I've been practising many cases (40+), but realized that I have not been "hypothesis-driven". I usually follow Victor Cheng's method - start with framework, and then state my initial hypothesis. Recently I got feedback that my structure is not directly linked to my hypothesis, and suggested me to start from hypothesis then state a structure that is 100% linked to the hypothesis.
However, I have some confusions here:
(1) How detailed / comprehensive should a hypothesis be in a case? Could it be several hypothesis in different steps? For example, in a new product launch case, can I start from the hypothesis of "the market is attractive", the mention a second hypothesis of "the company could achieve its financial return goal" later on in the case? Or, I have to state all hypothesis altogether at once?
(2) How should I proceed with a typical profit case using a hypothesis-driven approach? Usually, I state a hypothesis of "this is a revenue problem" after sharing the structure. Should I cover all the factors at once instead? (For example, my hypothesis is that this is a revenue problem, quantity has been dropping due to customer preference change.)
(3) Are there any suggested ways to improve the hypothesis-driven case solving?
Appreciate your advice.