framework (Situation-Complication-Problem-Recommendation) **Purpose**: Structure arguments for executive summaries, memos, and strategic recommendations. **Structure**: - **Situation**: Current state of the market/business (baseline context) - **Complication**: Recent shift or change creating urgency (new dynamics, competitive threats) - **Problem**: Crisp answerable question to solve - **Recommendation**: Proposed actions that are MECE, specific, and time-bound **Core Principles**: MECE at recommendation level, clarity, actionability. The Complication must be distinct from the Problem — Complication is "what changed," Problem is "what question to solve." ### 2. Issue Tree Builder (MECE Decomposition) **Purpose**: Break down complex problems into MECE components for structured analysis. **Structure**: Top-down, 2 levels max (Governing Question → 3 Branches → 2-3 Sub-Branches each). - Level 0: Governing Question (specific, answerable) - Level 1: Major branches — decompose to fundamentals (not actions) - Level 2: Testable hypotheses **Common Decompositions**: - Revenue = Price × Quantity × Pipeline - Profit = Revenue - Cost - Growth = New customers + Expansion + New products - Market entry = Attractiveness + Competitive position + Capability **Prioritization**: After building the tree, rank branches by Impact × Effort. Start with High Impact + Low Effort. ### 3. Hypothesis Tree (Day-1 Hypothesis) **Purpose**: Commit to a best-guess answer before analysis, so the work targets what would change your mind. **Structure**: Top = Day-1 answer → 3 sub-claims (if all true, top is proven) → Tests that could kill each sub-claim. **Key Rules**: - You MUST commit to a Day-1 answer (even a weak guess beats no guess) - 3 sub-hypotheses max - Every leaf is a test that could kill the branch - State conviction (High/Med/Low) — test low-conviction first - Disconfirmation > confirmation: design tests to kill the hypothesis **Issue Tree vs. Hypothesis Tree**: | | Issue Tree | Hypothesis Tree | |---|-----------|----------------| | Top | The question | The answer (your guess) | | Branches | Sub-questions (MECE) | Sub-claims proving the top | | Bottom | Areas to investigate | Tests that would kill the claim | | Use when | You don't know what matters | You have a strong prior | ### 4. Synthesis (Insight Extraction) **Purpose**: Turn raw inputs (interviews, surveys, research) into 3 actionable insights with evidence and implication. **Process**: 1. Cluster — let themes emerge from data (induction, not deduction) 2. Force-rank to 3 by frequency, severity, surprise 3. Name each insight as a claim (falsifiable, specific) 4. Stack evidence (2-3 bullets with direct quotes, exact numbers, named sources) 5. Write the so-what (one-line implication: "Because this is true, the reader should ___") 6. Anti-summary check: would the reader know what to do next? **The test**: "Did the output change how the reader will act?" If no, you summarized — rewrite. ### 5. Prioritization Frameworks **Purpose**: Score and rank features, initiatives, and tasks using proven frameworks. | Framework | When to Use | Formula | |-----------|-------------|---------| | RICE | Quantitative data available | (Reach × Impact × Confidence) / Effort | | Impact/Effort Matrix | Quick decisions, limited data | 2×2 grid | | Value vs. Complexity | Engineering-heavy decisions | 2×2 grid | | Weighted Scoring | Custom business criteria | Σ (Score × Weight) | **When data is missing**: Provide baseline estimates based on industry patterns, mark clearly as estimates, use ranges (not false precision), and flag high-uncertainty items for validation. ### 6. AI Use-Case Scorer **Purpose**: Score personal AI use cases on Value × Feasibility × Safety to tier them: Do Now / Do This Quarter / Park / Avoid. **Scoring** (1–5 each axis, final = V × F × S): - **Value**: Time saved + Quality lift + Strategic fit - **Feasibility**: Tool maturity + Your skill/time - **Safety**: Quality risk + Data risk + Trust risk (inverted: higher = safer) **Tiers**: ≥60 Do Now, 30–59 This Quarter, 10–29 Park, <10 Avoid. ### 7. Data Insights **Purpose**: Analyze any dataset and answer key questions in plain English. Best for quick analysis without being a data scientist. Ask for CSV/JSON data, specify the questions, and get structured analysis back. ### 8. Decision Memo Builder **Purpose**: 1-page memo forcing a yes/no decision with specific owner and date. **Memo DNA** — four non-negotiables: 1. Brutal brevity (~400 words max) 2. Storyline clarity (Situation → Complication → Resolution) 3. Decision-forcing (last line = yes/no ask with owner and date) 4. Evidence density (every claim backed by number, quote, or source) **Structure**: Title (≤10 words) → Context (3-4 sentences) → Complication (2-3 sentences) → Options (2-3, 1-2 lines each) → Recommendation (1 paragraph) → Risks & Mitigations (≤3 bullets) → The Ask (1 line). ### 9. Top-Down Memo (Minto Pyramid) **Purpose**: Answer-first writing — lead with the conclusion, then MECE arguments, then evidence. **Structure**: LEAD (one sentence answer) → ARG 1 (claim + evidence) → ARG 2 → ARG 3 → (optional) Risks/Open Questions. **The test**: Can the reader stop after the first paragraph and know what you think? If they need to read to the end, you wrote a story, not a memo. ### 10. Storyline Builder **Purpose**: Build presentation storylines where each line = one slide title, creating logical narrative flow. **Key characteristics**: - Each line = action-oriented message (not topic label) - Logical flow: Problem → Context → Analysis → Solution → Roadmap - Reader must understand the full story from titles alone **Templates by situation**: - Market Strategy/Pitch Deck: Market opportunity → Competitive position → Product strategy → Roadmap - Internal Problem-Solving: Problem framing → Root cause → Solution options → Prioritization → Next steps - Project Roadmap: Approach → Phases → Activities → Timeline → Success criteria ### 11. Meeting Prep Kit **Purpose**: Personal prep tool for meetings where YOU are driving an outcome. **Output sections**: - Pre-read (3 bullets, ≤30 words each) — minimum context needed - Time-boxed agenda (adds up to meeting length, decision time reserved at end) - Talking points (top 3, in spoken language) — lead with strongest, address elephant, make ask - Anticipated objections (top 3 with rebuttals per person) **Design rules**: Outcome-first, top 3 not all 12, speakable not slidable. ### 12. Stakeholder Map **Purpose**: Map people onto Power/Interest grid with stance (Champion / Supporter / Neutral / Skeptic / Blocker / Unknown) and one influence move per person. **Quadrants**: - **Manage Closely** (High Power, High Interest) — deciders, most time goes here - **Keep Satisfied** (High Power, Low Interest) — pre-brief so they're never surprised - **Keep Informed** (Low Power, High Interest) — give them a role - **Monitor** (Low Power, Low Interest) — quarterly update enough **Key Rules**: Real names not roles. Honest stances. Coalition sequence (who to align first). ### 13. Workshop Designer **Purpose**: Design half-day or full-day workshops that end with committed artifacts and named owners. **Design rules**: - One outcome (not three) - Diverge then converge (never both at once) - Breakouts < 4 people - Energy curve: heavy thinking morning, decisions afternoon (never right after lunch) - Pre-build the artifact template - Facilitator plays referee, not participant **Output**: Workshop charter → Hour-by-hour agenda → Breakout playbook → Facilitator "what if" notes → Artifact template → Post-workshop send (24-hour SLA). ### 14. McKinsey Charts (Native PowerPoint) **Purpose**: Generate McKinsey-style charts as native python-pptx objects (editable in PowerPoint). **Three chart types**: 1. **bar_callout**: Single-series column with one highlighted bar + callout textbox. Use for TAM/single-number stories. 2. **stacked_bar_over_time**: Stacked column over time with one series highlighted. Use for composition/mix stories. 3. **waterfall**: Start → adds → subtracts → total bridge. Use for revenue/cost bridge analysis. **Design choices (intentional, not configurable)**: - Title is a claim, not a label - One highlight color (everything else grey) - No gridlines, no chart border - Source line bottom-left in grey italic - Single font (Inter), consistent sizes **Dependencies**: Python 3.9+, python-pptx. See `references/charts.py` for the full implementation. ### 15. McKinsey Critic (EM Review) **Purpose**: Review decks, docs, and strategies like a McKinsey engagement manager at 2am before a client presentation. **Grading**: Green (ready) / Yellow (fixable overnight) / Red (needs rework). **What it checks**: - Narrative flow (Problem → Context → Analysis → Solution) - Data rigor (specific numbers, sources, fair comparisons) - So-what on every slide - Claim-based titles vs topic titles - Frameworks vs bullet lists - Financial frames where needed **Output format**: Grade → Section-by-section table → Top 3 fixes (ranked by impact) → One thing that works. --- ## Common Pitfalls ### General Consulting Mistakes - **Skipping the hypothesis tree**: The #1 reason strategy work takes 3x longer than it should. Commit to an answer before you start. - **Boiling the ocean**: Don't investigate every branch of an issue tree. Prioritize by Impact × Effort and start with the highest-impact, lowest-effort branches. - **Chronological narratives**: The way you thought about something is the opposite of how the reader needs to hear it. Lead with the answer. - **Synthesis by list**: "Here are 7 themes" is clustering, not synthesis. Cut to 3 with implication. - **Missing the so-what**: Every insight/argument needs an explicit implication. If the reader doesn't know what to do next, you haven't finished. ### SCPR Mistakes - **Situation too detailed**: Keep to essential context only. - **Complication = Problem**: They're different. Complication is "what changed," Problem is "what question to solve." - **Overlapping recommendations**: Ensure MECE structure. - **No timelines**: Always include "by when" in recommendations. ### Issue Tree Mistakes - **Actions instead of fundamentals**: Level 1 decomposes the problem (Price × Quantity), not solutions. - **Not MECE**: Overlapping branches or missing key dimensions. - **Too deep**: 2 levels from governing question max. - **Not testable**: Terminal branches must be provable/disprovable with data. ### Decision Memo Mistakes - **Bullet-point soup with no storyline**: Must flow as Situation → Complication → Resolution. - **Decision-averse hedging**: "We should consider..." — recommend or don't write the memo. - **Missing numbers**: "Significant impact" without specificity. - **Recommendation leaked into options**: Options are neutral; recommendation is separate. - **Ask = "discuss next steps"**: The ask must be a specific yes/no with owner and date. ### Top-Down Memo Mistakes - **Burying the lead**: Don't start with "Over the last 6 weeks, the team explored..." Lead with the answer. - **Topic-shaped arguments**: "Pricing" is a topic. "Pricing is 2.4x the standalone value" is an argument. - **More than 4 arguments**: You haven't synthesized. - **Evidence that doesn't defend its argument**: Each bullet should clearly serve the headline. ### Stakeholder Map Mistakes - **Mapping by title, not by power**: The CTO might not care; the staff eng who's been there 8 years might be the blocker. - **Skipping the "unknown" stance**: Unknown is honest. "I think they're supportive" without evidence is wishful. - **Over-engaging Monitor quadrant**: Don't burn cycles converting people who don't care. - **No coalition sequence**: Knowing who matters isn't enough. You need the order of alignment. ### Workshop Design Mistakes - **Multi-outcome workshops**: "Alignment + brainstorm + decisions" = none of the three. Pick one. - **No artifact template**: "We'll write it up" = it doesn't get written up. Pre-build. - **Mixing divergent and convergent**: "Let's brainstorm options and pick the best one in 45 min" produces neither good options nor a defensible pick. - **Decision moment right after lunch**: Energy nadir. Schedule application work there, not commitment. - **The sponsor facilitates**: They have a stake. Pick a neutral facilitator. ### McKinsey Charts Mistakes - **No python-pptx installed**: The chart code requires `pip install python-pptx`. Run this before calling chart functions. - **Using images instead of native charts**: The whole point is editable charts. Never paste screenshots of charts — use the python-pptx functions. - **More than 5 series stacked**: Split into small multiples instead. - **Rainbow charts**: One highlight color, everything else grey. No rainbow. ### Deck Pipeline Mistakes - **Running the pipeline without a clear audience**: The Strategist needs to know who the deck is for. - **Skipping stages**: Each agent in the pipeline serves a distinct purpose. Skipping the Critic means shipping an un-reviewed deck. - **Missing the critic's top 3 fixes**: The Critic identifies the highest-impact problems. Fix those and only those before polish. --- ## Verification ### For Any Consulting Output 1. **Memo/Top-Down Memo**: Can the reader stop after the first paragraph and know the answer? Is every claim backed by a number, quote, or source? 2. **Issue Tree**: Is the governing question specific and answerable? Are branches MECE? Are terminal branches testable with data? 3. **Hypothesis Tree**: Is there a clear Day-1 answer? Can each test kill its branch? Is there an overall kill-criterion? 4. **Storyline**: Can you understand the full argument from slide titles alone? Are titles claims, not topics? 5. **Synthesis**: Did the output change how the reader will act? Are insights claims (not topics) with evidence and so-what? 6. **Decision Memo**: ~400 words max? Last line is a yes/no ask with owner and date? 7. **Stakeholder Map**: Are stances honest? Is there a coalition sequence? Is each stakeholder mapped by power (not title)? 8. **Meeting Prep**: Do talking points ladder to the outcome? Are objections specific per person? 9. **Workshop**: Is there one outcome? Pre-built artifact template? Facilitator "what if" playbook? 10. **McKinsey Charts**: Are charts native pptx objects (right-click → Edit Data)? Is there a source line? One highlight color? 11. **Deck Pipeline**: Check the Critic's grade. If Yellow/Red, apply all top 3 fixes before shipping. 12. **McKinsey Critic**: Run the output through the critic before it reaches stakeholders. Fix structure before polish. ### Python Charts Verification ```bash pip install python-pptx python references/charts.py # Generates test_output.pptx with all 3 chart types ``` Open `test_output.pptx` in PowerPoint and right-click any chart → Edit Data to confirm it's a native chart object. --- ## Composition Patterns Most real work uses 2–3 of these together: | Need | Stack | |------|-------| | Customer research → memo | Synthesis → Top-Down Memo → McKinsey Critic | | Strategic question → recommendation | Issue Tree → Hypothesis Tree → run tests → Decision Memo | | Big decision with politics | Stakeholder Map → Decision Memo → Meeting Prep Kit | | Board deck (production) | Issue Tree → Storyline Builder → Charts → Deck Pipeline → Critic | | Offsite / alignment workshop | Workshop Designer → Meeting Prep Kit → Top-Down Memo | | Pricing or feature analysis | Issue Tree → Prioritization → Decision Memo | | Weekly exec update | Synthesis (of week's data) → Top-Down Memo (the ask) | | Product launch proposal | SCPR Framework → Storyline Builder → Charts → Deck Pipeline | | Quarterly planning | Workshop Designer → Prioritization → Top-Down Memo (post-send) |