Guidance on Improving my Case Structuring.

Question

Hi, I’d really appreciate some guidance on improving my case structuring.

So far, I’ve done three full cases and realized that my structuring was a weak point. To work on this specifically, I started doing structuring drills on Road to Offer. However, my scores have been inconsistent; I got 6/10 on my first drill, then dropped to 3/10 and 2/10 on the next two.

I’m struggling to understand why this is happening and feel like I might be stuck in a loop where I can identify that something is wrong, but I don’t know how to systematically fix it.

I’d really value advice on a step-by-step approach to improving, specifically:

How to build strong, reliable structuring skills from the ground up
How to diagnose exactly where my structures are falling short
What concrete steps should I follow to fix those gaps (not just identify them)
How to transition from doing structuring drills to performing well in full cases
What a realistic improvement roadmap looks like between now and September (given that I may not be able to prep consistently for one of the months)

Right now, I feel a bit overwhelmed and unsure if I’m focusing on the right things, so any structured guidance or frameworks for improvement would be extremely helpful.

Thank you so much!

Answer 1

Hi,

Right now, your inconsistency is normal after only three full cases. A 6/10 to 2/10 drop does not mean you are getting worse; it usually means you are facing different problem types and your structure is not yet built on clear principles.

A good structure should do three things: answer the exact question, be MECE enough to investigate logically, and show a clear path to a recommendation.

To improve, review each drill and ask: Did I miss a major bucket? Were my buckets too generic? Did I tailor to the client’s objective? Did I include a way to test or quantify the issue? That will tell you whether the problem is content knowledge, logic, tailoring, or prioritization.

For practice, use a simple loop: do one structure, compare it to a strong answer, rewrite yours, then write down one specific lesson. For example: “In profitability cases, always split revenue and cost, but tailor the sub-buckets to the business model.” This is much more useful than doing many drills passively.

Once your structures become more stable, move back into full cases. In full cases, focus less on creating a perfect framework and more on using the structure as a working roadmap that guides your questions, analysis, and final recommendation.

Between now and September, aim for steady improvement rather than intensity. Spend the first phase rebuilding fundamentals, the second phase doing mixed structuring drills, and the final phase doing full cases with targeted feedback. Even with one inconsistent month, you can improve a lot if each practice session has a clear correction point.

Most importantly: you are not stuck; you just need a feedback system. Don’t ask “Was this good or bad?” Ask “What exact thinking habit caused the weakness, and what rule will I use next time?”

If you need any tailored help, feel free to DM me

Best,
Franco

Answer 2

Hi,

What you’re describing is actually very typical at this stage. You’ve only done a few cases, then switched to drills — it feels like you’re getting worse, but in reality you’re just becoming more aware of what good structuring looks like.

A couple of thoughts that might help you get unstuck.

First, the inconsistency (6 → 3 → 2) is not unusual. Structuring isn’t a “memory skill,” it’s a thinking habit. Until that habit stabilizes, your performance will fluctuate.

The core issue I usually see is this:
people try to be MECE and “structured,” but they don’t start from the question itself.

Before writing anything, force yourself to pause and ask:
what exactly am I trying to figure out?
Then: what would need to be true for me to answer that?

Your first-level buckets should come from that — not from memorized frameworks. If they don’t directly answer the question, they’ll feel off.

Second, don’t try to fix everything at once. That’s what creates the feeling of being stuck.

If I were you, I’d narrow the focus:
for a few days, only care about getting the first level right. Nothing else.
Are your buckets directly linked to the objective? Are they non-overlapping? That’s it.

Only once that feels more natural, move to the second level.

Third, be more deliberate in how you review drills.

After each one, instead of just looking at the score, ask yourself:

did my structure actually answer the question?
did I miss an obvious driver (like price/volume, revenue/cost)?
was I too generic?

If you can’t clearly diagnose it, that’s where you’re blocked.

Also, don’t stay only in drills. They help, but they don’t fully translate unless you apply them in real cases. Try to mix in a couple of full cases and consciously focus on your structure at the start.

On timeline: you’re early enough that this is very fixable. Even with some inconsistency, a few focused weeks on structuring can change things quite a bit, and you still have time until September.

If I had to simplify it:
you’re not stuck — you just don’t have a consistent method yet.
Build from the question, fix one layer at a time, and review your mistakes more deliberately.

That’s usually when things start to click.

Best,

Soheil