Roland Berger case interview: 4 practice cases with worked examples (2026)

The Roland Berger case interview is a live business case, usually 30 to 45 minutes, often led by the interviewer but run as a conversation, and commonly set in the industries the firm is best known for: automotive, machinery, transport, energy and restructuring. Each interview typically pairs the case with questions about your CV and motivation. Candidates commonly report two or three rounds, the last with partners. Some offices add an online test or a written exercise, and in German-speaking and other European offices part of the process may be in the local language. Practice varies by office, so check your invitation.

Roland Berger was founded in Munich in 1967 and is commonly described as one of the largest strategy consultancies of European origin. That shows in the cases. Expect clients such as a family-owned machinery maker, a state-owned rail operator or an automotive supplier under price pressure, and questions that test whether you understand how an industrial business makes money: plants and fixed costs, installed bases and spare parts, networks and utilisation.

Two cases in our library are written in the Roland Berger style. We add two European industrial and transport cases written in other firms' styles (Kearney and McKinsey) because they sit squarely in Roland Berger's territory: an automotive supplier's procurement bill and a short-haul airline's shrinking margin. All four have guided walkthroughs.

Start with Falkenrath: the structure is a classic installed-base sizing and the maths is clean. Nordwind is free and a good second case. Leave Arvena until last, because it asks you to hold segments, costs and competition law in your head at once.

The core method is the same: clarify, structure, analyse, recommend. The differences are mostly in subject matter and interview style. The table shows tendencies reported by candidates, not rules; interviewers and offices vary.

Falkenrath Maschinenbau builds a service business

The prompt. Falkenrath Maschinenbau is a family-owned German maker of filling and packaging machines for food and pharmaceutical producers, with EUR 400m of revenue. Equipment sales have been flat at about EUR 340m for five years, and the new CEO wants services (maintenance contracts, spare parts and remote monitoring) to become the growth engine. How big is the opportunity, and how should Falkenrath capture it? Ask and you learn that growth must be funded from cash flow, machines run for about 15 years, services bring in EUR 60m, and customers spend about EUR 50k a year per machine on parts and maintenance, with whoever supplies them.

A fitting structure. Size the installed base by cohort (machines sold × share still running), then the service wallet (machines × spend per machine). Measure Falkenrath's share of that wallet by machine age and find where the rest goes. Then levers against each leak, the value of the plan against selling more machines, and feasibility: engineers, agents abroad, funding.

The calculations. Installed base: 2,000 + 2,000 × 90% + 1,600 × 50% = 2,000 + 1,800 + 800 = 4,600 machines, 83% of them under 10 years old. Service wallet: 4,600 × EUR 50k = EUR 230m a year, about two thirds of annual equipment revenue. Falkenrath's EUR 60m is about 26% of it.

Roland BergerFalkenrath Maschinenbau builds a service businessGrowth Strategy · Medium

Falkenrath Maschinenbau builds a service business

Finish it: who captures the wallet as machines age, the levers, and services against machines on EBIT.

Interviewer

Our client, Falkenrath Maschinenbau, is a family-owned German maker of filling and packaging machines for food and pharmaceutical producers, with EUR 400m of revenue. Equipment sales have been flat at about EUR 340m for five years, and the new CEO, the founder's granddaughter, wants services (maintenance contracts, spare parts and remote monitoring) to become the growth engine. How big is the service opportunity, and what should Falkenrath do to capture it?

Start the caseGuided, step by step

Arvena Rail faces a low-cost rival

The prompt. Arvena Rail is the state-owned national rail operator of a mid-size European country. Its most profitable route, the high-speed line between the capital and the second city, faces Velora, a low-cost open-access operator launching in 12 months with fares averaging EUR 35 against Arvena's EUR 65. How much revenue is at risk, and how should Arvena respond? Ask and you learn the route earns EUR 208m of contribution, Arvena cannot block the entrant, its pricing is watched for predation, and about 95% of route cost varies with the trains run, not the passengers carried.

A fitting structure. Size revenue at risk by segment (passengers × switch rate × fare), then translate it into contribution. Allow for the entrant growing the market. Judge each lever by segment: price (across the board or fenced), frequency, product tiers. Cost the options, check capacity on existing trains, and test them against competition law.

The calculations. Switchers: 2.0m × 5% = 0.1m business and 6.0m × 20% = 1.2m leisure, 1.3m in all, about 16% of passengers. Leisure is 92% of them. Business travellers are a quarter of passengers but 42% of revenue (EUR 220m of 520m). The average fare checks out: EUR 520m ÷ 8.0m = EUR 65.

Roland BergerArvena Rail faces a low-cost rivalCompetitive Response · Hard

Arvena Rail faces a low-cost rival

Hard. Finish it: a benchmark corridor, revenue at risk, the cost of matching, spare capacity and the response.

Interviewer

Our client, Arvena Rail, is the state-owned national rail operator of a mid-size European country. Its most profitable route, the high-speed line between the capital, Mirena, and the second city, Talvik, is about to face competition: Velora, a low-cost open-access operator, has secured train paths and launches in 12 months with fares averaging EUR 35, against Arvena's EUR 65. The CEO wants to know how much revenue is at risk and how Arvena should respond. How would you approach this?

Start the caseGuided, step by step

These two are written in Kearney and McKinsey styles, both interviewer-led. The clients, a European automotive supplier and a northern European airline, are typical of Roland Berger's work.

Brennick Automotive cuts its supplier bill

The prompt. Brennick Automotive makes braking and chassis components for car makers in Europe and North America. Its customers demand price cuts every year and its operating margin has fallen to 4%. The CEO wants procurement spend cut by 8%: which levers get there, and what is each worth? Ask and you learn the target applies to $1.0bn of addressable spend, must be reached at run-rate within 24 months, and that moving a part to a new supplier needs re-approval, typically 3 to 9 months.

A fitting structure. Read the spend cube category by category (spend, number of suppliers, concentration, how price is set), match a lever to each, build the savings against the target, then test feasibility: re-approval time, quality, supply risk.

The calculations. The target: 8% × $1.0bn = $80m a year, more than Brennick's entire operating profit of about $64m (4% of $1.6bn revenue). Castings and machined parts, $412m, are bought from 131 suppliers with low concentration. Steel and electronics, $420m, are either index-linked or concentrated. Indirect has 40% × $120m = $48m off contract.

KearneyBrennick Automotive cuts its supplier billOperations · Medium

Brennick Automotive cuts its supplier bill

Written in Kearney's style. Finish it: castings by supplier, a should-cost model and the savings build against $80m.

Interviewer

Our client, Brennick Automotive, makes braking and chassis components for car makers in Europe and North America. Its customers demand price cuts every year and its operating margin has fallen to 4%. The CEO has set a target to cut procurement spend by 8% and wants to know which levers will get there and how much each is worth. How would you approach this?

Start the caseGuided, step by step

Nordwind Airlines: the vanishing margin

The prompt. Nordwind Airlines is a short-haul carrier operating out of northern Europe. Over three years passenger numbers have grown 18%, but operating profit has fallen by about 40%. What is driving this, and what should the airline do? Ask and you learn management blames a low-cost entrant's fares, and the CEO wants profit back above EUR 150m within two years.

A fitting structure. Profit = revenue (passengers × average fare) less cost. Split cost into cost per flight × flights, and cost per flight by line: fuel, aircraft, crew, maintenance, airport, ground handling, overhead. Test management's fare hypothesis first, then follow the numbers.

The calculations. The fare effect: 22.7m passengers × EUR 3 ≈ EUR 68m of revenue lost to lower fares. Yet revenue still grew about EUR 181m, while costs grew about EUR 242m. Flights grew 25% for 18% more passengers, so each flight carries fewer people: about 128 against 135.

McKinseyNordwind Airlines: the vanishing marginProfitability · Medium

Nordwind Airlines: the vanishing margin

Free, written in McKinsey's style. Finish it: cost per flight by line, turnaround times and fleet utilisation.

Interviewer

Our client is Nordwind Airlines, a short-haul carrier operating out of northern Europe. Over the past three years passenger numbers have grown 18%, but operating profit has fallen by roughly 40%. The CEO wants to understand what is driving this and what to do about it. How would you approach the problem?

Start the caseGuided, step by step

Roland Berger is known for its work with industrial and transport clients, many of them European, and for restructuring. Its cases are commonly reported to reflect that, which rewards a few pieces of industry logic most candidates never practise.

• Installed base and aftermarket. Machines, vehicles and plants run for years; spare parts and service often earn far more margin than the original sale. Size the base by cohort before sizing anything else.
• Fixed cost and utilisation. Plants, trains and aircraft cost money whether full or not. Contribution and utilisation explain most profit swings, so separate fixed from variable cost early.
• Supplier and customer power. Automotive suppliers face annual price-downs from car makers; procurement and should-cost are core levers.
• Ownership and regulation. Family-owned firms fund growth from cash and guard independence; state-owned operators face regulators and competition law. Ask about both early.

• Can you size an installed base from sales cohorts and survival rates in under two minutes?
• Do you size revenue at risk segment by segment, at each segment's own price?
• Do you separate fixed from variable cost before saying what a lost customer or a closed site is worth?
• Can you match a cost lever to each spend category instead of asking for 'a 10% cut everywhere'?
• Do your clarifying questions surface ownership, funding and regulatory constraints?
• Can you explain why Roland Berger, and why this office, with something specific to its clients and work?

1. Start with Falkenrath: redo the first exhibit's maths yourself, then run the case guided.
2. Run Nordwind and Brennick live with the AI interviewer, out loud and timed at about 30 minutes.
3. Take Arvena last, live, and give the 60-second recommendation to a friend who has not seen the case.
4. After each case, check yourself against the list above and drill the weakest skill before the next one.
5. For more firms with similar styles, read our Kearney and Oliver Wyman guides.