How to hypothesize a business situation question?

Question

Going off of Victor Cheng, I don't understand how and when to hypothesize for a business situation type of case (Market Entry, Product Launch, Growth Strategy, sustainability, etc.)

Before stating my initial hypothesis:
In qualitative business-situation cases. I know I should begin with a hypothesis, but I struggle to actually come up with a hypothesis when evidence sits in several qualitative buckets. I'm supposed to get the hypothesis first and not layout the framework, right? Pretty much I'm asking how to get the hypothesis without having to use a whole framework to figure out all the information.

After stating my initial hypothesis: Suppose I do build a four-bucket framework, having a hypothesis first (e.g., Market Attractiveness, Competitive Landscape, Client Capabilities, Financial Feasibility) with two-to-three sub-conditions each:

How do you decide which bucket (or sub-condition) carries the most weight in confirming or rejecting your hypothesis?
If one bucket—say Competitive Landscape—looks poor while the other three look strong, does that automatically disprove the hypothesis, or do you adjust your conclusion some other way?
Likewise, if only one or two sub-conditions inside a single bucket are weak, does that make the whole bucket “bad,” or is there a nuanced way to score partial strengths?
Practically, how much information do you gather before stating an initial hypothesis so you don’t end up asking dozens of low-value questions first?

I’m trying to understand how to apply true/false logic—or an equivalent weighting system—when most of the inputs are qualitative. I feel like I ask and need way too much information to develop a hypothesis, to then make my framework

Any guidance on prioritizing and interpreting the buckets would be hugely appreciated.

EXAMPLE:
Problem definition
Our client is Glass Co, a privately held glass manufacturing company with revenues of $1 billion, selling 7.5 million tons of glass annually. Glass Co has factories in Asia and customers in the EU and US. Its customers are increasingly demanding that they lower their carbon footprint.

In response to customer demand, Glass Co is working to reach net zero (carbon neutral) emissions by 2050. The company considers its carbon footprint to include the carbon emissions across its operations. Specifically, Glass Co’s operations include sourcing raw materials like sand, soda ash, and limestone, melting raw materials to form glass, molding the glass into sheets, inspecting and packaging the sheets, and finally exporting them to foreign customers.

Glass Co has hired us to create a profitable strategy to reduce emissions by 30% in the next 5 years.
Here's an example of what I mean!

I hope this makes sense, it's hard to put into words. Thank you for whoever answers, truly is very appreciated!!!

Bucket/condition = a key condition in the case

Sub condition/bullet points = the bullet points in the bucket/condition - usually 2 or 3
(I know everyone knows this, trying to be clarifying as possible!)

Answer 1

Hey Hudson:)

this is such a thoughtful question, and you’re definitely not alone in finding the hypothesis piece a bit fuzzy in qualitative strategy cases. Here's a simple way to think about it: your hypothesis is a starting guess, not a conclusion. It's totally okay if it's wrong. What matters is that it helps you focus your thinking. You're not choosing between "hypothesis first" or "framework first" — you're doing both together in a structured way.

Start by asking yourself: “What would need to be true for this to succeed?” In your Glass Co example, a hypothesis might be: “I believe Glass Co can reduce emissions by 30% profitably over 5 years by investing in more efficient melting technology and switching to lower-emission transport.” Then, build your buckets around testing that. You don’t need to know all the facts, just think of likely drivers (e.g., operational levers, tech feasibility, cost impact, external constraints).

Once you’ve got your framework, prioritize based on your hypothesis. In this case, “Melting process” might be most important, so you’d test that bucket first. If that fails badly (e.g., cost or tech isn’t feasible), you might update or reject the hypothesis early. If it’s mixed, you go deeper: maybe only part of it is viable, so you refine.

Don’t overthink how much info you need to start with — one or two clues + your business intuition is enough. The framework is your map, and the hypothesis is your guess about where the treasure is. Use the case to test and adjust it as you go.

Feel free to reach out if you want to practice this live, it’s so much easier to get with examples!

best, Alessa :)

Answer 2

Hi Hudson,

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

First of all, structuring into buckets/factors/dimensions may not be a meaningful approach, unless you are asked to consider specific dimensions to explore. Instead, I would strongly advise you to consider the initial structure as a roadmap to guide your analysis. You should focus on listing activities, rather than buckets/factors/dimensions, in your initial structure.
Moreover, Victor Cheng's advice to always formulate a hypothesis at the beginning of a case study may not be meaningful either. 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.
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 your application files, for your upcoming pre-interview assessments and/or interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

Answer 3

I would advise against proposing a hypothesis at the start of a case.

I know the Victor Cheng angle, and I remember that it even confused me as a candidate. Later, as a consultant and now as a coach, it seems absolutely ludicrous to me.

You should only communicate a hypothesis when you have sufficient evidence to support it. This evidence almost always appears in the course of the case and almost never in the beginning. If you don't have evidence to substantiate your hypothesis, then you don't have a hypothesis, you have an idea, or at most a hunch that's based on nothing.

That being said, attempt to communicate a hypothesis as early as possible in a case when you have the evidence to support it.

Best,
Cristian