Growth Case Frame Work Question

Great question — and this is a common point of confusion when people start casing.

This prompt sounds like a market entry or growth strategy case, but before jumping into frameworks or solutions, the first thing you need to do is clarify the objective. What exactly does "grow market share" mean in this context? Are we talking about volume, revenue, specific regions, or target customer segments? Without that clarity, any framework you build will be misaligned from the start — and that’s where a lot of candidates get tripped up.

Once you’ve clarified the objective, you don’t need to jump straight into solution ideas like “acquire competitors” in your initial framework. Instead, think of your structure as the lens you’ll use to explore how growth might be possible. A clean growth framework might include:

• Market Attractiveness (size, growth, trends, regulatory)
• Customer Segments (needs, preferences, willingness to pay)
• Competitor Landscape (market share, pricing, distribution)
• Company Capabilities (brand, ops, distribution, pricing power)

You’ll dig into each area with the interviewer and uncover insights. Then, as you synthesize what you’re learning, you’ll start to form and test hypotheses — “Maybe pricing is too high,” “Maybe distribution is weak in Tier 2 cities,” etc. That’s when your proposed growth levers come in — in the analysis and recommendation phase, not in the initial framework.

So in short:

• Start by clarifying the objective
• Build a structured approach to explore drivers of growth
• Let your solutions emerge as you analyze and narrow in on what’s blocking growth or where the opportunity is

This is a key skill to master — setting up the case right makes the rest of it much smoother.

Hope it helps!

Hey Li :)

That’s a great question and something many people get confused about. In a growth case, your framework should set up the structure to find the right growth strategy, not list the strategies upfront. So in the beginning, your framework should focus on the drivers and areas that could lead to growth — typically Market, Customer, Company, and Competition. Within “Company,” you can include possible levers like new products, pricing, or distribution as sub-buckets to explore, but don’t jump straight to suggesting them.

The actual growth strategies (e.g., acquisitions, price changes, marketing campaigns) come later, once you’ve analyzed where the biggest opportunities lie. That’s when you synthesize and recommend specific actions.

So: in the framework → broad categories to diagnose; in the recommendation → concrete growth strategies.

best, Alessa :)

Hi, 

Thanks for your question. That is a very common confusion especially for beginners.

The purpose of your framework is to help you solve the case which if broken in two parts would mean -

A. Identify the business problem and the root cause behind it

B. Recommend solutions to solve the problem

The framework will guide you to find  the problem which is A.
Thus, you want to first start with clarifying the objective. Then use your framework to identify the underlying challenges and finally provide your recommendations based on insights generated through the course of the case. 

Outside of the key buckets you listed in your question, market, product, competition and customer, you should add two other buckets - method of entry/expansion and regulatory barriers. 

Method of entry or expansion would cover options of acquistion or licensing. Regulatory barriers would cover if they have any legal challenges which is preventing them from gaining more market share. Both could be interconnected. For example, if a company is a market leader, they may be restricted from growth through acquisition due to anti-trust issues. 

For some good examples of mechanics of solving cases using frameworks you can check out “look over my shoulder” by Victor Cheng.  

Feel free to reach out if any questions. 

Thanks,

Soh

Hi Li!

You're asking the right question — but you're asking it from the wrong paradigm.

The real problem isn’t whether to include growth strategies in your framework or leave them for the recommendation.
The real problem is that you're starting with a framework, when you should be starting with a logic-driven diagnostic.

Because:

Frameworks are a crutch.
They're pre-packaged buckets — not thinking. And MBB isn’t hiring people to plug boxes into boxes.
They're hiring people to rigorously deconstruct the problem in front of them and build a tailored thinking path — from scratch, under pressure.

So let’s do that now — together:

Case prompt recap:

“Nestlé wants to grow market share in China’s bottled water market. Cities are growing. Consumers are shifting away from tap water due to pollution concerns.”

The key word is not “grow.”
The key word is “market share.”

So the real question is not: How do we grow?
The real question is:

Why aren’t we growing faster than competitors — despite favorable market conditions?

That’s a performance gap — not just a blank-sheet brainstorm.

So what’s the rigorous way to think?

Start with a rigorous logic, not a framework. Example:

Market Share = (Our volume / Total market volume)
So to increase share, we need either:

• A) Faster volume growth than the market, or
• B) Shrink the market (unlikely / irrelevant)

Focus on A — and now ask:

Why might our volume be lagging, despite growing demand?

Break it down into clean, mutually exclusive drivers:

1. Distribution

Are we available in the right channels?

• Are we underrepresented in fast-growing cities?
• Do we have strong partnerships with convenience stores, e-commerce, etc.?

2. Consumer Preference

Do consumers want our water vs. alternatives?

• Brand trust?
• Safety perception?
• Packaging format?
• Price sensitivity?

3. Marketing & Positioning

Are we top-of-mind when consumers switch from tap to bottled?

• Are we visible in high-pollution regions where switch is most urgent?
• Is our message resonating with health-conscious or skeptical buyers?

4. Competitor Dynamics

Are rivals out-executing us?

• Faster expansion?
• Better pricing?
• Superior local branding?

Each of those branches is not a generic framework bucket.
They are custom logic branches derived from the problem statement.

Back to your original question:

“Should I include solutions like M&A, pricing, marketing, etc. in my framework?”

No — not unless you've already identified why growth is lagging and those are the precise levers to address it.

Throwing ideas like "increase SKUs" or "acquire a local player" into your framework before diagnosing the problem is like prescribing antibiotics before asking if it’s even an infection.

What MBB interviewers actually want to see:

1. Can you isolate the right question?
   → “Why are we not gaining share?”
2. Can you break it down with logic, not memorized buckets?
   → That’s the root of rigorous problem-solving.
3. Can you navigate the case like an investigator — not a slide filler?
   → This is why they give you unpredictable prompts. To test your thinking, not your memorization.

So ditch the framework mindset.
Instead:

• Start with the performance gap
• Build a hypothesis-driven diagnostic tree
• Use data and clues to isolate the root cause
• THEN propose targeted growth levers as part of your recommendation

That’s how you show you’re not just "prepared for the case" —
You’re already thinking like an MBB Associate.

Hope this helps!
Sidi

___________________

Dr. Sidi S. Koné