Roland Berger Consultant Interview: Complete Guide

Prompt: A German Mittelstand automotive supplier (Tier 1, €900M revenue, family-owned) is seeing EBITDA compression from the EV transition. OEM customers want lower prices on ICE components and smaller volumes on new EV-specific parts. The CEO — also the owner — wants a three-year restructuring plan. Where do you start?

How to structure: Roland Berger's heartland: European industrial, automotive value chain, Mittelstand family-business dynamics. Structure around (1) ICE-portfolio run-off economics — how much EBITDA can be preserved via operational cost-out and footprint consolidation?; (2) EV-transition capability — which components can the firm pivot to, and what capex is required?; (3) restructuring and performance levers — inventory, working capital, SG&A, plant footprint. Flag the family-ownership constraint early: a publicly-traded Tier 1 would close a plant faster than a Mittelstand owner might.

What a strong answer sounds like: A strong answer explicitly names the automotive value chain position (Tier 1, ICE vs EV-specific, platform vs module), references restructuring and performance levers (footprint, working capital, SG&A) by name, and treats the family-ownership dimension as a real constraint rather than ignoring it. It ends with a sequenced plan — cost-out in year one to fund pivot capex in year two — not a single simultaneous recommendation.

Common weakness: Mediocre answers treat this as a generic profitability case and recommend 'cut SG&A 10% and pivot to EV' without engaging with Mittelstand ownership economics (the owner may prioritise jobs and family legacy over pure EBITDA optimisation) or the sequencing of cash requirements for the EV pivot. They also miss that an automotive Tier 1 without EV platform exposure faces a genuinely existential 5-year question, not a margin-improvement exercise.

Source: https://www.rolandberger.com/en/Insights/Global-Topics/Automotive/

Prompt: A European utility (German, €12B revenue) is under regulatory pressure to accelerate its Energy Transition — phase out coal generation by 2030, invest €8B in renewables, and maintain grid reliability. The CFO wants a capital-allocation and portfolio recommendation. How would you structure this?

How to structure: Energy Transition practice case. Decompose the portfolio into (1) legacy generation run-off (coal, lignite) — stranded-asset risk, decommissioning costs, regulatory timeline; (2) renewables buildout — onshore wind, offshore wind, solar, storage — with capex intensity and return profiles; (3) grid and flexibility — interconnection, battery storage, demand response. Quantify the €8B capital pool against the realistic MW-per-euro return by technology. Flag regulatory dependency — utility returns in Germany are rate-regulated, which caps upside even on well-executed buildouts.

What a strong answer sounds like: A strong candidate names the Energy Transition practice area explicitly, quantifies €8B capex against realistic capacity ranges (~2-4 GW depending on mix), and sequences the coal phase-out against the renewable ramp to avoid a reliability gap. They flag the German regulatory context (rate-regulated returns, grid-operator separation rules) as a genuine constraint on the strategic options, not an afterthought.

Common weakness: Weak answers recommend 'invest €8B in offshore wind' without acknowledging that offshore wind in Germany is slot-constrained by regulatory auctions, or that €8B translates to very different MW depending on technology mix. They also miss the reliability-transition sequencing — pulling coal capacity before renewable plus storage is online is a regulatory non-starter.