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

Question

One month into my prep and two weeks before my first round with an MBB, I am still confused about structuring. The purpose of this thread is to ask coaches to share their thoughts and share my story to other candidates who may find it useful.

At first, I used to apply frameworks that I had learned by heart. I knew and was told it wasn't ideal, but it was a great stepping stone to build up my knowledge and get comfortable. No regrets there.

Then came the time when I pivoted my approach. Very quickly, the priority became making my structure case-specific. And I became almost allergic to "classic" frameworks. So I ended up in a situation where I was consistently trying to reinvent the wheel and stay away from pre-learned frameworks. Even when a "classic" framework made sense to me, I was still reluctant to use it because I was scared my answer would come off as "not case-specific enough".

My question is therefore the following: how should one balance a case-specific structure and classic frameworks? For example, taking a profitability decline case. Is it advisable to use revenues and costs as main buckets and make the subcategories case-specific? Or is that framework too "classic"?

Finding the middle ground has been a challenge and I'd love some perspective. Thanks in advance for your answers!

Answer 1

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!

Answer 2

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!

Answer 3

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

Answer 4

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.

Answer 5

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