Hi Anonymous,

your second option (verify the hypothesis) would be better. However, I would stay away from the Victor Cheng structure of company-client-competition-product – this framework is completely outdated and useless for many cases (eg operations).

Best,

Francesco

Hi,

First of all - using hypotheses is not mandatory. I would say - use the hypothesis if you are really good at solving the cases. If not - use the basic approach

There are two ways to use the hypothesis

First - presenting a structure using the hypothesis. For example, if you are having a PE (private equity) case, you should do the following:

1) Make classic structure (market, company, competitors, feasibility of exit)

2) Make subpoints (e.g. in market: size, growth rates, profitability, segmentation, etc)

3) Present your 1st level Hypothesis:

• - "In order to understand whether we should invest in Company A, I would like to check that the Market is Attractive, the Company is Attractive, the competition is favorable and we have good opportunities for of exit"

4) Present the main 2nd level Hypothesis:

• "In the market, I would like to make sure that the market is big enough and growing;
• In the company I would like to find additional opportunities for growth;
• In competition I would like to check that the market is fragmented enough;
• Finally, I would like to check if we have potential buyers and can achieve desired exit multiples"

Another way to use hypothesis is using the hypothesis to prioritize your analysis:

1) Make a structure: "Problem in sales may be related to Sales Motivation, Sales Strategy, Sales Coverage, and Sales Process:

2) Prioritize a part of the structure based on your knowledge / common sense / available data: "Taking into account that motivation is the core problem of the sales organization, I would like to prioritize this part of the analysis"

Good luck!

Is this framework more about exploring different dimensions of the problem, or could it be used to verify the hypothesis?

This is the exact same question. This is the entire point of a framework...to develop and confirm your hypothesis/es on the problem!

Which approach is the correct way to use the framework?

It depends on the context of your case. However, in general, you are asking questions that get you closer and closer to an answer or an understanding of the world. You're narrowing down (or moving towards) a clearer view of the things that matter for your problem.

Hi,
Agree with Ian that "exploring different dimension of the problem" and "verify hypothesis" is the same thing. It is both about how you break down a big problem into small pieces and test where the issue lies.
E.g. the problem could be "is it a good idea to enter market A", you can totally rephrase that to hypothesis of "Enter market A is a good idea" or "A bad idea". Then you would look into the same 4 dimension regardless how you state the problem/hypothesis. In the hypothesis approach, you can just rephrase the dimensions, e.g. "I would like to look into the company capability, to see if they have the right capability to enter; once we have that understanding we can prove or disprove the hypothesis from a capability point of view"...Same for other dimension.
It is the same thing, just how you phrase it. But remember to customise the framework according to the specific case context.

Best,

Emily

I confirm the second approach is better.

Best,
Antonello

Hello!

+1 to Francesco, don´t make the mistake at looking at this structures and thinking they would provide you a holistic toolkit, since they won´t.

Is good a pre-read to get up to speed tough.

Hope it helps!

Cheers,

Clara