Which framework is better for this BCG Market Entry case?

You’re right — there’s no single “correct” framework here, and both are structurally sound. But if I had to choose, I’d go with Approach B, and here’s why:

Why Approach B fits better (especially for BCG)

• It starts from the objective: The prompt isn’t just about exploring a shiny new market — it’s about closing a specific profit gap. Approach B tackles this head-on by calculating what’s needed to bridge the gap and then assessing feasibility.
• It enables early decision-making: BCG interviewers often value hypothesis-driven thinking and efficient prioritization. Starting with breakeven makes it easier to “kill the idea early” if the numbers clearly don’t add up — something consultants do all the time.
• It lets you lead the case: Since Approach B is structured around a clear financial yardstick, it helps you drive the conversation toward actionable insight rather than just exploring markets passively.
• It mimics real client thinking: A CEO looking to close a 7–8% margin gap is going to ask, “Can this new service realistically get us there?” — not “What’s the CAGR of the fire safety industry?”

Caveat: Use A if your interviewer wants depth on the market

If you sense your interviewer wants to dive into market dynamics or test your ability to assess market attractiveness broadly, Approach A could still work well — just make sure to tie every insight back to the profitability objective.

TL;DR:

I’d choose Approach B — it’s more goal-oriented, lets you pressure test feasibility early, and keeps the case focused on the key question: “Can this solve the margin problem?” That’s classic BCG style — rigorous, structured, and purposeful.

Let me know if you’d like help building out the math or pressure-testing your assumptions — happy to walk through it.

Actually, they are both rather good. So good job! Of course, it comes down to how you actually develop then each bullet point, how specific you are and how you draw interdependencies between the areas. 

What I do think it's important and I would include as the first area in the structure, is a clarification / ideation session with the client on what is it that they are optimising for. Profit or what? What is the goal? Anything else that they care about?

Best,
Cristian

Hi there,

Both frameworks are solid, but from a BCG-style perspective, Approach B is stronger. Here's why:

• Problem-back thinking: It starts by quantifying the profit gap and asking whether fire protection can realistically close it – exactly the kind of sharp, goal-driven framing BCG prefers.
• Fail-fast mindset: It quickly tests feasibility before diving into full market analysis, saving time if the numbers don’t work.
• Hypothesis-driven: It leads with the critical financial hurdle and only explores broader strategy if justified.

Approach A is broader but less targeted. B aligns better with BCG’s style: focused, data-led, and client-outcome driven.

Happy to help you prep – feel free to reach out.
 

Best,
Evelina

Hello there,

Clarification questions are key here and may help you decide whether A or B are better options.

I personally prefer option B, as it basically says: IF these criteria are met, THEN it is a yes. However, having a “risk” bucket is sometimes not well seeing, so make sure to frame it in terms of the largest risk if possible. I.e.: instead of “risk” you could say “Operations dynamics”. 

Best,

Mari

Hi there,

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

• First of all, contrary to what other coaches have said, the initial structure B is clearly preferable. It correctly follows the logic of a focused, stringent approach, with one exception: market feasibility. The question is not whether the market in general is attractive, but whether the client’s market entry will help address their profitability issues, which has already been addressed in the first analysis (even though this shouldn't be a break-even analysis, since that wasn't asked for). Therefore, there is no reason to conduct a general market attractiveness assessment, as common as it may be.
• Moreover, contrary to what other coaches have said, you are absolutely right to add risks - or rather, a proper risk assessment - as a key step in your analysis, as you need to account for the non-financial factors that may be relevant for the decision to be made.
• Lastly, I would advise you to consider working with an experienced coach like me on your consulting structuring skills if this is what you're interested in. I developed the "Case Structuring Program" to help exactly such candidates like you who want to perfect their structuring.

You can find more on this topic here: How to succeed in the final interview round.

If you would like a more detailed discussion on how to best prepare your application files, for your upcoming pre-interview assessments and/or interviews, please don't hesitate to contact me directly.

Best,

Hagen