How to balance case-specific and classic frameworks during structuring?

Hi Hani,

Let's break it down - what are classic frameworks meant for? They are a way for us to think through problems in a MECE way. In a profitability decline example, would you want to do anything other than investigate revenues and costs in a real-world setting? Probably not, right. You can use your business acumen and hypothesis-led thinking to make any framework more case specific. The idea is to learn the art of laying out clear, clean, MECE structures. Interviewers may not be hooked onto every single word you say during an interview - therefore, such structures can help them focus their mind and establish confidence in whatever you are about to say next. Then if they miss any details, they still know that you can think logically and comprehensively.

Good luck for your upcoming interviews and happy to do a couple of cases or discuss more examples if you'd like!

Hani, this is a great question. And the answer is what usually separates those who actually make it into MBB and those who end up with a polite (and unclear) rejection.

First of all:
The whole “classic vs. case-specific framework” debate is a symptom of a deeper misunderstanding of what MBB interviewers actually assess.

They don’t care about how original your structure sounds. They care about how you think.

At McKinsey and BCG, we trained interviewers to test one thing above all:
Can you build a logically complete, hypothesis-driven problem-solving map under pressure. Without hiding behind memorized templates?

That’s it.

So here’s the truth that most candidates never hear when they browse the internet:
“Classic” frameworks and “case-specific” frameworks aren’t opposites. They’re two ends of a spectrum that exists inside your brain, not on paper.

A top-tier structure always starts from rigorous principles (what fundamentally drives the answer/outcome?), and then borrows shapes from “classic” frameworks only if they fit those drivers.
 

Example: in a "profitability case", starting with “revenues vs. costs” isn’t wrong - it’s universal logic. But the moment you stop at this descriptive level, you’re average. But if you use the branches of your tree to run an actual diagnostic via a process of elimination, you’re operating at MBB level.

The goal isn’t to sound creative. Or to deliver the longest laundry list of "buckets". The goal is to identify the right direction within 30 seconds.

At McKinsey, we’d instantly spot who understood this.
Candidates who tried to “sound different” often broke logical flow.
Those who built simple, hypothesis-anchored structures, grounded in core business logic of that context, flew through final rounds.

Hope this helps!
Sidi

___________________

Dr. Sidi S. Koné

Former Senior Engagement Manager & Interviewer at McKinsey | Former Senior Consultant at BCG | Co-Founder of The MBB Offer Machine™ (500+ mentees now consultants at McKinsey, BCG, and Bain)

Hi Hani,

First of all, congratulations on the invitation!

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

• First of all, I think you are overthinking the situation. The aim is to develop an initial structure that properly fits - nothing more.
• Moreover, the only effective way is to embrace both extremes to some degree: being aware of the standard approach while embracing the specificities of the very case study. All other approaches like "first principles thinking" may sound good on paper, but are simply not functional if you only have 2-3 minutes to develop the initial structure.
• Lastly, 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.

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 interviews, please don’t hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

Hi,

Thanks for your question.

I understand it can be confusing but avoid overthinking the problem. Keep in mind, what is the objective of the frame work.

1. It should guide you through the case to make hypothesis and find the root cause of the problem. Needless to say, it should also be logically correct. 

2. It should be as MECE as possible. Why? The more MECE it is, it will guide you to find the problem, even when the problem is not easily identifiable.

3. It should be simple enough to be explained easily

Thus, it is okay to use a classical framework, or case specific framework, or mix of both if it meets the above objectives. It depends on the case. For a profitability case, it makes logical sense to start with Revenue - cost, so you should not look to change the classical way of thinking just to be creative. However, when you are listing the sub-buckets under the main buckets, you want to be industry specific or "case" specific. For example, in pharma, R&D could be a big part of the cost vs. in industries such as construction, retail, restaurants etc. that is the case.

Hope this helps! Feel free to reach out with any questions.

Thanks,
Soh

Glad you asked, because you are making this more complicated than what it really is.

While you should NOT memorize / use memorized frameworks AND YES, you should use case-specific frameworks... you are taking this too far.

The point is not about being original. But rather about being objective driven and effective. So as long as you are trying to come up with the approach that makes the most sense to the specific case, you can use any classic framework that makes sense.

In other words, you should not be spending any brain power in actively trying to avoid the "classic" frameworks. If for one case you believe one of those is the best... go for it!

Hi there,

The key is to use classic frameworks as a starting point, especially to get your Level 1 buckets right, and then adapt them to the specifics of the case for Levels 2–4. For example, in a profitability decline case, it’s perfectly fine to start with revenues vs. costs as your main buckets, but make the subcategories tailored to the company or situation. Think of frameworks as scaffolding as they give you structure, but you refine them so your analysis fits the case.

Great that you're opening this topic for discussion. 

There's nothing wrong with learning classic frameworks as long as you understand you shouldn't stop there. 

The point is rather to develop an understanding of the main principles underpinning effective structuring (e.g., first principles) and to accumulate a set of patterns of thinking through problems. 

Once you've internalised these, you can deploy them flexibly across different cases. 

In short, knowing what you know, you should ask yourself for each case what sort of structure would enable the best problem-solving discussion with the client. 

This article might also help:

• Expert Guide: Mastering Structuring & Brainstorming

and this:

• Masterclass: First Principle Structuring

Best,
Cristian

Hi there,

You’re asking the right question — strong candidates don’t avoid classic frameworks, they adapt them. Here’s how to balance both:

1. Start from logic, not memory
Think about what drives the problem. If your structure ends up resembling a known framework (like revenue–cost), that’s fine — as long as you built it from reasoning, not recall.

2. Customize the second layer
Using a profitability tree is perfectly fine if you tailor it.
Example:

• Revenue: volume (by product, channel), price, customer mix
• Cost: automation, maintenance, logistics labor (if a robotics case)

3. Clear beats creative
Interviewers value clarity and logic over originality. A well-applied classic framework with tailored detail will always score higher than an over-engineered one.

4. Quick test
If you can explain why your structure fits this case, you’re in the right zone.

So yes — using revenues and costs is completely fine. The key is to make your sub-buckets specific to the case context.

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

Best,
Evelina

Hi Hani,

congrats on the interview! 

You’re overcomplicating the balance between classic and case-specific frameworks. The goal isn’t to sound original. It’s to think logically, clearly, and in a MECE way.

Classic frameworks exist because they reflect sound business logic. In a profitability case, for example, it always makes sense to start with revenues and costs. What makes your structure strong is not avoiding that logic, but adapting it to the specific situation. For instance, breaking revenues into price and volume, or costs into fixed and variable components relevant to that industry.

So don’t force yourself to reinvent the wheel. Start from clear, universal logic and make it case-specific as you go deeper. A good structure combines both: the clarity of classic frameworks with the relevance of case-specific detail.

Good luck!
Lukas

Hey Hani :)

I’d always start by building a free, case-specific structure and keep classic frameworks like 3C or profitability in the back of your head. That way, your structure stays fully tailored to the case, but you still have a safety net if you get stuck brainstorming or need inspiration for additional buckets. For example, in a profitability case, you can go with revenues and costs as main buckets and make the subcategories specific to the company or market, while knowing the classic approach is there if you need it.

best,
Alessa :)