Cookie and Privacy Settings

This website uses cookies to enable essential functions like the user login and sessions. We also use cookies and third-party tools to improve your surfing experience on preplounge.com. You can choose to activate only essential cookies or all cookies. You can always change your preference in the cookie and privacy settings. This link can also be found in the footer of the site. If you need more information, please visit our privacy policy.

Data processing in the USA: By clicking on "I accept", you also consent, in accordance with article 49 paragraph 1 sentence 1 lit. GDPR, to your data being processed in the USA (by Google LLC, Facebook Inc., LinkedIn Inc., Stripe, Paypal).

Manage settings individually I accept
expert
Expert with best answer

Sidi

99% Recommendation Rate

423 Meetings

4,088 Q&A Upvotes

USD 449 / Coaching

5

Structure of cases

Hi everyone,

as you know it is important in the cases to have a structure that is fit on the case. I often use a more general structure and then discover the problem.. what do you suggest me? How can I develop a more "fit structure"?

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

as you know it is important in the cases to have a structure that is fit on the case. I often use a more general structure and then discover the problem.. what do you suggest me? How can I develop a more "fit structure"?

Thanks!

5 answers

  • Upvotes
  • Date ascending
  • Date descending
Best Answer
Book a coaching with Sidi

99% Recommendation Rate

423 Meetings

4,088 Q&A Upvotes

USD 449 / Coaching

Hi there!

Hi Anonymous,

The structure or approach to the case is indeed an absolutely crucial element towards success in a case interview. However, there is still a BIG misconception that I unfortunately see with many many candidates:

Structure DOES NOT equal frameworks!

The different frameworks that you can find in pertinent case literature provide a nothing more than a good starting point in terms of which areas to look into for certain types of problems. However, they are very poor (and I mean: REALLY poor!) regarding HOW TO APPROACH a case and HOW TO DRAFT A ROADMAP for solving the case.

This approach and roadmap needs to be rooted in rigorous and specific logic!

Unfortunately the "framework learning philosophy" brought forward by, e.g., Case in Point, is the very reason why an overwhelming majority of candidates are struggling so much and will most probably never get an MBB offer.

By and large, most (or probably all) casebooks on the market are teaching a fundamentally flawed way how to think about business / strategy / organizational problems! A framework as such is worth nothing if it is not embedded into the specific context of the situation! This means, each element that you want to scrutinize ("building blocks" of the framework so to speak) needs to clearly relate back to the question that you want to address! This principle should form the basis of any structure.

This is why you ALWAYS start from the specific question that you want to answer! From there, you define the criterion or criteria that need to be met in order to anwer this core question in one way or another.

In 95% of cases, value creation will be the central element. Ultimately, this is nothing else than profit generation over a specific time frame. You then draw a driver tree for profitability in order to isolate the numerical drivers for your solution. And then, only after you have drawn out the driver tree, you can map out the relevant qualitative "framework elements" to the sub branches. This approach, visualized by means of a rigorous driver tree, is much much clearer then any framework you will find in any case book. And, contrary to such frameworks, which are hanging in the air and do not logically relate back to the specific question, this is a bullet proof approach when done rigorously.

The caveat is: this requires time and qualified coaching to internalize. But ultimately, this is how consultants think about problems - how can we optimize for value creation?

Cheers, Sidi

Hi there!

Hi Anonymous,

The structure or approach to the case is indeed an absolutely crucial element towards success in a case interview. However, there is still a BIG misconception that I unfortunately see with many many candidates:

Structure DOES NOT equal frameworks!

The different frameworks that you can find in pertinent case literature provide a nothing more than a good starting point in terms of which areas to look into for certain types of problems. However, they are very poor (and I mean: REALLY poor!) regarding HOW TO APPROACH a case and HOW TO DRAFT A ROADMAP for solving the case.

This approach and roadmap needs to be rooted in rigorous and specific logic!

Unfortunately the "framework learning philosophy" brought forward by, e.g., Case in Point, is the very reason why an overwhelming majority of candidates are struggling so much and will most probably never get an MBB offer.

By and large, most (or probably all) casebooks on the market are teaching a fundamentally flawed way how to think about business / strategy / organizational problems! A framework as such is worth nothing if it is not embedded into the specific context of the situation! This means, each element that you want to scrutinize ("building blocks" of the framework so to speak) needs to clearly relate back to the question that you want to address! This principle should form the basis of any structure.

This is why you ALWAYS start from the specific question that you want to answer! From there, you define the criterion or criteria that need to be met in order to anwer this core question in one way or another.

In 95% of cases, value creation will be the central element. Ultimately, this is nothing else than profit generation over a specific time frame. You then draw a driver tree for profitability in order to isolate the numerical drivers for your solution. And then, only after you have drawn out the driver tree, you can map out the relevant qualitative "framework elements" to the sub branches. This approach, visualized by means of a rigorous driver tree, is much much clearer then any framework you will find in any case book. And, contrary to such frameworks, which are hanging in the air and do not logically relate back to the specific question, this is a bullet proof approach when done rigorously.

The caveat is: this requires time and qualified coaching to internalize. But ultimately, this is how consultants think about problems - how can we optimize for value creation?

Cheers, Sidi

Book a coaching with Ian

100% Recommendation Rate

193 Meetings

16,158 Q&A Upvotes

USD 289 / Coaching

Hi Anonymous,

Lots of ways to address your question, and the others have done a very nice job of this.

I agree with everything they say, and would just like to add some tips (some unorthodox) on HOW to learn/think in the right way.

  1. Frame based on the objective: Identify exactly what the objective is, then think about the areas you would look at to solve the problem.
  2. Think of buckets as "building blocks" - understand the 10-odd buckets that exist out them (Market, Product, Company, How to Enter, etc.). Learn these, and what their used for, then think of them as ingredients that you then pluck out and tailor to your framework.
  3. Practice with Introduction, then End, then framework:
    1. Practice a number of cases where you hear just the introduction, then build a framework.
    2. THEN, look at the end of the case and what conclusion was made, and re-do your framework.
    3. THEN, look at what framework(s) was/were proposed as the answer.
  4. Read the Economist religiously: The Economist is an excellent, longer-term base knowledge/thinking resource for you. I've found that reading the Economist over the years has been instrumental in helping to shape my thinking and holistically understand problems, whether political, economic, social, or anything in between. Feel free to throw in the Financial Times or BCG Insights into the mix!

Hope this helps!

Hi Anonymous,

Lots of ways to address your question, and the others have done a very nice job of this.

I agree with everything they say, and would just like to add some tips (some unorthodox) on HOW to learn/think in the right way.

  1. Frame based on the objective: Identify exactly what the objective is, then think about the areas you would look at to solve the problem.
  2. Think of buckets as "building blocks" - understand the 10-odd buckets that exist out them (Market, Product, Company, How to Enter, etc.). Learn these, and what their used for, then think of them as ingredients that you then pluck out and tailor to your framework.
  3. Practice with Introduction, then End, then framework:
    1. Practice a number of cases where you hear just the introduction, then build a framework.
    2. THEN, look at the end of the case and what conclusion was made, and re-do your framework.
    3. THEN, look at what framework(s) was/were proposed as the answer.
  4. Read the Economist religiously: The Economist is an excellent, longer-term base knowledge/thinking resource for you. I've found that reading the Economist over the years has been instrumental in helping to shape my thinking and holistically understand problems, whether political, economic, social, or anything in between. Feel free to throw in the Financial Times or BCG Insights into the mix!

Hope this helps!

(edited)

Book a coaching with Vlad

97% Recommendation Rate

404 Meetings

11,348 Q&A Upvotes

USD 239 / Coaching

Hi,

Your structure should be tailored to the case. You should do it in multiple ways:

  • Addressing the objective and context of the case. E.g. If the case is market entry but the objective is NPV the good call is - should it be a classic market entry structure with NPV bakes in or an NPV structure or smth else?
  • Addressing the industry: e.g. if you have a case about telecom industry, besides the standard market analysis topics you might want to cover specific topics like geography, penetration, etc
  • Making a separate bucket of analysis addressing the type of the case. E.g. for a PE case you might want to have a bucker "Feasibility of exit" looking into exit multiples, exit time, investments, the existence of buyers, etc.

Best!

Hi,

Your structure should be tailored to the case. You should do it in multiple ways:

  • Addressing the objective and context of the case. E.g. If the case is market entry but the objective is NPV the good call is - should it be a classic market entry structure with NPV bakes in or an NPV structure or smth else?
  • Addressing the industry: e.g. if you have a case about telecom industry, besides the standard market analysis topics you might want to cover specific topics like geography, penetration, etc
  • Making a separate bucket of analysis addressing the type of the case. E.g. for a PE case you might want to have a bucker "Feasibility of exit" looking into exit multiples, exit time, investments, the existence of buyers, etc.

Best!

I'm trying to develop issue trees & internalize that thinking...And feel sorry for the time i wasted by remembering those victor cheng or case in point structure formats.

I'm trying to develop issue trees & internalize that thinking...And feel sorry for the time i wasted by remembering those victor cheng or case in point structure formats.

Hi,

short solution: be creative

long solution: there is no general rule on how to create a framework. Imagine yourself to be the client who has a problem, what would you do to solve your problem? What would you look at? It is often just common sense. In the end, it's the art of consulting to come up with a structure that is unique, solves the problem, and impresses your client. If it were so straightforward, consulting firms would run bankrupt as they were not able to find a client because the client could solve his/her problem alone.

With practice, you will become better:-)

Best,

Daniel

Hi,

short solution: be creative

long solution: there is no general rule on how to create a framework. Imagine yourself to be the client who has a problem, what would you do to solve your problem? What would you look at? It is often just common sense. In the end, it's the art of consulting to come up with a structure that is unique, solves the problem, and impresses your client. If it were so straightforward, consulting firms would run bankrupt as they were not able to find a client because the client could solve his/her problem alone.

With practice, you will become better:-)

Best,

Daniel

Related case(s)

Deep Water Rescue

Solved 400+ times
Deep Water Rescue Deep water is a European manufacturer of small yachts and premium boats for private customers. The company operates in Europe and the Middle East and is based in Northern European country, where its manufacturing site, as well as HQ, are located. Deep Water has a strong and recognizable brand as a manufacturer of luxury boats and (recently) also small yachts. Deep water has been experiencing significant financial difficulties related to its profitability during the several past years. Currently, Deep Water has about 200 M€ of sales p.a. The company wants to improve its profitability, maintaining at least the current level of sales.
3.6 5 10
| Rating: (3.6 / 5.0)

Deep water is a European manufacturer of small yachts and premium boats for private customers. The company operates in Europe and the Middle East and is based in Northern European country, where its manufacturing site, as well as HQ, are located. Deep Water has a strong and recognizable brand as a m ... Open whole case