After coaching more than 1,000 candidates for big tech firms (think FAANGs - Facebook/Meta, Amazon, Apple, Netflix and Google) and conducting 70+ interviews at Google, I have observed 10 common problems with Product Design/Product Sense case interviews. 

Here I share the list of 10+ issues, with a few links to dive deeper if any of the items listed is a problem for you. 

The List

1. Confusing Goals & Metrics - One of the top problems I see time and again is confusing a class, or category of metrics, for a goal. For example: “My goal will be engagement.” For product design cases, engagement is a class or category of metrics, NOT a goal for product. It is too generic to drive a team against. Now, if you describe what engagement means to the user, you might have a goal the team can drive.

2. Business over User Focus - Candidates often focus on what a business monetization goal might be rather than focusing on solving an unmet need for users who ‘pay’ your product with their attention (so you can sell ads) or pay for your services.

3. Too Framework-y - Sound like a robot, having memorized a framework. Once you learn the framework, you need to use it with comfort; not every question requires every element of any given framework. This was one of the top three reasons I saw interviewers reject candidates at Google.

4. User Groupings On Crude Demos - It is better to focus on behavior or motivation rather than age, demographic, or activity. Also, you want it to be MECE or at least mutually exclusive. The trick: Ask yourself, does it pass the Venn diagram test? And, does it show any sense of empathy with the user?

5. Running out of time for Design - Most candidates get so hung up on the strategic setup, user groupings and/or prioritizations that they forget the most important part of the case is to show off your design chops. Don’t forget you need to describe what the user experience would be like. Back in the day, when there were onsite interviews, you would draw rough wireframes on the whiteboard to help explain what you had in mind.

6. Sounding Like a Robot - This comes in several forms. It is slightly different from “Too Framework-y” because this is related to a lack of vocal variation that makes everything you say blend together. For many, it is the result of over-practicing frameworks, for others, it is just general nerves. (I recommend Claire Fry as a Vocal Confidence coach. “Learn To Love Your Voice group program.

7. Not Focusing on the User - This overlaps a bit with the Business over User Focus but it can also show up generally throughout the case as decisions are made from other points of view or a general approach rather than a focus on the user.

8. Forgetting the Why - One fundamental part of the case interview is the strategic “why” we should even consider the prompt. Many people jump into discussing users without addressing the strategic landscape.

9. Bad Clarifying Questions - For many interviewers, one of the most annoying behaviors is starting by asking ‘what location’? This is annoying because half the time it doesn’t matter, but when it is a concern, it is often secondary to asking better questions about the prompt itself.

10. Too High-Level - This problem can raise its ugly head in multiple locations in a case interview: Clarifying Questions, Strategy, Users, Solutions…

Other Pet Peeves in Product Cases

• Typing an essay on an electronic whiteboard - With the move to online interviews, Google Docs or various electronic whiteboard solutions are now used to help candidates express themselves. Most candidates that rely on these solutions end up typing more than talking. For most product design interviews, this is a bad idea. If the interviewers wanted to read most of your answer, it would be a take-home. You come across poorly in most cases if you overly rely on the document. Use the document as you would a whiteboard for an onsite.

• The document is more helpful for analytics and execution questions than for product design questions.
  

If you are looking for more customized feedback on your interview approach, I offer private and group coaching.