Solution with different approach

Hey Arne, good on you for thinking independently. Your approach isn’t “wrong,” but there are a few things worth adjusting as you get deeper into case prep.

First — your instinct to break down the problem is good. But in real case interviews, it’s usually more helpful to start with a higher-level structure:

• Quantitative drivers (e.g., revenue, cost)
• Qualitative factors (e.g., customers, competitors, company/operations, etc.)

Revenue and cost would typically fall under the quantitative bucket, and customers/competitors under qualitative. That framing keeps your structure clean, MECE, and easy to pivot from — which is critical in live interviews.

Second — every case is different, so yes, you’ll need to modify your structure depending on the context. 

But starting with memorized frameworks is totally fine at the beginning — they give you muscle memory. Just don’t stop there. Learn to adapt them based on the actual problem.

Lastly - as for real interviews:

Interviewers aren’t looking for one correct path. What they want is:

• A logical structure
• Clear prioritization
• A willingness to adapt if the data tells a different story

If your structure is sound and you can explain your thinking, they’ll engage with you. But if it’s messy or unfocused, they’ll step in and start nudging — which isn’t a great sign.

So: start from a structured, top-down approach, then get into the weeds. You’re thinking in the right direction — just tighten how you frame and communicate it.

Good luck!

Hi Arne,

If the case is specifically about a revenue decrease, your framework should stay focused on revenue drivers rather than having costs at the same level as revenues. Including costs as a top-level bucket can make your structure feel a bit unfocused since it doesn’t directly answer why revenue is down. To further analyze why revenue drivers are down, it would then make sense to analyze competitors and customers.

A clearer approach would be:
1. Break down revenue = price × volume — then explore what’s driving changes in each (e.g., pricing strategy, product mix, customer loss, market trends).
2. Bring in competitors and customers as lenses within the areas for pricing and volume. For instance, are customers switching due to competitors’ pricing or product offerings?

This would make the framework answer the case objective more directly, remaining logical and MECE. 

Hi Arne, I wrote this case so I’m happy to help.

Please be careful with other coach answers (the other two answers I see here are unfortunately wrong)

First, I highly recommend my frameworking course as your framework is bot a tailored, objective driven, MECE framework! 

2nd, this is a growth case (revenue growth), not profitability.

3rd, revenue and cost are NOT separate to your 3rd and 4th buckets. Therefore not CE

4th, all 4 buckets are quite generic and not tailored to the case.

 Finally, remember that finding the “problem” of profits isn’t always the fix - imagine seeing that China profits are down for Uber and saying the problem is to fix them…it wasn’t! The answer was to leave China and double down on other verticals within the US. 

Grab my case interview course to learn how to framework properly :)

1. What is the problem you are trying to solve?

While I don't necessarily oppose exploring why revenue is not growing, I have to underline that the question is about how to grow your revenue. 

If you are solving for the wrong objective, you won't be successful in your approach.

Therefore, I suggest that you explore the "why isn't revenue growing" in the clarification questions. But the approach / structure MUST address the case question. In your case, your suggested approach provides no detail ("give recommendations" is not an approach, it is just repeating what you were asked to do).

2. Suggested answer

You don't have to use the same structure as the suggested answer. But you can learn a lot from the suggested answer. However, it "jumps" a logical step. Once you understand that step, you will be able to understand how to come up with similar structures.

The answer suggests:

1) New Clinics

2) Optimize current clinics offering

3) New products

4) Inorganic

But here's the underlying process:

Total revenue = Revenue per clinic * Number of clinics

Revenue per clinic you can increase by: 2) optimizing current offering; 3) increase current offering (new products or services)

Number of clinics: you can go 1) Organic (open new clinics) or 4) Inorganic

[please not I am following the numeration above].

So actually the 4 options in the answer actually result from the breakdown of the 2 initial options (increase revenue per clinic or increase the number of clinics).

3. Alternative Structures

The 2 initial options I suggest above could be different. They could be:

1. Increase revenue per clinic vs. increase number of clinics
2. Optimize current scope of business vs. increase scope of business (new offers, new clinics organic, new clinics inorganic)
3. Organic growth (increase clinics, increase offering, optimize current offering) vs. Inorganic Growth.
4. Etc. (I am sure there are many other ways to break down this problem)

4. Going deeper

Of course, note that a 3rd layer if missing here. To optimize current offering you should consider optimizing prices, communication/marketing activities, channels  (e.g. online scheduling, partnership agreements, ...).

5. Addressing your specific questions

1. Your first question is addressed above, I believe.

2. In a real case interview, the interviewer would steer you back to the case objective. I.e., clarify again that the objective is to analyze growth options, not perform a diagnostic on the past. Let me add that sometimes, if you are unsure to do, it is a good idea to ask "do you want me to understand why revenue is not growing or should we go directly to analyze some options on how to increase revenue".

6. P.S. I wrote this after Ian's reply, so his comment doesn't apply to my comment. ;)