How to take your case structure to the next level
There are 2 things every great case structure should have
At some point along the case prep journey, candidates will find themselves in a place where they are comfortable with the overall dynamic at the beginning of a case, know they should spend time to develop a structured, MECE framework, and know they need to be hypothesis driven. Basically, they know the fundamentals and are unlikely to get tripped up.
However, to ensure they can consistently pass a McKinsey or BCG framework, candidates are often looking for ways to take their structure from good to great. This is a great place to be, but also a necessary place. Indeed, without showing areas of excellence in the case, a.k.a. spikes, it will be challenging to pass a case and make it to the next round (see some comments from McKinsey on spikes here).
So after mastering the basics, what are the other key factors that a candidate should work towards including in each case? Below I outline these 2 key factors, and try to provide some examples of how to incorporate these into your structure.
Interdependencies / tradeoffs. While branches of your structure are mutually exclusive, they are linked with each other. Thus, it is critical to think deeply about some of these key links, and comment on one or two of the major ones as you walk through your structure. A leader of an organization must consider these interdependencies through many major decisions, so it is not surprising that an excellent candidate will do the same during the case. For example, say the key question is that a global beverage company has hired you to increase revenue. Here, your structure will likely include areas including changes to price, increasing market share within current products, launching new products, entering new markets with current products, etc. Examples of interdependencies / tradeoffs you could mention:
One major interdependency to consider is if you launch a new product, the impact that product may have on your existing products. Suppose you estimate that this new product can achieve $50M in sales in the first year. Is all of that truly new (a.k.a., incremental) sales, or is some portion of that simply customers who would have purchased your existing product, but are now shifting to this new product? Any new launch, especially if in a related product line, carries this risk of cannibalization, and a great candidate will explicitly mention this in the case.
A key tradeoff you could mention is the cost associated with launching a new product. Even though the key question is about revenue, and your major focus should therefore be on revenue, any CEO must also consider cost, so you should reference this but note that it is not the focus. You may say “In thinking about launching a new product, I would also want to quickly consider the cost implications. Of course the CEO is primarily concerned with revenue in this case, however if the upfront and ongoing costs associated with this new product are substantial, it may not make sense for the overall business to launch this product.” A comment like this shows the interviewer that while you clearly understand the main question of this case, you are not blind to the wider business considerations at play.
Outside-the-box hypotheses: Candidates know their structures should be hypothesis-driven, but at some point many candidates end up repeating the same types of generic hypotheses (e.g., “we should also consider changes to price to drive an overall increase of revenue”). While these are not wrong, a great candidate will include some truly creative hypotheses (I suggest aiming to include at least 1 of these per case). This shows the interviewer that you are thinking deeply about the specifics of the case and are a creative thinker. For example, say the key question is that a stand alone restaurant wants to decrease costs. During your structure, a few examples of creative hypotheses you can mention include:
Move the physical restaurant. Depending on the specifics of the restaurant this could be a great option. Is the restaurant mostly takeout or delivery and is it in an expensive part of downtown? Maybe in this situation moving to a less desirable location to save costs could be the prudent decision - it may even allow our client to decrease prices for customers and therefore drive an overall increase in revenues and profits.
Close the store and switch the business model to delivery and in-store purchases (i.e., sell pre-made branded meals or other food items to local grocery stores). Many times in cases like this candidates can be myopically focused on how to reduce costs under the current business model, but if a change to the business model is what may be best for the client we have an obligation to consider it.
When developing your structure, I recommend you think explicitly about these 2 factors and ensure you directly address them. Remember, only start incorporating this into your case prep after you have mastered the basics. Successfully adding these on top of these fundamentals will enable you to demonstrate excellent conceptual problem solving to the interviewer.
Bottom line: In addition to the fundamentals, a great case structure should include both consideration of interdependencies / tradeoffs, and outside-the-box, creative hypotheses.