What framework would you use for this case? I struggle with Inverto frameworks

If you struggle with “Inverto frameworks”, ignore the label and build a simple, procurement‑focused structure instead. Inverto’s cases are BCG‑style, just more sourcing / supply‑chain oriented.

For a typical direct‑spend / procurement case, I’d use three buckets:

1.Spend & cost diagnosis

• What do we buy, from whom, at what terms?
• Break down spend by category, supplier, price vs volume, and specs.

2.Sourcing and savings levers

• Consolidation, renegotiation, should‑cost, specification changes, make‑or‑buy, process improvements.

3.Risk, ESG and implementation

• Supply risk, concentration, lead times, working capital, ESG; then a pragmatic roadmap with quick wins vs longer‑term moves.

This keeps your framework very “Inverto‑compatible” without memorizing any proprietary model: understand the spend, find cost/risk drivers, then pick levers and sequence implementation. 

Hi there,

This is a classic procurement / cost-optimization case. There's an almost endless list of levers to bring a cost base down, so the trick is to structure them in a way that reads as MECE as possible.

How I'd frame it (as if it were a real project):

1. Diagnostic. Find where the money sits and where the savings are:

• Map the spend into categories and sub-categories so you know where the money goes.
• Benchmark to size the prize. The client has done their internal analysis, so the value you add is external benchmarks: peers, market indices, and should-cost models. The gaps are your savings potential.
• Prioritize the categories that are big and addressable.

2. Cost levers. On the priority categories, I'd apply three macro levers:

• Buy less: cut over-specification, waste, and low-value variants; standardize.
• Buy cheaper: consolidate volume, renegotiate, tender, low-cost sourcing, reduce single-source dependence.
• Buy better: value engineering, cheaper materials, fewer components, make-vs-buy.

3. Guardrails. The brief explicitly calls out supply chain resilience and carbon, so screen every saving against both, not just the cost impact.

Hope this helps, and happy to run a procurement case if you want to drill this live.

Federico

Hi there,

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

• First of all, there really is no specific Inverto "framework" to apply. These are regular casse studies, only more procurement and supply-chain oriented, so I would advise you to build a simple structure directly from the objective of the case.
• Moreover, 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.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare for your upcoming Inverto interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen

hey! 

For Inverto you never need a big framework. The safest way is to anchor everything in the procurement problem itself. A good Inverto structure is always three things: what is the goal, what drives that goal, and what data you need to judge the drivers. That keeps you relevant and stops you from listing far‑fetched points.

If the case is about reducing cost, your structure is cost drivers, supplier levers, and implementation risks. If the case is about improving supply stability, your structure is demand patterns, supplier reliability, and mitigation options. If the case is about selecting a supplier, your structure is technical fit, commercial fit, and delivery risk. These three buckets work for almost every Inverto case because they match how procurement teams think.

Alessa