Hi there,
They have to be different structures as they refer to different problems in different industries (one about expanding into an adjacent market; the other one about using a new channel).
Having said this, I am afraid to say that both structures are quite weak, as they are generic, not MECE and not that much focused to the problem at hand.
On the first case, it doesn't even understand the real problem it is trying to solve. The case is about a company that already is present in baby related products and wants to enter a new category.
- So the case is not only about the market being attractive (big, growing, high margins, low entry barriers)
- But also about leveraging the specific strenghts the company has in other categories into baby clothing (what do customers value, and does the company have a specific advantage in their value proposition vs. current competitors).
- Afterwards, you need to look into ability to place your product in retail stores / relevant channels (you have to assess your value proposition to retailers as well…)
- And to make sure you can do it in a profitable way.
Now when you look into this structure, you can confirm it is specific to the problem at hand, and I am 100% confident you could not use it to the beer problem. This is a good sign. You seem to be looking for the opposite - a structure that you can use regardless of the problem unique features. I strongly advise against that.
Now I won't provide a solution for the second case - but with what I've shown above, you should be able to understand the difference and try to come up with a good structure on your own. What I am doing there is actually being objective-driven. No buckets, but instead “what needs to be true” so that they are successful in entering the new product category, and considering the specifics of the situation.
Feel free to reach out if you want specific coaching on how to improve your structuring skills in order to make them more specific to the cases.