Hard time structuring my cases

Hi there,

I would be happy to share my thoughts on your questions:

• First of all, contrary to what other coaches have said, poor structuring generally does not improve through practice, as it tends to reinforce your existing approach rather than develop it further. Instead, I would strongly advise you to consider working with an experienced coach like me on your structuring skills. I developed the "Case Structuring Program" to help exactly such candidates like you who struggle with case study structures.
• Moreover, contrary to what other coaches have said, it's important to understand that a hypothesis is simply a tentative assumption based on limited information - which you may not have at the very beginning of the case study. It's more effective to view a hypothesis as a starting point for discussion and further exploration, which you can share with your interviewer once you are able to develop one.
• Lastly, I would advise you to focus on clarity over polish - interviewers don’t expect C-level wording, but they do expect logic, structure, and top-down communication.

You can find more on this topic here: How to succeed in the final interview round.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare for your upcoming BCG pre-interview assessment and/or interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

Congrats — great that you’re already thinking this way so early. I worked on an IT restructuring case during my BCG tenure, and I was the only generalist on the team — so I had a front-row seat to how Platinion consultants think and communicate. Learned a ton from them.

🔁 First: Structure & Hypothesis
 

The fundamentals of case solving stay the same — break down problems, drive hypotheses, test, synthesize. But in tech/digital cases, the packaging and the mindset must adapt. You’re not just saying “revenue streams” and “cost buckets” — you’re talking architecture, tech stack, workflows, agile bottlenecks, system resilience, etc.
 

• To improve structure, translate the consulting lens into tech language. Think:
   

  • Value stream breakdown instead of business units
  • System/process flows instead of customer journeys
  • Tech debt, architecture, scalability, redundancy as structured angles

   

• For hypothesis-building, connect tech issues to business impact. For example:
   

  • “If the client’s ERP system is highly customized, that could be the reason upgrades are delayed and cost overruns are high.”
  • Start from tech facts, tie to pain points, land on business risk or value.

  
   

🗣️ Second: Wording & Communication

Is C-Level sharpness expected? Short answer: yes, but in your own voice.

You don’t need to sound like a buzzword machine — but clarity, precision, and calm assertiveness are non-negotiables. You’ll often be in front of CTOs or VPs of Ops. They’re not expecting poetry — they want fast, grounded, structured thinking.
 

• Practice aloud. Record yourself. See if what you say sounds like something you’d trust in a high-stakes room.
• Slow down when unsure — confidence is shown as much by what you pause to not say as what you say.
   

🔧 Bonus Tips
 

• Don’t shy away from saying, “Let me clarify…” or “I’m not fully sure yet, but here’s how I’d approach it.”
• Boldly ask the right questions. Tech clients respect honesty + curiosity more than fluff.
• Brush up your 101s — cloud vs on-prem, microservices vs monolith, agile vs waterfall, etc. You won’t be expected to code, but you should navigate the vocabulary like a pro.
   

You’ve got 4 weeks — that’s a solid runway. Keep working real-time cases, get feedback fast, and simulate pressure. You’ll see real progress.

Happy to help if you want to do a mock from a Platinion angle.

Hi there,

For structuring, you need to build muscle memory for the first 5 minutes of a case – the thinking time + pitch. I’d recommend focused structuring drills: take 3–5 prompts a day, spend 2–3 minutes building a structure, then 1 minute summarizing it out loud. Repeat daily. You’ll get faster, sharper, and more confident very quickly. The content might be more tech related, but the logical and structured approach is similar.

For hypotheses: Start rough but directional. Even a simple “My initial hypothesis is that X is driven by Y and Z” is better than silence. The key is being hypothesis-led and flexible.

On communication: You don’t need C-level polish, but you do need clear logic and crisp signposting. Think: top-down, confident, short sentences. Recording yourself can help.

One extra tip for BCG: From my experience, the cases are usually less detailed and more candidate-led. So forming quick, logical structures in a goal driven manner matters more than have a super polished structure with three different layers.

Let me know if you want to practice structuring and receive live feedback.

Kind regards,

Kevin
 

Hi there, 

First of all, it's amazing that you've identified the problem. It's also great that you're past the point where you believe that using template-like structures is going to be enough. 

The approach that I use with my candidates is based on first principles thinking, so actually coaching them on developing a consultant mindset and coming up with structures that are operational and which could actually be deployed on an engagement. 

You can find more about this program here:

• Masterclass: First Principle Structuring

Also, you might find this guide I wrote also useful:

• Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

Best,
Cristian

Hey there :)

Totally get you, digital/tech cases (like at BCG Platinion) often feel messier than classic strategy ones. Structures are less “off-the-shelf” and more solution-oriented or systems-based. To improve, I'd recommend practicing tech-specific frameworks (e.g. architecture layers, user journeys, build vs. buy, agile setup) and always linking your structure back to the business objective. Try turning problems into “How might we...” questions, helps generate sharper hypotheses. And don’t overcomplicate: even Platinion cases still value clarity and top-down thinking.

On wording: no need for perfect C-level polish, but you should sound structured and confident. So yes, punch matters, especially in synthesis and transitions. Practice aloud, record yourself, and steal phrasing from top case partners.

You’ve got 4 weeks, plenty of time if you focus. Happy to coach you through that if you’d like!

Best,
Alessa :)

Hello there,

The principles of case structure are the same, regardless of the theme.

Besides what has been said, it will help a lot for you to watch YouTube videos where past consultants solve cases. You can pause, try to come up with your structure and then compare to theirs. Try to find the common mistakes you make when doing this. Google “YouTube cases + crafting cases” to find a curated list of good videos.

Good luck!

Best,

Mari

Hi there,

Yes, BCG Platinion interviews can be quite different from traditional MBB cases.  Here are some thoughts:

1. Improving Structure and Hypothesis-Driven Thinking in Digital/Tech Cases

Tech/digital cases can feel “messier” because they’re often less about market sizing or profitability and more about systems, architecture, user journeys, or transformation trade-offs. Here's what I’ve seen that is helpful: 

A. Adjust your framework style.
Traditional buckets like "Market / Competition / Financials" don't always apply. Try thinking in layers:

• Business goal (Why is this project being done?)
• Process or system (What part of the tech stack or user flow is affected?)
• Stakeholders (Who’s impacted?  IT, end-users, operations, etc.)
• Risks & constraints (Security, data privacy, legacy system limitations)

This modular approach helps you anchor the case even under time pressure.

B. Hypothesis-first still applies but anchor it in logic, not just outcomes.
e.g., “My initial thought is that cloud migration may not be the main driver of efficiency here; The bottleneck could be in process design or user adoption.”
That gives your interviewer a direction and shows clarity of thought, even if you refine the hypothesis later.

C. Practice with tech-specific prompts.
Cases like:

• “A client wants to sunset a legacy ERP system. What should they consider?”
• “How should a retail bank improve their mobile onboarding flow?”
  Focus on structuring your response around user needs, system layers, integration, or feasibility.

D. Use mental models.
Think in terms of input → process → output, or data flow diagrams, or product lifecycle stages. These help you keep direction.

2. How Crucial is Wording? Is C-Level Sharpness Expected?

You don’t need to sound like McKinsey’s CEO, but clarity, conciseness, and confidence matter a lot. At Platinion, they’re evaluating if you can:

• Communicate with both tech teams and business stakeholders
• Translate technical details into business implications
• Stay structured under pressure

What helps:

• Speak in short, complete thoughts
• Use signposting (“Let me break that into two areas.  Number one is…”)
• Avoid overexplaining or jargon-dumping

Instead of:

“I think maybe we should explore if APIs could be useful for integrating the platforms and maybe then do like a feasibility analysis of that?”

Try:

“I'd look at whether APIs can simplify integration and then assess feasibility by comparing data needs, system compatibility, and costs.”

Bottom line, which I focus on quite a bit while coaching, don't worry much about how you say things. What you say is way more important.

You’ve got 4 weeks, which is plenty of time to improve. 

Hey there, 

1. Suggestions on how to improve structuring

a. General case practice will help - I find that for most people the structuring improves the most as they practice more. Ideally you do (some) practice with an experienced coach  

b. Do specific structuring drills by yourself. Read the case prompt (works best with case prompt that are a bit more specific vs. very vague as you cannot ask clarifying questions obviously) and then develop your structure under time pressure. Afterwards review and spend extra time on "what would you have done differently, if you had more time to think about it?" 

c. Build your business sense and knowledge. E.g. consume business press, e.g. WSJ, Economist, etc.  

2. C-level polish is definitely not expected 

Best of luck! 

-Andreas

Hi there,

Thanks for the context—BCG Platinion cases definitely lean more tech/digital, so it's normal to find them trickier to structure compared to classical MBB cases.

To your questions:

1. Improving structure and hypothesis:

• Focus on problem-driven structuring instead of memorized buckets. Start by clearly defining the objective (e.g., “Should the client launch a new platform?”), then break it down logically (e.g., technical feasibility, user needs, ROI, integration risks).
• Practice writing out structures quickly, even outside of case practice. Use drills to build the habit of thinking in “issue trees.”
• For hypothesis building, force yourself to start every case with a “gut-feel” hypothesis—even if it's wrong. This helps develop speed and top-down thinking under time pressure.
• I’d be happy to run digital/Platinion-style cases with you to drill this—it’s much easier to improve structure with live feedback.

2. Wording and communication:
You don’t need C-level polish, but clarity and confidence are key. Aim for concise, structured phrasing—think “consultant sharp” rather than “executive polished.” Practicing your transitions (e.g., “Let me walk you through my structure…”) and summaries can make a big difference.

With 4 weeks to go, you’re in a great spot to improve both structure and communication—especially with focused, targeted drills.

Happy to help you prep – feel free to reach out.
 

Best,
Evelina