In the structure, should I put ways to improve something/risk in?

You're completely right here. Please be careful with casebook frameworks! You should not have a “ways to improve” or “risk” bucket as these are just inherent in your entire framework!

The entire framework is the approach in which you look at the problem and solutions (hand in hand).

Please please don't have a “ways to improve” bucket. You need to think about a framework like a project plan.

Bucket A, Bucket B, and Bucket C hollistically (and in a MECE way) are the key areas in which you will investigate and solve the problem.

Risks are inherent across bucket A, B, and C and should be avoided as a bucket (if you can help it).

^all of the above might not make sense to you as it seems you're just starting out. But please save this and re-read it from time-to-time. 

A bit more reading: https://www.preplounge.com/en/articles/how-to-shift-your-mindset-to-ace-the-case

Hi there, 

i had a bit hard time to understand your question, but will try to understand. 

Identify the problem is the most critical thing, as 99% of the questions in business case are very generic, such as “Our client has been loosing profit…” Unless you know what the root cause is, you cant solve it. So the root cause and reframing the question (e.g. How can client increase price of the product A) is number 1 step.

It is good move/should we invest?: Yes this is related to risk, but you I wouldn't be so strict here, you can have more opportunities to invest and there is no risk, but this opportunity may yield less than others. Hence I wouldn't box this question with risk. 

I would strongly recommend look at each case in custom way, rather than thinking of standardized frameworks/buckets. 

Was this answer helpful?

Hello!

I think roughly all structures could fit into the scheme of “identify the problem and them propose ways to improve"… but that doesn't help much honestly. 

You need to address each case as a unique business problem, because it is, and not look for the “one fits all” framework, because it doesn't exist - or better said, it will never be the key for a consulting interview case. 

Hope it helps!

Cheers, 

Clara

You are correct. 

First you diagnose the problem. You can't think about ways to improve without knowing what the problem is. Meaning that it is not really a “bucket” but a second question you will need to address later. You may acknowledge upfront that this is a question to later address, but do not make the mistake of trying to come upfront with potential hypothesis for that question.

Hello,

You shouldn't follow the casebook frameworks line-by-line. In most situations, this will depend on the specifics on the case. I think you are generally correct in that first you need to figure out what the issue is, before you can come up with ways to improve it.

However, there might be an opportunity to discuss potential risks in some cases (e.g., if the case involves market entry, you could have a bucket that suggests looking at potential risks - legal, political, reputation to name a few). 

So, my advice would be - file away these “ways to improve” and “risks” buckets in your memory, and ask yourself whether they are appropriate for the specific case you are doing. There's no general rule here.