After going through the details of the case, how can I start the case? Every time when I see a case interview question with a solution, I am quite comfortable in understanding the solution. However, I haven't been able to take the initial step on my own.

The thing is you are probably trying to solve the case, which is not what you are going to be evaluated on.

Structure and logical approach allow you to find an answer, and that is what consultants should do. Having an answer before structuring often means the answer is wrong an or you think too highly of yourself - both no gos.

Step 1: Repeat back what you heard

Paraphrase the prompt in one sentence. Shows you listened. Buys you time to think.

Step 2: Confirm the goal

Ask: "So we're trying to decide whether to [do X], correct?" or "The objective is to [increase profit/enter market/etc], right?" Lock in what success looks like.

Step 3: Ask 2-3 clarifying questions

Not random questions. Ask what changes your approach:

• Geography or market scope
• Time horizon
• Constraints (budget, capacity, risk tolerance)
• Product/customer specifics if vague

Step 4: Take 30-60 seconds to structure

objective, buckets, subbuckets

Step 5: Present your structure

Walk them through it in 30 seconds: "To figure out if [client should do X], I want to look at three areas: [A, B, C]. Within A, I'll examine. Within B,. I'd start with A because [reason]. Does that sound reasonable?"

You just need a logical map.

Hi Krishna,

This is very common, and it usually means you’re missing a default starting routine, not that you lack ability. Understanding solutions is a sign you’re on the right track — you just need a repeatable first move.

Here’s how to start any case, step by step:

1) Restate the objective
Say the goal in your own words to align and buy time.
Example: “So the goal is to understand why profits declined and what the client should do to improve them.”

2) Ask 1–2 clarifying questions
Only ask things that materially change the analysis (time frame, scope, definition of success). Don’t overdo it.

3) Propose a simple top-level structure
This is where people freeze — the trick is to keep it basic. Most cases can start with:

• Revenue vs costs
• Market attractiveness vs internal capabilities
• Value drivers vs feasibility vs risks

You’re not committing to this structure forever — it’s just a starting hypothesis.

4) Pick a starting point and explain why
Choose one branch and justify it briefly.
Example: “I’d start with costs since revenue seems stable and margins declined.”

That’s it. You don’t need the perfect framework — you need a reasonable first step.

How to practice this
Take random case prompts and practice only the first 2 minutes: restate, clarify, structure, choose where to start. Don’t solve the case. Repeat until this opening feels automatic.

Once you have a consistent opening routine, the hesitation disappears and the rest of the case flows much more naturally.

Best,

Evelina

Hello Krishna! 

This is extremely common for beginners, so you’re not alone. I faced the exact same challenge as a candidate, so I know how frustrating it is.

The main issue is usually not capability, but lack of a clear starting routine. When you see a solution, it feels obvious, but generating structure from a blank page is a different skill.

How to fix it:

• Start every case the same way: clarify the objective, define success, and restate the problem in your own words
• Then lay out a simple, top-down structure (don’t aim for perfection)
• Only after that, dive into analysis

At the beginning, it’s crucial to learn the basics properly — how to structure, how to think MECE, how to open a case. Once that foundation is solid, peer practice becomes much more effective.

As a coach, I’m here to help you — we can build those fundamentals step by step, give you a repeatable case-opening framework, and get you confident enough to train efficiently on your own and with peers.

This is one of the most common problems I see, and the reason is almost always the same.

Why you feel stuck:

When you read a case solution, everything looks logical. But in the interview with a blank page, your brain freezes because you are trying to remember the "right" first step. That is the trap. There is no right first step. There is only a logical first step based on what you just heard.

The real problem is that case books and YouTube have trained you to search for a matching template instead of actually thinking about the problem in front of you. You are trying to remember instead of trying to think.

How to fix it. Do three things when the interviewer finishes the case:

1. Repeat the question back in your own words. Something like "So the client wants to know whether they should enter this market, and the key concern is profitability." This buys you time and makes sure you are solving the right problem.
2. Ask yourself: "What would I need to know to answer this?" Not what framework fits. Just, what information do I actually need? If the client is thinking about entering a market, you probably need to understand the market size, the competition, whether the client can compete, and the economics. That is not a framework. That is common sense.
3. Lay it out for the interviewer. "I would like to explore three things: the attractiveness of this market, the client's ability to compete, and the financial viability. Let me start with the market." That is it. You have just started the case.

Stop thinking "what structure should I use" and start thinking "what do I need to figure out to answer this question." When you make that shift, starting becomes natural.

Practice this with cases you have never seen before. No prep, no reading the solution first. Do it 10 to 15 times and starting will stop feeling like a wall.

Feel free to reach out if you want to work through a few cases together to build that muscle.

This is the most common point of failure for high-potential candidates, so you are asking exactly the right question. The reason you freeze is that you think the initial step requires immediate, novel insight, when in reality, it's a repeatable, low-stakes procedural ritual.

Here is the insider perspective: The first five minutes are designed solely to evaluate whether you can build a credible work plan. The interviewer is not grading your answer; they are grading the map you create to get to the answer. If the map is logical, the journey will be logical.

To stop the freeze, you need to turn the opening into a non-negotiable ritual that you perform the exact same way every time.

1. Confirmation and Buy-Time (30 seconds): Paraphrase the prompt and confirm the single key metric of success. This secures the anchor point. (e.g., "So, we are evaluating whether Client X should enter the South American market, with the core objective being profitability in the first three years, correct?")

2. Strategic Clarification (1-2 minutes): Ask 2–3 clarifying questions that genuinely narrow the scope or reveal constraints. Don't ask obvious fluff. Ask the things that directly inform your structure: Are there hard capital expenditure limits? Is the focus on a specific customer segment? What is our time horizon? This shows you understand the practical limits of the client situation.

3. The Silent Structure (60 seconds): Take the pause. State clearly, "I need about a minute to structure my thoughts." Write down the objective, then the 3-4 core buckets that logically support that objective. Use clear, mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive (MECE) headings.

4. Present and Validate: Walk the interviewer through the map you created and, crucially, finish by asking, "Does that structure capture the areas you believe are most important, or would you prefer I dive into a specific area first?"

This approach removes the pressure to solve immediately and proves you can define the problem before attacking it—the hallmark of an exceptional consultant.

Hope it helps!

Hi Krishna, 

That's absolutely normal when you're starting out. 

Try to lower your expectations for now. Try coming up not with the perfect structure, but with your best-effort-version. It's likely going to be incomplete or perhaps plain wrong, but the point is that you get going. Then take a look at the sample answer and see how you could improve your own. 

Then gradually you'll get better. 

Sharing here a guide that you might find useful:

• • Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

And if you're looking for some extra, targeted help, I run a first principles structuring session that is specifically targeted at how to approach structuring. 

Best,
Cristian

Hi there,

A simple way to start is this: once you’re clear on the objective, outline the key areas (or buckets) you’d want to look at that could materially change your recommendation. Then briefly break each area down into the type of analysis you would run.

Early on it can feel a bit awkward or forced, that’s completely normal. Do a few cases this way and you’ll start to see patterns, and structuring the opening will become much more natural.

This is actually a very common phase in case prep — and it’s a good sign.

If you can understand the solution comfortably, your analytical ability is likely fine. The real gap is usually in starting with structure under uncertainty.

Here’s how to fix that.

1. Separate “understanding solutions” from “generating structure”

When you read a solved case, your brain is in recognition mode:

“Yes, that makes sense.”

But in an interview, you need to be in generation mode:

“How do I break this problem down from scratch?”

These are two different skills. To build the second one, you need to practice structuring before looking at any solution — even if it feels messy.

2. Use a consistent starting routine

Don’t improvise the first step. Standardize it.

After hearing the prompt:

Step 1: Clarify the objective

• What exactly are we trying to achieve?
• What metric defines success?

Step 2: Restate the problem

• In one sentence, in your own words.

Step 3: Ask yourself:

“What must be true for this objective to be achieved?”

That question naturally leads you to 2–3 main drivers.

For example:

• Profit problem → Revenue & Costs
• Market entry → Market attractiveness & Company capabilities
• Growth → Increase volume or increase price

You don’t need brilliance. You need logical drivers.

3. Think in drivers, not ideas

Many candidates freeze because they try to “think of smart ideas.”

Instead, think:

“What are the big buckets that logically determine this outcome?”

Once the buckets are clear, ideas will come inside them.

Structure first. Ideas second.

4. Practice only the first 5 minutes

Instead of doing full cases every time, do drills where you:

• Read a prompt
• Take 2 minutes
• Deliver only the structure

Stop there.

This isolates the exact muscle you’re struggling with.

5. Accept imperfect first attempts

Your first 20 structures won’t feel great. That’s normal.

The goal isn’t perfection — it’s building a repeatable thinking process.

Confidence at the start of a case doesn’t come from talent.
It comes from having a reliable opening routine.

If you’d like, happy to walk through an example together and break down how to build structure step by step 🙂