Struggling with structuring + final recommendations in case interviews

Hey there,

Thanks for your question! First of all: I think you are trying to solve for 3 different problems, so let me go step by step.

1. Structuring: drills can indeed help. Try not only to build a structure, but also to communicate it (i.e., start with naming the buckets, then get into each bucket's bullet, be strategic on what to say regarding each bullet -- some of them are more important than others depending on the industry/company context, and on some of them you might want to showcase). Record yourself and then play Devil's advocate: try to find at least 2-3 ME issues and 2-3 CE issues. You'll get better, we've all passed this phase :)

2. Case communication: # of solved cases matters, but you might need a coach. This is where the sheer number of solved case matters the most. Keep in mind that the communication for, say, qualitative questions follows different rules than, say, maths. 

If you are not a natural communicator and don't see improvements after 5-10 cases, that's the area where a coach might help the most -- I think 70% of the work I do with my candidates is about communicating better concepts/ideas that they already have in their minds.

3. Recommendation: just pick a structure and iterate. This is the easiest part. I suggest you start following a simple structure, see the example below:

• A two-line recommendation. Think of this as the title of the final recommendation slide (and yes: in MBB, slide titles go over two lines!)
• At least two points of supporting rationale. Ideally, one quantitative and one qualitative
• Risks and mitigations: impossible to be exhaustive, focus on the top 1-2
• Immediate next steps: here, you should be pragmatic -- what can they do in next week, and in the next month?

Good luck on your journey! Feel free to DM me to continue this conversation with a free 15-min intro call :)

Best,

Tom

_____________
Recommendation Example

Leading Sentence: MediLink should implement a new inventory strategy to release NWC and improve commercial performance to generate $X in additional profit.

Supporting Rationale:

• Quantitative: Increasing Product A's service level to YY% generates €X.0M profit against €0.XM in holding costs (a >10× return). Reducing Product C’s over-servicing simultaneously releases tied-up NWC.
• Qualitative: The current uniform policy misallocates capital by over-serving low-value Product C and starving high-value Product A. A differentiated model aligns Ops with Sales objectives. 

Risks and Mitigations: Key implementation risks are IT system changes and team change management. We recommend mitigating this through a phased rollout and clear day-one KPIs.

Immediate Next Steps:

• Next week: Reclassify SKUs to correct categories and define differentiated service-level targets.
• Next month: Test the new model on top Product A SKUs (with IT update), measuring KPIs weekly to validate the business case for full rollout.

Hey there, 2-3 cases is very early. The weaknesses you're describing are normal at this stage — but you're right that more cases alone won't fix them. Isolated drills on each weakness, done consistently, will move you faster than grinding full cases.

On drills: 

Yes — drills are exactly what you need at this stage. Full cases won't fix isolated weaknesses; targeted reps will.

On structuring: 

The reason structuring feels un-MECE isn't usually the framework — it's that people jump to buckets before they've defined the problem. Fix this first:

1. Before writing any structure, write one sentence: "The core question is whether X is true, and if so, why." Your structure should answer that sentence, not just list business areas.
2. Test MECE by asking: if all my buckets were true, would I have fully answered the question? If not, you're missing something. If two buckets could both explain the same thing, they overlap.
3. Stop using frameworks as templates. Use them as checklists after you've built your structure, to check for gaps.

On messy comms: 

The fix is a simple habit: signpost before you calculate. Before any math or analysis, say out loud: "I want to figure out X because it will tell us Y." This forces you to know why you're doing the calculation before you do it — and it keeps the interviewer oriented.

When you finish, say: "So what this tells us is..." and give one sentence. Don't let the number hang in the air.

You are asking the right questions. Most candidates just do more full cases and wonder why they stop improving. Full cases are not the best way to fix specific weaknesses.

A. Structuring gets better when you stop leaning on frameworks and think from first principles. Before writing anything, ask what needs to be true for this client to solve their problem. Build your structure around that. MECE follows when your thinking is clear.

For recommendations, candidates ramble because they think while speaking. Fix it by taking 30 seconds of silence at the end to plan your answer. Interviewers expect the pause.

B. Yes, drills beat more full cases. Full cases mix five skills at once, so it is hard to fix any one. Drills isolate the skill. Structuring, case math, exhibits, brainstorming, and market sizing should each be practiced on their own. PrepLounge has some. 

C. A good recommendation sounds like, "My recommendation is X. Three reasons, one, two, three. Main risk is Y, I would mitigate with Z. Next steps are A and B." Answer first, then reasons, risks, next steps. Under 60 seconds.

Good luck.

Good that you’re spotting these issues early — that’s actually the hard part.

Also, small reality check: 2–3 cases is very early. It’s normal that things don’t feel natural yet. But you’re right that just “doing more cases” without direction won’t fix it.

1. Structuring

The problem is usually trying to apply frameworks instead of understanding logic.

Instead of thinking “which framework do I use?”, think:

• what am I trying to break down?
• what is the simplest way to split it?

For example:

• profit → revenue / cost
• revenue → price × volume

That’s enough. Keep it simple and clean.

A good exercise:

• take random business questions
• give yourself 2 minutes to structure them
• say it out loud

No full case needed.

2. Messy communication

This is very common.

The fix is not “think faster” — it’s actually the opposite:

• slow down a bit
• talk through your steps

For example in math:
“First I’ll calculate X, then I’ll move to Y”

Simple, but it keeps you structured.

3. Final recommendation

Most candidates make this too complicated.

A solid recommendation is just:

• clear answer
• 2–3 supporting points
• one risk
• next step

Example:
“I would recommend entering the market. This is because it’s large, growing, and we have a strong capability fit. The main risk is competitive pressure, so I would start with a pilot before scaling.”

That’s it.

How to improve faster

Yes, drills help a lot:

• structuring drills (as above)
• quick math practice
• practicing just recommendations at the end of cases

You don’t need to do full cases every time.

Overall, you’re not stuck — you’re just at the beginning.

Focus on:

• simpler structures
• slower, clearer communication
• a repeatable recommendation format

It will start to click after a few more reps.

If you want, happy to help you work through this step by step.

hey there :)

you’re very early in the process, so this is completely normal, and doing full cases alone usually doesn’t fix it. for structuring, stop relying on generic frameworks and instead force yourself to answer one question first: “what are the 2–3 key drivers of this problem?” then build a simple, clean issue tree around that, and say it out loud in one sentence before diving in.

for communication, practice slowing down and using short signposting like “there are two points here” or “the key takeaway is…”. it feels unnatural at first, but it makes you sound much clearer instantly.

for recommendations, use a simple structure every single time: clear answer first, then 2–3 supporting reasons, then risks and next steps. for example: “I recommend X because of A and B. however, we should watch out for C and next step would be D.” that’s already 90% of what interviewers want.

the biggest unlock is drills: take random business problems and just practice structuring for 5–10 minutes, or only practice final recommendations without doing full cases. that’s much more effective than only full cases.

if you want, I can quickly review one of your structures or give you a sample case to practice this.

best,
Alessa :)

Hi there,

Thanks for your account. 

It's absolutely normal to be feeling this way. Every candidate gets to this point sooner or later.

It's a plateau where they're unsure how to go further and how to improve.

It's also the point where most people decide to get coaching OR at least get a one session diagnostic. 

The reason is that I honestly don't know how I can help you based on this description alone. I could tell you many things you could do, but I can't tell you which specific ones would be helpful to you. 

It's a bit like a doctor recommend half of a pharmacy because that's medicine that helps peolpe without knowing what condition you suffer from. 

So do consider that and if you need help, reach out. 

Best,
Cristian

Hi,

You’ve only done 2–3 cases, so honestly — this is exactly where you should be. The issue isn’t that you’re stuck, it’s that you’re trying to fix everything just by doing more full cases. That rarely works at this stage.

Let me share what actually helped me when I was in a similar situation.

On structuring — the problem is usually over-relying on frameworks. Most candidates try to “fit” the case into something like profitability or market entry, and it ends up messy.

A better way is to start from the question itself.
Before writing anything, ask yourself: what would need to be true for me to answer this question confidently?
Then build 3–4 buckets from that.

For example, “Should we enter this market?” naturally leads to:

• is the market attractive
• can we win
• what could go wrong

That’s already clean enough. You don’t need perfect MECE — just logical and non-overlapping.

What helped me improve fast was doing quick structuring drills. Take a bunch of case prompts and spend 5 minutes on each just building the structure. No math, no solving. That’s way more effective than full cases early on.

On communication — what you’re describing is very common. It’s not that your thinking is messy, it’s that you’re not externalizing it properly.

The fix is simple but feels unnatural at first: talk while you think.

Instead of going silent, say things like:
“Let me break this into two parts…”
“I’ll first estimate volume, then look at pricing…”

It doesn’t need to be perfect. It just needs to be structured. This alone makes a big difference.

On final recommendations — most people overcomplicate this.

A solid answer is always the same pattern:

• clear answer
• 2–3 reasons
• key risks
• next steps

That’s it.

For example: “I’d recommend entering the market. It’s growing fast, we have a cost advantage, and competition is fragmented. The main risk is regulation, so I’d validate that first. As a next step, I’d run a pilot in one region.”

If you hit those four elements, you’re already ahead of most candidates.

What helped me here was simply practicing 1-minute summaries after each case. Even better if you record yourself — you’ll immediately notice what’s missing.

If I had to simplify everything:

• structuring: build from the question, not memorized frameworks
• communication: slow down and signpost your thinking
• recommendation: follow a simple, repeatable format

You’re early, so don’t worry — these are very fixable with a bit of targeted practice.

If you want, I’m happy to do a quick session focused just on structuring and recommendations. That’s usually where people see the fastest improvement.

Best,
Soheil

Hi there,

Structuring and final recommendations are the two hardest parts of the case. If you're going in circles trying to improve on your own, that's a very clear signal: you need a coach.

I highly recommend one session early. This is so that you can get the right guidance on what to do and not to do in your preparation. You can get supporting materials for your journey. And you can make sure to have the right mindset and not have bad habits developed early.

For example, a lot of people go and read cases for a few weeks before actually casing... this is a waste of time! And many candidates think that they can memorize frameworks (product, price, company, etc.) and just regurgitate. This is also not the way.

For structuring specifically: your framework labels should be specific to this case, not generic buckets that could fit any problem. "Revenue" and "Costs" tells the interviewer nothing. "Near term demand shortfall vs. structural margin erosion" shows you're actually thinking about the specific situation. The customization lives in the labels, not in how many sub-points you list.

For final recommendations: lead with the answer, not the logic. Conclusion first... then the supporting points... then the caveats. Most candidates bury the punchline. Interviewers want to know you can make a call under pressure.

A coach can hear you say it. That's the only way to really fix this: book a session here

Worth also checking out my 360 course for the full framework on how to prepare: Consulting & Recruiting 360 Course

Fingers crossed!

Hi there,

First thing — you’ve only done 2–3 cases. What you’re describing is completely normal at this stage, so don’t overthink it. The issue isn’t that you’re not improving, it’s that you’re too early in the process to expect it to feel smooth.

On structuring, the fix is not more frameworks, it’s simpler thinking. Focus on first principles: profit = revenue – cost, market = demand + competition + economics. Then practice building structures from scratch in 5–10 mins daily (pick a random business and break it down). That will help much more than memorizing templates.

On messy communication, this usually comes from thinking and speaking at the same time. Force yourself to pause, think, then speak in short sentences. A simple trick is to always summarize: “So what this means is…” after every calculation or insight. It keeps you structured even if your thinking isn’t perfect.

On recommendations, most candidates don’t know what “good” sounds like. A strong one is very simple:

• Clear answer (yes/no or main recommendation)
• 2–3 supporting reasons
• Key risk
• Next step

The problem is not complexity, it’s clarity and confidence.

To improve faster, don’t just do full cases. Add drills:

• Structure 1 case prompt per day (no full case, just the framework)
• Do 10 mins of mental math daily
• Practice 1–2 final recommendations out loud

Right now, quality matters more than quantity, but you still need volume. You’ll likely start feeling more comfortable after ~15–20 cases.

Happy to help you work through this in a more structured way if useful

Best
Evelina

Not to repeat the good points others have already shared, just want to add one thing. Part of the game with all three of your points is to not overthink them.

On structuring for example, do not try to force a framework. Use first principle thinking to cover the key dimensions that actually answer the prompt in front of you. Easier said than done but that is the right mental model.

The real fix for all three is practice. A lot of it. With time, your structures get sharper, your communication gets cleaner, and your recommendations start landing more naturally. The confidence comes from reps. And these soft factors - how you sound, how composed you are - actually project a lot in the interview and matter more than people realize.

Good luck !