Market entry case structure flow for entry requiring multiple partnerships / acquisitions

Question

Trying to come up with a logical flow for a market entry case where the company doesn't have all the capabilities themselves and requires some partnerships. I really like the flow outlined here previously on the forum for market entry cases. Trying to solve this for a common case type

1. Analyze gap in the market and customer needs

2. What capabilities do you require to fulfill customer needs (e.g. digital, hardware, distribution/supply chain, regulation)

3. Does the business case make sense?

4. How do we enter the market?

a. Partnerships / JVs / acquisition to cover capabilities required for comp. advantage

b. CVP for target segments

c. Pricing

d. Distribution channel

e. Marketing

f. Timing of entry

g. Sequencing

5. Risks

The downside of this is, that you can argue the business case is also depending on the partnerships / JVs, and therefore interrupting the flow of the case. Any suggestions for a more elegant alternative?

Answer 1

Please don't build frameworks when you don't have a practical problem to solve.

And it is very difficult to understand the logic here, "buckets" are not at the right level and not answering questions on their own.

1 and 2 can be combined. (which segments can I serve better than competitors?)
You will not do 3 before you do 4 (you cannot build a business case when you don't know what will be in the business case). You correctly pointed out this. I have no idea why you believe there's an advantage that way. I don't see any.
4 is a long list. a) is part of the question (i.e. is part of the header at 4.., and not a sub-bucket). b includes c, d, and e, this means you are repeating the same factors twice. Not sure why you need "timing of entry" nor "sequencing". Not even sure what you mean with that...
Just drop the 5. "risks", please. A bucket named "Risks" means that you will REDO all the previous 4 buckets considering volatility or uncertainty. Not a good practice. You don't do it at the end. You do it WHILE you do the 4 buckets.

What is wrong with all of this? Well, you are mixing two different questions. One is "should we enter the market?". The other is "how should we enter the market?". Solve them separately.

Answer 2

Hello,

Thanks for the question! Here is my take on this:

I honestly feel you are overcomplicating it; less is more. Don’t forget that in real life, the goal is to simplify a complex message so the client can easily grasp the key takeaways. Similarly, in interviews, you need to be crisp and get to the point directly so the interviewer can follow along.

Answering your question, the key is to clarify: what is the goal of the case? Are we only determining if we should enter? Or are we also answering how we should enter? Are both equally important for the client? You need to get a sense of that upfront. In my view, this is a two-step process, and each step requires its own framework. It’s important to make that distinction clear from the beginning.

In terms of the “should we”, you mentioned the market and capabilities, which are good pillars to have. A financial forecast would also be helpful, because at the end of the day, profitability is often the main driver of corporate decisions. Understanding the competitive landscape can also be important.

Now for the second framework, you can explore different entry options: going solo, partnering, acquiring, etc. and discuss the pros and cons of each, then proactively recommend the best fit for the client.

One final take on this: oftentimes, the interviewer already has a clear direction in mind even before the case begins. They have specific data points they want to share with you. That being said, once you lay out your framework and start solving, remain flexible. Pay attention to the interviewer’s hints, and don’t get too attached to your initial structure. Continuously refine your hypothesis until you crack the case.

I hope this helps! Feel free to reach out if you have any other questions or if you’d like to case together!

Answer 3

I think you're conflating 'where to play' (i.e., should we even enter the market) and 'how to win' (i.e., how to successfully enter the market).

For 'where to play', typical buckets are as follows - can vary case by case:

1. Market trajectory - essentially, is our target market growing?
2. Competitive landscape - are we able to outcompete peers to win share, and if so, how?
3. Internal capabilities - do we have the resources and capabilities to support a new entry?
4. Financial viability - can we make money in this market (i.e., is the share of market required for breakeven feasible, can we hit our internal hurdle rate etc)?
5. Risks / external factors - is there a major macroeconomic, regulatory, political, or other risk that we need to account for?

For 'how to win', typical buckets are as follows - also can vary:

1. Entry mode - build, buy, or partner? And at what speed and scale?
2. Product offering - how do we localize, price and position the product?
3. Go-to-market - what are channels, marketing, and distribution methods we should use?
4. Operations - who do we need to hire, what do we need in terms of local supply chain, how do we structure our business?
5. Risk mitigation - how do we address the risks mentioned in 'where to play'

Your proposed structure touches on many of these points, but I think you'd be better off separating them rather than trying to answer two very distinct questions in one structure. It'll be much clearer this way.

Let me know if you'd like some 1-to-1 practice on this type of structuring.

Answer 4

Hey there 🙂

You're totally right that the classic structure gets a bit clunky when the success of the business case depends heavily on partnerships or acquisitions. A smoother alternative would be to integrate the partnership aspect earlier, so it's clear that the viability of the business model hinges on those capabilities from the start. That keeps the logic clean and forward-driving. Here’s a more elegant flow you could use:

Market attractiveness: Size, growth, customer needs, unmet demand
Company’s capability gap vs. success factors: What is needed to win, and what do we lack?
Sourcing missing capabilities: What is the best way to close those gaps (build, partner, acquire)?
High-level business case: Only once capability access is clarified, assess profitability, ROI, etc.
Go-to-market strategy: CVP, pricing, distribution, marketing, sequencing, timing
Risks and mitigation

This way, partnerships aren't a last-minute detail in implementation but a core part of how the entry would even be possible in the first place. It’s tighter and feels more natural in the case discussion.

best, Alessa 🙂