Guidance on Improving my Case Structuring.

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

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

Hey Anonymous,

A lot of great answers from my colleagues, so let me add my two cents on something that might be at the root of your issue: have you considered that there are actually three distinct ways to structure a case, and that mixing them up is probably what's making you feel lost?

The three approaches are Areas of Analysis, Levers, and Process. Most candidates unconsciously jump between them without realizing it, which is where the confusion kicks in.

• Areas of Analysis asks you to map the broad domains worth exploring before converging on any answer. For, say, a PE firm eyeing the US pickleball market, that means Market, Target Business Model, Financial Analysis, and Risks. It keeps you divergent long enough to actually understand the problem.
• Levers breaks the problem into its mechanical drivers. For the same case, something like Market Attractiveness, Target Quality, and Deal Economics. It's clean, but it skips context that matters enormously in PE: are there even acquirable assets? Is the market too fragmented?
• Process follows a sequential logic: Assess Market, Screen Targets, Structure Deal, Create Value, Exit. It can feel intuitive, but each step depends entirely on the previous one, which makes it rigid and hard to navigate under pressure.

Areas of Analysis is by far the safest default. It's comprehensive, easy for the interviewer to follow, and mirrors how real consulting engagements are structured. Stick to it as your go-to, tailor the sub-bullets to the specific industry and prompt, and only layer on a hypothesis once you've gathered enough data. Full breakdown with a worked example here:(https://www.preplounge.com/consulting-forum/how-to-effectively-structure-a-case-24740#answer-103422). 

And one last thing: roughly 50% of the coachees I work with struggle with structure for exactly this reason, they mix approaches without realizing it. Maybe that's your case too!
 

Best,

Tom

PS (for you and all the other candidates): Feel free to DM me for a free PDF guide on MBB structure frameworks :)

About your situation

• You’re at the beginning, so don’t expect too much from yourself yet.

• Having time until September is no issue at all.

• Don’t overthink the grades on the RoadtoOffer drills. Frameworks differ from person to person, and there is no single correct answer. Automatically scored framework answers should therefore be taken with a grain of salt from my pov.

About learning structuring

• Understand what MECE really means: it’s the underlying principle of what structuring aims to achieve. In the end, you can structure most things in your life in a MECE way (a phenomenon many consultants fall into at some point 😉). Use this as a practice ground.

• Start learning by copying: there are already “perfect” answers to many cases, as well as “typical” frameworks for certain questions (e.g., the classic revenue & costs split for profitability questions). Study these and learn from them. While the goal isn’t to rely on standardized frameworks for everything, they are a great starting point to learn core concepts and adapt them to specific cases.

• Identify patterns in your answers: always compare your results with the suggested solutions and try to understand what you missed. Over time, patterns will emerge—focus on fixing those.

• Keep the volume high: exposure to many frameworks will naturally improve your own structuring. At some point, it becomes a numbers game.

• Get expert feedback for fine-tuning: once you feel you’ve reached a solid level, get feedback from a peer who is very strong in structuring or from a coach. As mentioned, frameworks are very personal and case-specific, which makes it difficult to fully assess them by comparing them to given answers.

After all, based on your question, you seem quite capable of structuring problems well. So don’t worry too much—you’ll get there. ✌️

1. How to build strong, reliable structuring skills from the ground up

It is about first principle thinking - what is the question really asking, what would actually need to be true for the answer to be X, and what is the cleanest way to organize that. How can you build that thinking - practice as much as you can ! Fail, get wrong and learn - you will start seeing improvements and will feel confident ! 

2. How to diagnose exactly where my structures are falling short

Common failure modes - high level generic buckets, missing the real driver specific to the case and prompt, poor prioritization - each have different fixes.

3. What concrete steps should I follow to fix those gaps (not just identify them)

To repeat above - Practice - no other alternatives ! You will be bad in the beginning but you will start seeing improvements gradually ! Practice with other partners on the platform and gradually with experienced coaches to refine the skills

4. How to transition from doing structuring drills to performing well in full cases

Isolated structuring drills first, then structuring + clarifying questions, then full cases with structured debrief on each phase. The bridge is gradual exposure, not a jump

5. 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)

Very realistic and workable, even with one inconsistent month. Roughly: foundations and diagnosis in the first 4–6 weeks (structuring drills, math fluency, basic case flow), then full-case practice with progressive difficulty, then late-stage polish on communication, fit, and firm-specific calibration

Hope it helps 

I do strongly recommend a coaching session to really take your structuring to the next level - it's very very hard to go from good to great in this category without help. This is especially true if you're trying to practice non-classic case questions.

Now, in terms of tips, #1 most important thing is to be objective-driven. Not hypothesis-driven, but objective driven. Remember that there are 2 objectives: 1) the objective of the case (what is the question I'm trying to solve) and 2) The objective of the client (what are their needs, wants, desires. What does "good" look like)

Furthermore, If there's anything to remember in this process, is that cases don't exist just because. They have come about because of a real need to simulate the world you will be in when you are hopefully hired. As such, remember that they are a simplified version of what we do, and they test you in those areas.

As such, remember that a framework is a guide, not a mandate. In the real-world, we do not go into a client and say "right, we have a framework that says we need to look at x, y, and z and that's exactly what we're going to do". Rather, we come in with a view, a hypothesis, a plan of attack. The moment this view is created, it's wrong! Same with your framework. The point is that it gives us and you a starting point. We can say "right, part 1 of framework is around this. Let's dig around and see if it helps us get to the answer". If it does, great, we go further (but specific elements of it will certainly be wrong). If it doesn't, we move on.

So, you should absolutely be prepared to either enter a new piece of your framework or change your framework altogether as new information comes in. How do you handle this?

Well, first, you can really just articulate what you're doing. You can say "Oh, interesting, so if looks like we have some information on y. I don't want to forget about x, but let's see what y brings us first. Ok, looks like it's about..." Then, when you've "finished" with y, you can check to see if there's any info on x. If there isn't, move to z :)

Second, you can re-summarize/iterate where you are. This is especially useful if you have the change the entire framework. Say "Ok, so it looks like now we actually need to look a 3 key things to solve this"

So, in summary, learn your frameworks, use the ones you like, add/remove to them if the specific case calls for it, and always be prepared to be wrong. Focus rather on having a view, refering back to the initial view to see what is still there and where you need to dive into next to solve the problem.

That's the trickiest part of interview prep btw, so no wonder you're stumbling over it. 

The reason why it's most difficult is because it's a skill you improve through tailored feedback. 

Practically speaking, you learn how to structure on the job, constantly refining that skills as you go up the consulting career ladder. 

The shortcut that lots used in the past was to learn frameworks by heart, but that doesn't really work that well today. 

So I would strongly encourage you to find a great coach and do at least 1-2 sessions focused on structuring. It will be worth it, you'll see. 

Sharing here a guide on how to approach brainstorming and content structuring which will hopefully be a good starting point:

• • Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

And if you need help, don't hesitate to drop me a line. 

Best,
Cristian

Hi, 

You’re still very early. Three full cases is not enough to judge your ability, so don’t read too much into inconsistent drill scores yet.

What I’d do is simplify the process.

First, stop thinking “which framework should I use?” and start from the objective. Ask yourself: what is the client trying to improve, reduce, decide, or understand?

Then build the structure from the economics of the problem. For example:

• profit issue → revenue / cost
• revenue growth → customers × revenue per customer
• market entry → market attractiveness / ability to win / economics / risks

The biggest mistake is usually jumping into lists too quickly. A good structure has a clear logic behind it.

To diagnose your gaps, after each drill ask:

1. Was my top level linked to the objective?
2. Were my buckets mutually exclusive?
3. Did I tailor the second level to the business model?
4. Did I prioritize, or did I just list ideas?

That will tell you where the issue is.

To improve, do short drills, not only full cases. Take one prompt, give yourself 2 minutes, build only the structure, then compare it with a good answer. Do 5–10 of these per week. Quality matters more than volume.

Then move back into full cases once your first layer becomes more natural. In full cases, don’t aim for a perfect structure. Aim for a clean starting point that you can update as you learn more.

Between now and September, you have plenty of time. Start with structuring drills, then add full cases gradually, and in the last 4–6 weeks focus on real interview simulation.

Most importantly: don’t panic. You’re not stuck — you’re just at the normal uncomfortable stage where you can see the problem but haven’t yet built the muscle. That changes with repetition and good feedback.

Good news, inconsistent scores mean you are not pattern matching from a memorised framework. That is fixable.

Stop thinking in frameworks. Think in equations. Every business problem has a math engine. Revenue equals price times volume. Profit equals revenue minus cost. Build your top-level drivers from this math, not generic buckets like internal external or 4Ps.

When your score drops, it is usually one of three things. You started from a bucket instead of the objective. Your second level is too generic. Or your tree did not adapt to the business model. After each drill, note which one failed. The pattern shows up in 5 to 10 drills.

Drill in slow motion first. 5 minutes per tree, not 90 seconds. Get it right slowly, then speed up. Compare your tree to the model and write down what you missed. Talk it out loud, weak branches show up faster.

For full cases, once you hit 7+ on drills, mix in cases at 70/30, then flip closer to interviews.

Roadmap. Month 1, structuring drills daily. Month 2, add case math and exhibits with 2 to 3 cases a week. Month 3, the off-month, just maintenance, 15 minutes of math and one drill a day. Month 4, heavy full cases with feedback, plus fit and PEI. Last 4 weeks, mocks with strong partners or a coach.

Inconsistent scores are part of the curve. Stick with it.

Good luck.

First off, take a breath — this feeling of "spinning your wheels" is incredibly common, and it actually means your diagnostic skills are improving faster than your construction skills. You're seeing the flaws, which is step one.

Here's the reality: Structuring isn't about memorizing frameworks; it's about learning to decompose a problem logically from a single starting point. Your inconsistency suggests you're jumping to a structure you've seen before rather than building one from the first principle of the prompt. Next time you drill, force yourself to write down the core question in one sentence, then ask "What are the 2-3 things I absolutely need to understand to answer that?" before you even think about profitability, market entry, etc. If you can't explain why each bucket exists in plain English, the structure will collapse.

For a concrete fix: pick one structure you've already done poorly and rewrite it from scratch. Then, write a second version that uses a completely different logic path. Compare them side-by-side. This builds flexibility and shows you there's no single "right" answer, only well-reasoned ones. Between now and September, aim for 2-3 focused, untimed drills per week rather than rushing through scores. Quality over quantity will break the loop.

Hope it helps!

Hey! 

Structuring takes time to click, so inconsistent scores are completely normal early on. The best way to improve is to focus on a few core structures first and practice them repeatedly until they feel natural. After each drill, check whether your buckets were tailored to the question, mutually exclusive, and actually answered the objective. Rewrite the structure once to fix the gaps, that’s where most learning happens.

When you move to full cases, take a moment to think before speaking and keep your top‑level buckets simple and clear. A realistic roadmap is a few weeks of focused structuring drills, then gradually shifting to full cases while keeping light drills to maintain the skill. You’re not stuck, you just need a bit more repetition and targeted feedback.

Alessa