case study modeling framework

Hacking the Case Interview

Case interview frameworks or consulting frameworks are arguably the most critical component of a case interview. Outstanding case frameworks   set you up for success for the case while poor frameworks make the case difficult to solve.

Struggling on how to use frameworks in your case interviews? Unsure of which frameworks to use?

Don't worry because we have you covered! We'll teach you step-by-step, how to craft tailored and unique frameworks for any case interview situation.

By the end of this article, you will learn four different strategies on how to create unique and tailored frameworks for any case interview.

Strategy #1: Creating Frameworks from Scratch

• Strategy #2: Memorizing 8 – 10 Broad Business Areas
• Strategy #3: Breaking Down Stakeholders
• Strategy #4: Breaking Down Processes
• Strategy #5: Two-Part MECE Frameworks

You will apply these strategies to learn how to create case frameworks for the six most common types of case interviews.

Profitability Framework

Market entry framework, merger and acquisition framework, pricing framework, new product framework, market sizing framework.

You will also learn six consulting frameworks that nearly every consultant knows.

Porter’s Five Forces Framework

Swot framework, 4 p’s framework, 3 c’s / business situation framework, bcg 2x2 matrix framework, mckinsey 7s framework.

If you’re looking for a step-by-step shortcut to learn case interviews quickly, enroll in our case interview course . These insider strategies from a former Bain interviewer helped 30,000+ land consulting offers while saving hundreds of hours of prep time.

What is a Case Interview Framework?

A case interview framework is simply a tool that helps you structure and break down complex problems into simpler, smaller components. Think of a framework as brainstorming different ideas and organizing them into different categories.

Let’s look at an example: Coca-Cola is a large manufacturer and retailer of non-alcoholic beverages, such as sodas, juices, sports drinks, and teas. They are looking to grow and are considering entering the beer market in the United States. Should they enter?

In order for you to decide whether Coca-Cola should enter the beer market, you likely have many different questions you’d like to ask:

• Does Coca-Cola know how to produce beer?
• Would people buy beer made by Coca-Cola?
• Where would Coca-Cola sell its beer?
• How much would it cost to enter the beer market?
• Will Coca-Cola be profitable from selling beer?
• How would Coca-Cola outcompete competitors?
• What is the size of the beer market in the United States?

This is not a very structured way of thinking through the case. The questions are listed in no particular order. Additionally, many of the questions are similar to one another and could be grouped together.

A case framework would provide a structure to organize these ideas and questions in a way that is easy to understand.

A framework for this case might look like the following.

Notice that we have simplified the list of questions we had into four main categories. These broad categories are frequently called framework “buckets.” Also notice that we have grouped similar questions together under each framework bucket.

This case framework tells us what areas we need to explore in order to make a recommendation to Coca-Cola. It also clearly shows what questions we need to answer under each area.

This is the power of a case interview framework. It simplifies a complex business problem into smaller and separate components that we can tackle one at a time.

So how do you develop a case framework? The next section will reveal four robust strategies for creating unique and tailored consulting frameworks for any case interview.

Case Interview Framework Strategies

There are four case interview framework strategies you should have in your toolkit:  

When given a case interview, you will need to decide which framework strategy you want to use. Some framework strategies will be more effective than others depending on what type of case interview you get.

Therefore, choose the case framework strategy that is easiest for you given the type of case that you get.

This case framework strategy can be used for any type of case. This is the most time-consuming strategy, but yields case frameworks that are the most tailored and unique for the given case interview.

To create a framework from scratch, ask yourself what 3 – 4 statements must be true for you to be 100% confident in your recommendation. These 3 – 4 areas will become the buckets in your framework.

Once you have your framework buckets, brainstorm a few questions for each bucket that you need answers to.

Let’s return to the Coca-Cola case example in which we are asked to determine whether or not they should enter the beer market. What 3 – 4 statements must be true for us to recommend that Coca-Cola should enter the beer market?

The four major statements that must be true are:

• The beer market is an attractive market
• Competitors in the market are weak
• Coca-Cola has the capabilities to produce outstanding beer
• Coca-Cola will be highly profitable from entering the beer market

These will be the major areas or buckets in our framework.

Next, let’s add a few bullet points under each area to add more detail to our case framework.

To determine whether the beer market is attractive, we would need to know the market size, the market growth rate, and the average profit margins in the market.

To assess whether the market is competitive, we would need to know who the competitors are, how much market share they have, and if they have any differentiation or competitive advantages.

To decide whether Coca-Cola has the capabilities to produce beer, we need to know if there are any capability gaps or if there are significant synergies that Coca-Cola can leverage.

Finally, to determine the expected profitability of entering the market, we would need to know what expected revenues are, what expected costs are, and how long it would take Coca-Cola to break even.

This gives us our case framework.

You can repeat this process for any case interview that you get to create an outstanding case framework.

Strategy #2: Memorizing 8 – 10 Broad Business Areas to Make a Framework

Creating case frameworks from scratch can be quite time-consuming. Because of this, many interview candidates make the mistake of using memorized frameworks for case interviews.

Candidates will either use a single memorized framework for every case or memorize a different framework for every type of case interview.

The issue with using memorized frameworks is that they aren’t tailored to the specific case you are solving for. When given an atypical business problem, your framework areas or buckets will not be entirely relevant.

A poor framework makes the case interview significantly more difficult to solve.

Additionally, Interviewers can easily tell that you are regurgitating memorized information and not thinking critically.

Instead of creating frameworks from scratch each time, this second case framework strategy provides a method to speed up the process while still creating frameworks that are unique and tailored to the case. Additionally, you won’t need to memorize multiple different frameworks.

First, memorize a list of 8 - 10 broad business areas, such as the following:

When given a case, mentally run through this list and pick the 3 - 5 areas that are most relevant to the case.

This will be your framework.

If the list does not give you enough areas for your framework, brainstorm and add your own ideas as areas to your framework.

Finally, add a few bullet points under each area to add more detail to your case framework.

This strategy guarantees that your framework elements are relevant to the case. It also demonstrates that you can create unique, tailored frameworks for every business problem.

Let’s return to the Coca-Cola case example in which we are asked to determine whether or not they should enter the beer market.

Running through our list of memorized framework areas, the following six areas would be relevant:

• Market attractiveness : Is the beer market attractive?
• Competitive landscape : How tough is competition?
• Company capabilities : Does Coca-Cola have the capabilities to enter the market?
• Profitability : Will Coca-Cola be profitable from entering the market?
• Risks : What are the risks of entering the market?
• Strategic alternatives : Are there other more attractive markets Coca-Cola should enter?

You can pick 3 – 5 of these areas as the basis for your framework.

This strategy is a shortcut for creating unique and tailored frameworks for every business problem. Even if you and a friend used this same strategy, you both may end up with different frameworks.

That is completely fine. As long as the buckets in your framework are major areas and are relevant to the case, your case framework will be significantly better than most candidates’ frameworks.

You do not need to develop a framework entirely from scratch every time to create outstanding case frameworks. This case framework strategy can be applied to over 90% of case interviews.

For the remaining 10% of case interviews, you will need to learn and use the next two case interview framework strategies.

Strategy #3: Breaking Down Stakeholders to Make a Framework

The first two case framework strategies can be applied to over 90% of cases. However, some cases may require you to identify and focus on various stakeholders that are involved in running or operating a business.

For these cases, the primary areas of your case framework will be these major stakeholders.

Let’s take a look at an example: Your client is a non-profit blood bank. They have volunteer nurses that go to schools and companies to collect blood from donors. They then sell this blood to hospitals, which use this blood for emergency situations when a blood transfusion is required. Currently, Hearts4Lives is not profitable because they are not able to collect enough blood to sell to their hospital partners. What can they do to fix this?

This case involves many different stakeholders:

• Volunteer nurses
• Blood donors
• Schools and companies

For cases in which many different stakeholders are involved, it will be useful to look at each stakeholder and determine what each could do to address the problem.

One potential framework could look like the following:

Strategy #4: Breaking Down Processes to make a Framework

Similar to the previous case framework strategy, some cases may require you to focus on improving or optimizing a particular process.

For these cases, the primary areas of your case framework will be each major step of the process.

Let’s take a look at an example: Your client is a waste disposal company that manages a fleet of drivers and garbage trucks that go to residential homes, collect garbage, and then dump the garbage in city landfills. They have an obligation to collect each home’s garbage once a week. Recently, they have been failing to meet this requirement and are backed up with garbage disposal requests. What is causing this issue and what should they do to fix it?

For cases involving processes and efficiencies, it can be helpful to look at the different components or steps in the process.

We can think about the process of collecting and disposing of garbage in the following steps:

• Get in a garbage truck
• Drive along a designated route
• Collect garbage at each stop
• Dispose of the garbage in the landfill

Using these steps as the primary areas of our framework, we can create the following case framework:

Once you have systematically listed all of the steps in a process, you can identify the pain points or bottlenecks that are causing the issue and determine ways to improve the process.

Strategy #5: Two-part MECE Frameworks

An easy way to make a 100% MECE framework is to use a two-part MECE framework. For the first step, start with a X and Not X framework. Some examples include:

• Internal / external
• Short-term / long-term
• Economic / non-economic
• Quantitative / qualitative
• Direct / indirect
• Supply-side / demand-side
• Upside / downside
• Benefits / cost

There are probably hundreds more frameworks that follow this pattern.

These frameworks are by definition 100% MECE. Since all of these frameworks are X or Not-X, they are mutually exclusive. There is no redundancy or overlap between X and Not-X.

Together, X and Not-X are also completely exhaustive. They cover the universe of all ideas and possibilities.

The X and Not-X framework by itself is good enough for a lot of the questions you could get asked in a case interview.

If you’re asked to brainstorm ways to decrease costs, you can create a framework consisting of decreasing variable costs and decreasing non-variable costs, also known as fixed costs.

If you’re asked to brainstorm barriers to entry, you can create a framework consisting of economic barriers to entry, such as cash and equipment, and non-economic barriers to entry, such as brand name or distribution channels.

However, to take your framework to the next level and truly impress your interviewer, we have the option of doing step two.

Step two involves adding another layer of X and Not X into your framework. What do we mean by this?

Let’s say you are trying to help a city decide whether they should host the upcoming summer Olympics. You start off with a framework consisting of benefits and costs. You can take this framework to the next level by adding another layer, such as adding in short-term and long-term.

With this additional layer, your framework now has four categories: short-term benefits, long-term benefits, short-term costs, and long-term costs. This is a 100% MECE framework that enables you to think through all possible considerations in deciding whether a city should host the Olympics.

Let’s look at another example. Suppose you are trying to figure out how to reduce a company’s costs. You start with a framework consisting of variable costs and fixed costs. You can take this framework to the next level by adding another layer, such as direct and indirect.

With this additional layer, your framework now has four categories: ways to directly reduce variable costs, ways to indirectly reduce variable costs, ways to directly reduce fixed costs, and ways to indirectly reduce fixed costs. This is another 100% MECE framework.

Case Frameworks: The 6 Most Common Frameworks

There are six common case frameworks in consulting case interviews.  

Profitability frameworks are the most common types of frameworks you’ll likely use in consulting first round interviews.

A profitability case might look like this: “An electric car manufacturer has recently been experiencing a decline in profits. What should they do?”

There are two steps to solving a profitability case.

First, you need to understand quantitatively, what is the driver causing the decline in profits?

You should know the following basic profit formulas.

Is the decline in profitability due to a decline in revenue, an increase in costs, or both?

On the revenue side, what is causing the decline? Is it from a decrease in quantity of units sold? If so, is the decrease concentrated in a particular product line, geography, or customer segment?

Or is the decline due to a decrease in price? Are we selling products at a lower price? Is there a sales mix change? In other words, are we selling more low-priced products and fewer high-priced products?

On the cost side, what is causing the increase in costs? Is it from an increase in variable costs? If so, which cost elements have gone up?

Or is the increase in costs due to an increase in fixed costs? If so, which fixed costs have gone up?

Next, you need to understand qualitatively, what factors are driving the decline in profitability that you identified in the previous step.

Looking at customers, have customer needs or preferences changed? Have their purchasing habits or behaviors changed? Have their perceptions of the company changed?

Looking at competitors, have new players entered the market? Have existing competitors made any recent strategic moves? Are competitors also experiencing a decline in profitability?

Looking at the market, are there any market trends that we should be aware of? For example, are there new technology or regulatory changes? How do these trends impact profitability?

Putting all of this together, we get the following profitability framework.

Once you have gone through this profitability framework and understand both quantitatively what is causing the decline in profits and qualitatively why this is happening, you can begin brainstorming ideas to address the profitability issue.

Among the ideas that you brainstorm, you can prioritize which recommendations to focus on based on the level of impact and ease of implementation.

See the video below for an example of how to solve a profitability case using this profitability framework.

Market entry frameworks are the second most common types of frameworks you’ll likely use in consulting first round interviews.

A market entry case might look like this: “Coca-Cola is considering entering the beer market in the United States. Should they enter?”

To create a market entry framework, there are typically four statements that need to be true in order for you to recommend entering the market:

• The market is attractive
• Competition is weak
• The company has the capabilities to enter
• The company will be highly profitable from entering the market

These statements form the foundation of our market entry framework.

Note the logical order of the buckets in the framework.

We first want to determine whether the market is attractive. Then, we need to check if competition is weak and if there is an opportunity to capture meaningful market share.

If these two conditions are true, then we need to confirm that the company actually has the capabilities to enter the market.

Finally, even if the company has the capabilities to enter the market, we need to verify that they will be profitable from entering.

This is a logical progression that your market entry framework will take you through to develop a recommendation for market entry cases.

Merger and acquisition frameworks are also common frameworks you’ll use in consulting interviews.

There are two common business situations.

The first situation is a company looking to acquire another company in order to access a new market, access new customers, or to grow its revenues and profits.

Another situation is a private equity company looking to acquire a company as an investment. Their goal is to then grow the business using their operational expertise and then sell the company years later for a high return on investment. This type of case interview is called a private equity case interview .

In either of these situations, mergers and acquisition cases typically involve acquiring an attractive, successful company.

It is rare to get a case in which a company or private equity firm is looking to acquire a poorly performing company to purchase at a discount. Nevertheless, you can always clarify the goal of the merger or acquisition with the interviewer before beginning the case.

In order to recommend making an acquisition, four statements need to be true.  

• The market that the acquisition target is in is attractive
• The acquisition target is an attractive company
• The acquisition generates meaningful synergies
• The acquisition target is at a great price and will generate high returns on investment

These statements become the basis of our merger and acquisition framework.

Synergies is an area that should absolutely be included in any merger or acquisition framework. A merger or acquisition can lead to revenue synergies and cost synergies.

Revenue synergies include:

• Having access to new customer segments
• Having access to new markets
• Having access to new distribution channels
• Cross-selling opportunities
• Up-selling opportunities

Cost synergies include:

• Eliminating cost redundancies
• Consolidating functions or groups
• Increasing buying power with suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, or retailers

Pricing frameworks are used in cases involving the pricing of a product or service. To develop a pricing framework, you should be familiar with the three different ways to price a product or service.

• Pricing based on costs : set a price by applying a profit margin on the total costs to produce or deliver the product or service
• Pricing based on competition : set a price based on what competitors are charging for products similar to yours
• Pricing based on value added : set a price by quantifying the benefits that the product provides customers

Your answer to pricing cases will likely involve a mix of all three of these pricing strategies.

Your pricing framework will look something like the following.

Pricing based on costs will determine the minimum price you can realistically set. Pricing based on value added will determine the maximum possible price. Pricing based on competition will determine which price in between these two price points you should set.

In order to get customers to purchase your product, the difference between your price point and the customer’s maximum willingness to pay must be greater than or equal to the difference between your competitor’s price point and the customer’s maximum willingness to pay for their product.

New product frameworks are used to help a company decide whether or not to launch a product or service.

New product frameworks share many similarities with market entry frameworks. In order to recommend launching a new product, the following statements would need to be true:

• The product targets an attractive market segment
• The product meets customer needs and is superior to competitor products
• The company has the capabilities to successfully launch the product
• Launching the product will be highly profitable

Expanding on these areas, your new product framework could look like the following:

A comprehensive guide to market sizing questions and market sizing frameworks can be found in our comprehensive market sizing article. You can also watch the video below:

As a summary, market sizing or estimation questions ask you to determine the size of a particular market or to estimate a particular figure.

There are two different market sizing frameworks or approaches:

• Top-down approach : start with a large number and then refine and break down the number until you get your answer
• Bottom-up approach : start with a small number and then build up and increase the number until you get your answer

To create your market sizing framework, simply write out in bullet points, the exact steps you would take to calculate the requested market size or estimation figure.

Consulting Frameworks Every Consultant Knows

There are six consulting frameworks that nearly every consultant knows.

I would not recommend using these exact frameworks during a case interview because the interviewer may think you are just regurgitating memorized information instead of thinking critically about the case.

Instead use the four framework strategies that we covered earlier in this article to create tailored and unique frameworks for each case.

Nevertheless, it is helpful to review these common consulting frameworks in order to understand the fundamental concepts and business principles behind them.

Porter’s Five Forces framework was developed by Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter. This framework is used to analyze the attractiveness of a particular industry.

There are five forces that determine whether an industry is attractive or unattractive.

Competitive rivalry:  How competitive is the industry?

The more competitive an industry is in terms of number and strength of competitors, the less attractive the industry is. The less competitive an industry is, the more attractive the industry is.

Supplier power:  How much power do suppliers have?

Suppliers are companies that provide the raw materials for your company to produce goods or services. The fewer suppliers there are, the more bargaining power suppliers have in setting prices. The more suppliers there are, the weaker bargaining power suppliers have in setting prices.

Therefore, high supplier power makes the industry less attractive while low supplier power makes the industry more attractive.   

Buyer power:  How much power do buyers have?

Buyers are customers or companies that purchase your company’s product. The more buyers there are, the weaker bargaining power buyers have in setting prices. The fewer buyers there are, the more bargaining power buyers have in setting prices.

Therefore, high buyer power makes the industry less attractive while low buyer power makes the industry more attractive.   

Threat of substitution:  How difficult is it for customers to find and use substitutes over your product?

The availability of many substitutes makes the industry less attractive while a lack of substitutes makes the industry more attractive

Threat of new entry:  How difficult is it for new players to enter the market?

If barriers to entry are high, then it is difficult for new players to enter the market and it is easier for existing players to maintain their market share.

If barriers to entry are low, then it is easy for new players to enter the market and more difficult for existing players to maintain their market share.

A low threat of new entrants makes the market more attractive while a high threat of new entrants makes the market less attractive.

A SWOT framework is used to assess a company’s strategic position. SWOT stands for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats.

Strengths : What does the company do well? What qualities separate them from competitors?

Weaknesses : What does the company do poorly? What are the things that competitors do better?

Opportunities : Where are the company’s opportunities for growth or improvement?

Threats : Who are the most threatening competitors? What are the major risks to the company’s business?

The 4 P’s framework is used to develop a marketing strategy for a product. The 4 P’s in this framework are: product, place, promotion, and price.

Product : If there are multiple products or different versions of a product, you will need to decide which product to market. To do this, you will need to fully understand the benefits and points of differentiation of each product.

Select the product that best fits customer needs for the customer segment you are focusing on.

Place : You will need to decide where the product will be sold to customers. Different customer segments have different purchasing habits and behaviors. Therefore, some distribution channels will be more effective than others.

Should the product be sold directly to the customer online? Should the product be sold in the company’s stores? Should the product be sold through retail partners instead?

Promotion : You will need to decide how to spread information about the product to customers. Different customer segments have different media consumption habits and preferences. Therefore, some promotional strategies will be more effective than others.

Promotional techniques and strategies include advertising, social media marketing, email marketing, search engine marketing, video marketing, and public relations. Select the strategies and techniques that will be the most effective.

Price : You will need to decide how to price the product. Pricing is important because it determines the profits and the quantity of units sold. Pricing can also communicate information on the quality or value of the product.

If you price the product too high, you may be pricing the product above your customer segment’s willingness to pay. This would lead to lost sales.

If you price the product too low, you may be losing potential profit from customers who were willing to pay a higher price. You may also be losing profits from customers who perceive the product as low-quality due to a low price point.

In deciding on a price, you can consider the costs to produce the product, the prices of other similar products, and the value that you are providing to customers.

The 3 C’s framework is used to develop a business strategy for a company. 3 C’s stands for customers, competition, and company.

The business situation framework was developed by a former McKinsey consultant, Victor Cheng, who added a fourth component to this framework, product.

Both of these frameworks are used to develop a business strategy for a company in a variety of situations, such as market entry, new product launch, and acquisition.

There is another similar framework called the 4C framework that expands upon the 3 C's. The 4C framework stands for customer, competition, capabilities, and cost.

The BCG 2x2 Matrix Framework was developed by BCG founder Bruce Hendersen. It is used to examine all of the different businesses of a company to determine which businesses the company should invest in and focus on.

The BCG 2x2 Matrix has two different dimensions:

• Market growth : How quickly is the market growing?
• Relative market share : How much market share does the company have compared to competitors?

Each business of the company can be assessed on these two dimensions on a scale of low to high. This is what creates the 2x2 Matrix because it creates four different quadrants.

Each quadrant has a recommended strategy.

• Stars : These are businesses that have high market growth rate and high relative market share. These businesses should be heavily invested in so they can continue to grow.
• Cows :   These are businesses that have low market growth rate, but high relative market share. These businesses should be maintained since they are stable, profitable businesses.
• Dogs :   These are businesses that have low market growth rate and low relative market share. These businesses should not be invested in and should possibly even be divested to free up cash for other businesses.
• Unknown : These are businesses that have high market growth rate and low relative market share. The strategy for these businesses is not clear. With enough investment, these businesses could become stars. However, these businesses could also become dogs if the market growth slows or declines.

The McKinsey 7S Framework was developed by two former McKinsey consultants, Tom Peters and Robert Waterman. The 7S Framework identifies seven elements that a company needs to align on in order to be successful.

These elements are:

• Strategy : The company’s plan to grow and outcompete competitors
• Structure : The organization of the company
• Systems : The company’s daily activities and processes
• Shared values : The core beliefs, values, or mission of the company
• Style : The style of leadership or management used
• Staff : The employees that are hired
• Skills : The capabilities of the company’s employees

Land your Dream Consulting Job

Here are the resources we recommend to land your dream consulting job:

For help landing consulting interviews

• Resume Review & Editing : Transform your resume into one that will get you multiple consulting interviews

For help passing case interviews

• Comprehensive Case Interview Course (our #1 recommendation): The only resource you need. Whether you have no business background, rusty math skills, or are short on time, this step-by-step course will transform you into a top 1% caser that lands multiple consulting offers.
• Case Interview Coaching : Personalized, one-on-one coaching with a former Bain interviewer.
• Hacking the Case Interview Book   (available on Amazon): Perfect for beginners that are short on time. Transform yourself from a stressed-out case interview newbie to a confident intermediate in under a week. Some readers finish this book in a day and can already tackle tough cases.
• The Ultimate Case Interview Workbook (available on Amazon): Perfect for intermediates struggling with frameworks, case math, or generating business insights. No need to find a case partner – these drills, practice problems, and full-length cases can all be done by yourself.

For help passing consulting behavioral & fit interviews

• Behavioral & Fit Interview Course : Be prepared for 98% of behavioral and fit questions in just a few hours. We'll teach you exactly how to draft answers that will impress your interviewer.

Land Multiple Consulting Offers

Complete, step-by-step case interview course. 30,000+ happy customers.

Top 7 case interview frameworks (and how to create your own)

Today we're going to cover the top case interview frameworks, as well as how you can create your own custom frameworks. 

Understanding frameworks has always been critical for the 8,000+ candidates who we've helped with consulting interview preparation. 

And one of the first things you'll want to know is that you should AVOID using pre-made frameworks, like those recommended in Case in Point and in Victor Cheng's LOMS programme. But more on that later. 

Let's start with the list of top frameworks.

• 1. Profitability
• 3. Porter's 5-forces
• 5. Market entry
• 7. Merger and acquisition

Don't reuse pre-existing frameworks

How to create custom frameworks, click here to practise 1-on-1 with mbb ex-interviewers, top 7 frameworks for case interviews, 1. profitability framework.

The   profitability framework   is the most basic framework in business analysis. It simply breaks down profit into its basic revenue and cost components and is commonly used to identify the root cause of profitability issues.

• Revenue   can simply be broken down into the Number of Units Sold x Price Per Unit.
• Costs   can be broken down into Variable and Fixed Costs. And Variable Costs can be further broken down into the Number of Units Produced x Cost Per Unit.

2. The 4Ps framework

The   4Ps framework   is widely used by company executives to design their marketing strategy. There are different variations of this framework, which is also sometimes referred to as the “Marketing mix” framework, but the 4Ps is the most common one.

This framework is commonly used when launching a new product or when reviewing the positioning of an existing product.

• Product : What are the key characteristics of the product sold? Key elements of the product definition could include: customer need fulfilled by product, product usage (E.g. who, where, how, etc.), good vs. service, product lifecycle (new vs. established), competing products and substitutes, etc.
• Price : At what price should the product be sold? Different considerations need to be taken into account here: the customer perceived value of the product, the price of competitive products, the customer price sensitivity, the cost of producing the product, etc.
• Promotion : Which promotion strategies should be used to sell the product? Key elements to consider include: promotion messages, media type (E.g. TV, social media, radio, etc.), best time to promote, competitors’ strategies, etc.
• Place : Through which channels should the product be distributed? Key elements to consider include: possible channels to distribute the product (E.g. in store, web, mail-to-order, etc.), customer expectations in terms of channel, requirement of a sales team or not, competitors’ strategies, etc.

3. Porter's 5 forces

Porter’s 5 forces  is a framework commonly used by CEOs to explore the competitive dynamics of industries. Indeed not all industries are structured the same way.

Some industries are really hard to get into (E.g. banking) while others have very low barriers to entry (E.g. newspapers).

Suppliers have strong bargaining power in some industries (E.g. high-end medical equipment) but little power in others (E.g. small milk producer), etc.

Understanding these dynamics is extremely important when you're considering entering a new industry or when assessing the competitive dynamics of the industry a company is already in.

• Bargaining power of customers : How much bargaining power do customers have? If there is only one buyer but multiple suppliers, then that buyer will be at a strong advantage. Key elements to consider here include: customer concentration (percentage of industry revenues from Top 3 buyers), customer price sensitivity, customer information availability, etc.
• Bargaining power of suppliers : How much bargaining power do suppliers have? Similarly to the previous point, if there is only one supplier but multiple buyers, then that supplier will be at a strong advantage. Key elements to consider include: concentration of suppliers (percentage of industry revenues to Top 3 suppliers), difficulty of switching from one supplier to another, differentiation between suppliers, etc.
• Threat of substitutes : What are the substitutes for the product and are they increasingly popular? As a reminder, water is a substitute for Coke while Pepsi is a competitive product for Coke. Key elements to consider here include: potential new substitutes, ease of substitution, evolution of customer propensity to substitute, etc.
• Threat of new entrants : How difficult is it to enter the industry for potential new players? Key elements to consider here include: regulation authorisations, capital requirements, economies of scale, network effects, etc.
• Existing rivals : How competitive are existing rivals in the industry? Key elements to consider include: number of competitors and their market shares, similarity between their products and products of the firm analysed, financial health of competitors, etc.

4. 3Cs framework

The   3Cs framework   is also commonly used to put together strategies for companies. As you will notice below, a lot of its components overlap with the Porter’s 5 forces.

• Customers : Who is the customer? Key elements to consider include: customer demographics (E.g. age, sex, income, etc.), customer needs, customer segments' size and growth rates, customer willingness to pay and price sensitivity, etc.
• Competition : What are the competitive dynamics? Key elements to consider include: competitors’ value proposition and brand, competitors’ market share and growth, competitors’ financial health, etc.
• Company : What defines the company? Key elements to consider include: product offering, profitability, core competencies, unique selling point, financial performance and resources, etc.

5. Market entry framework

The   market entry framework   is commonly used to make decisions on whether a company should enter a new market or not.

For instance, you could use it to decide if Starbucks should enter the Chinese market, or if Nike should enter the sports broadcasting business.

• Market : What are the characteristics of the market we are trying to enter? Key elements to consider include:   market size  and profitability, products already available in the market, intensity of the competition, heaviness of the regulation, etc.
• Client capabilities : Does the client have the right capabilities to enter that new market? Key elements to consider include: differences between the client's current market and the new one they are now targeting, number of times client has entered new markets and achieved success, other companies already in the new market, etc.
• Financials : Does it make financial sense to enter the new market? Key elements to consider include: current financial situation of the client, cost to enter the new market, ongoing costs once the market is entered, expected revenues and return on investment, etc.
• Entry strategy : How should the client go about entering the new market? Key elements to consider include: timing of market entry (now vs. delay), speed of market entry (test region vs. whole country), opportunity to buy competitor or do a JV, management approach (control from HQ vs. decentralise), etc.

6. Pricing case framework

Companies always face a difficult issue when launching a new product or service. What should its price be? The   pricing framework   is extremely helpful for answering that question.

• Cost-based : What price do we need to set to cover all our costs? Key elements to consider include: fixed costs and their allocation across products, variable costs and number of units produced / sold, profitability targeted, etc.
• Value-based : How much are customers willing to pay for our product? Key elements to consider include: price of the next best alternative to our product, features that make our product better than the next best alternative, value of these features, etc.
• Competitor-based : What is the competition charging for similar products? Key elements to consider include: available substitute products from the competition, price of these substitute products, value of our product vs. substitutes, etc.
• Overall strategy : Given the elements above, what should our pricing strategy be? Key elements to consider include: objective of the pricing strategy (E.g. high profitability or high market share), opportunities for upsell / cross-sell that should be taken into account (E.g. Kindle and ebooks), possibility to sell different versions of the same product (E.g. iPhone 13 and iPhone 13 Pro), etc.

7. Merger and acquisition framework

Finally, the   merger and acquisition framework   is used when companies are looking to acquire or merge with competitors.

These situations are not very frequent in a CEO's life, but they are highly stressful, which is one reason why consultants are often asked to support such initiatives.

• The market : What are the characteristics of the target company's market? Key elements to consider include:   market size  and growth, market profitability and intensity of the competition, market regulation, etc.
• The target : How attractive is the target to be acquired? Key elements to consider include: current and future financial position of the target, important assets or capabilities owned by the target, quality of the target's management team, target / buyer culture fit, etc.
• The buyer : What's driving the buyer to make the acquisition? Key elements to consider include: acquisition rationale (E.g. target undervalued, etc.), acquisition financing, buyer's acquisition experience, acquisition timing, etc.
• Synergies and risks : What are the acquisition synergies and risks? Key elements to consider include: value of individual and combined entities, cost synergies, revenue synergies, biggest risks of failure, etc.

Once you are generally familiar with frameworks, the question becomes: how do you actually use frameworks in case interviews?

There are a lot of opinions about how you should do this on the Internet. But the two main schools of thought are   Marc Cosentino’s Case In Point   and   Victor Cheng’s LOMS .

But both of these methods share the same flaw: they try to force pre-defined frameworks onto cases. In our experience, this is bound to produce average results because all cases are unique.

Not convinced? Let's cover each of these two popular methods in more detail. 

Why NOT to use the Case In Point frameworks

In Case In Point, Marc Cosentino attempts to classify case interviews into 10+ categories and then suggests that candidates should memorise a specific framework for each of them.

This is an interesting exercise as it exposes you to a range of business problems and helps you think about them in different ways. However, in our experience, learning 10+ frameworks is difficult and time consuming.

More importantly, in live case interviews, trying to recognise one of the 10+ case categories and then remembering the associated framework is a real nightmare!

Instead of focusing on solving the problem at hand, you end up trying to remember a framework that will not even perfectly fit the case you are solving. In our experience, the best candidates avoid this strategy.

Why NOT to use Victor Cheng's LOMS frameworks

In his LOMS programme, Victor Cheng advocates for a much simpler method and suggests you should only learn two frameworks: the profit framework for profitability cases, and a general framework for all other cases (Product, Consumer, Company, Competition).

The benefit of this approach is its simplicity. It gives you a starting point that’s easy to remember when you are putting a framework together.

However, in our experience, this approach has a fatal drawback. In practice, there aren’t that many profitability cases, and you basically always end up using the general framework.

Even if you adapt this general framework, it won't be perfectly tailored to the case you are trying to solve. More importantly, your interviewer will quickly realise that you are using a pre-made framework and that will reflect negatively on you.

Why to create custom frameworks instead

A good framework is a bit like a tailor-made suit: it is adapted to the problem you are trying to solve, the company, the industry, and it is also as   MECE   as possible.

If you use pre-existing frameworks, you run the risk of missing important elements of the specific problem you are trying to solve. In real life, consultants rarely use pre-defined frameworks. They are familiar with them, but they do not directly re-use them as-is on projects.

Instead, they create a customised framework or   issue tree  that addresses the specific details of each case.  To do so, they rely on conversations with their client as well as past experiences.

This might sound intimidating, but the good news is that creating custom frameworks is actually much simpler than you might think. 

Now, let's turn our attention to HOW you can create your own custom frameworks during case interviews. 

Here's a brief summary of the steps you'll need to take:

Summary - IGotAnOffer method (framework development questions)

• Step 1: Ask for time to gather your thoughts
• Extract the main elements from the case question
• Break down the main elements into components

Spin your paper around

• Begin with an overview

Highlight 3-5 considerations for each branch

Summarise your points, prioritise next steps.

Now let's cover these steps in more detail. We'll also be digging into a real case example below, in order to illustrate the framework creation process.

1. Ask for time to gather your thoughts

Regardless of the case you get, you should always ask your interviewer for some time to gather your thoughts, before you begin to develop the framework. 

This is a normal part of the interview process. Your interviewers will expect you to ask, and they'll almost always give you this time. 

But don't get carried away! 

For reference, you should only take 30-60 seconds to quietly think-through your framework. We recommend that you also sketch out your framework on a piece of paper during this time, as that will help you to organise your thoughts more clearly. 

Without practise, it's really difficult to estimate how long 30-60 seconds actually is, so we highly recommend that you practice this process with a stopwatch. This exercise will help you get a clear idea of how much time you're actually using. 

2. Create the framework

During that 30-60 second time window, you'll need to do the real work of crafting your framework. 

The essence of framework creation is actually quite simple. A framework takes the business situation presented in the case, and breaks it into smaller "bite size" pieces. 

By isolating the various components of a case, you'll be able to better identify the root cause of an issue, or find the best opportunities for improving the underlying business. 

And the best way to develop your framework creation skills is with practice on realistic case problems, so let's walk through an example together. 

Star Production case example

In this case we need to analyse the short-term profitability of a movie production company. So, you would begin crafting your framework by thinking about the different factors that would contribute to the company's overall profits.

The first two components of this framework are fairly straightforward: revenues and costs. That's because the profitability of any company is determined by a combination of their revenues and costs.

Then, we can further deconstruct both revenues and costs based on our knowledge (or perhaps some assumptions) of the movie production business. And as you break down the components further, it's important to consider the concept of MECE, which stands for Mutually Exclusive Collectively Exhaustive.

In simple terms, MECE means that you should aim to have a framework where the branches do NOT overlap with each other, and where the framework is comprehensive (i.e. no branches are missing). You can learn more about this in our separate   MECE guide . 

Now here's an example of what your draft framework might look like for the Star Production case: 

As you can see in the example above, we've broken down the revenues and costs into specific components that would make sense for a movie production business.

And we've used bullet points to highlight the information we would need in order to determine how each individual item contributes to the overall revenues or costs of the business.

For example, we would need to know the expected ticket sales, the average ticket price, and the share of the ticket revenue that Star Production would be entitled to, in order to calculate the total ticket revenue. 

Once you've drawn out a rough framework like the above example, your next task will be to explain your framework to your interviewer. 

3. Communicate the framework

Even if you created the world's best framework, it won't get you an offer if you're not able to explain it in a clear and structured way. 

Here's how we'd recommend you communicate your framework during your interviews:

Start by showing your interviewer the framework that you've drawn on paper. Having this visual structure will make it much easier to explain (and understand). 

Start with an overview

Before jumping into the details of your framework, you should start with an overview of the framework.

In our example above, you could simply explain that the profitability of Star Production will be determined by the expected revenues and costs of the business, which can be broken down into more specific categories. 

You should also tell your interviewer the order in which you plan to walk through each individual branch, so they'll know what to expect.  

Next, go through each branch of your framework and mention several considerations that came to mind while you were drafting the framework. 

For example, for the "upfront costs" branch of the Star Production case, you could explain that you'd want to find out what costs the company would incur before it can start releasing movies, like filming equipment, studio space, and post production expenses. 

And throughout your explanation of the framework, you should pause periodically to summarise your key points, and to check in with your interviewer. 

You're likely going to be covering a lot of ground in your framework, and you want to make sure that your logic doesn't get foggy in the details. 

For example, you could summarise the most important considerations that impact the revenues of Star Production, after you've walked through each individual sub-branch under revenues. 

Finally, after walking through your full framework, you should tell your interviewer the 2-3 next steps you would recommend, in priority order. 

There's a variety of ways you could rank next steps, but three good options would be based on importance, ease, or speed. 

Returning to the Star Production example, you could recommend the following next steps in priority order:

• Identify the biggest cost drivers.   Star Production's business model is focused on producing a high volume of low cost movies, so controlling costs will be essential to the profitability of the company. 
• Develop a production process that minimises costs.  Once the primary cost drivers are identified, we should develop a production process that keeps those costs as low as possible. 
• Look for opportunities to increase the hit rate.   Star Production is counting on a few box office hits to drive revenues. As a result, increasing the percentage of movies that succeed could be a big win.

Get MBB offers by mastering frameworks

To succeed in case interviews, you MUST be able to create and apply frameworks effectively. And i f you really want the best possible preparation for your case interview, you'll want to practise doing this in an interview situation, ideally with an expert consultant giving you feedback.

That's why we’ve created a coaching service where you can do mock case interviews 1-on-1 with ex-interviewers from MBB firms . Start scheduling sessions today!

Related articles:

• The 1%: Conquer Your Consulting Case Interview
• Consulting Career Secrets
• Cover Letter & Resume
• McKinsey Solve Game (Imbellus)
• BCG Online Case (+ Pymetrics, Spark Hire)
• Bain Aptitude Tests (SOVA, Pymetrics, HireVue)
• Kearney Recruitment Test
• BCG Cognitive Test Practice
• All-in-One Case Interview Preparation
• Industry Cheat Sheets
• Structuring & Brainstorming
• Data & Chart Interpretation
• Case Math Mastery
• McKinsey Interview Academy
• Brainteasers

Mastering Case Interview Frameworks in 2024: A Comprehensive Guide

Last Updated on May 27, 2024

In the competitive world of consulting recruiting , mastering case interviews is a crucial step towards landing a job at top firms like McKinsey , BCG , and Bain . Discovering how to structure case interviews in consulting is fundamental, as the foundation of successful performance lies in effectively tackling complex business problems. In 2024, with more challenging and creative cases, understanding how to craft a compelling case interview framework is more important than ever.

This article serves as a comprehensive case structure guide, diving deep into the art and science of structuring your analysis and providing you with essential insights into what a case interview framework entails, why it’s critical for your success, and the different strategies you can employ to impress your interviewers from the get-go.

Starting with an overview of what case interview frameworks are and their significance, we explore the nuances and provide essential case structuring tips that set apart winning strategies from the rest. We offer tips for acing consulting firm case interview frameworks. Whether you’re wondering about the types of frameworks that exist, what constitutes a robust case interview structure, or if memorizing frameworks is beneficial, we’ve got you covered.

This guide is based on our experience as McKinsey interviewers and cas coaches with more than 1600 case interview sessions conducted at the time of writing. It is designed to give you a head start in your case interview preparation, ensuring you’re well-equipped to structure your thoughts like a seasoned consultant.

By integrating key concepts with practical advice, this article is your ultimate guide to consulting case structure and acing case interviews in 2024. Stay tuned as we guide you on answering consulting structuring questions with confidence and tackle some of the most pressing consulting framework questions, helping you structure your approach in case interviews more effectively. We want to give you a head start by answering the following questions in this article:

• What is a case interview framework?
• Why do you need to structure your approach?
• Are there different types of frameworks?
• What makes a good case interview structure?
• Should you learn case interview frameworks by heart?
• How can you create frameworks from scratch using a first-principles approach?
• What is the best way to practice framework creation?
• How do you structure a McKinsey case interview? Is it different from candidate-led interviews?

This article is part of our consulting case interview series. For the other articles, please click below:

• Overview of case interviews: what is a consulting case interview?
• How to create a case interview framework (this article)
• How to ace case interview exhibit and chart interpretation
• How to ace case interview math questions

What is a Case Interview Framework?

A case interview structure is used to break the problem you are trying to solve for the client down into smaller problems or components. It is the roadmap you establish at the beginning of the interview that will guide your problem-solving approach throughout the case.

You are defining areas to analyze that help you understand where the problem is coming from or how to answer the question of a client.

In that sense, structuring your approach is the first important step in every case interview. Initially, the interviewer will tell you about the client’s situation and the problem they are asking you to solve. After playing back the prompt and asking clarification questions, you need to structure your approach and create a case interview framework.

Let’s look at one traditional example:

Our client is a beverage manufacturer and has seen declining profits over the last year. They have called us to investigate the issue and propose ways out of it. A typical case interview prompt (simplified)

For you as a candidate, getting the framework right is the first step to successfully acing the case. If you fail to propose a proper analytical structure, you will not be able to investigate the situation and find the root cause of the issue.

A case interview framework usually consists of a top layer and several sub-levels, where the top-level buckets cover the issue broadly, whereas the sub-level buckets identify more concrete areas to look at.

To illustrate, the most common and basic structure that would allow us to analyze the situation on top would be looking at:

Profit = Revenue – Cost

This high-level structure is used for profitability cases when you are tasked to solve an issue with the client’s profit development. The two buckets revenue and cost represent the top level. To analyze the problem properly, you would need to go deeper and figure out what sub-levels influence the variables you are looking at.

For instance, for our beverage manufacturer, you could look at cost and break it down into fixed cost and variable cost with a 3rd level of concrete areas to investigate:

It is important to tailor the structure and associated sub-levels to the case questions. Framework templates were en vogue 5-10 years ago and consulting firms have moved away from asking generic cases that would fit the frameworks taught by Case in Point or Victor Cheng (more on that below).

In terms of format, the best-practice approach to structuring a case is to build an issue tree with branches, which are split into several sub-branches (see the example below).

As with most other aspects of the case interview, mastering effective consulting interview frameworks and deconstructing problems is a skill that needs to be learned, internalized, and practiced to perform best during the interviews.

We’ll cover this in much more detail later in this article.

Why Do You Need a Framework to Structure Your Approach?

The initial structure you need to come up with serves three important purposes in a case interview.

Investigative roadmap

First, it is the roadmap you establish initially that guides your problem-solving throughout the case. Once you lay out your planned approach, you should go through each bucket or branch of your issue tree to find the issue(s) the client is facing or to evaluate the ideas you came up with to fit the needs of the client and then work on your recommendation(s). The case framework serves as the anchor you should stick to as you move through your analysis.

Communication device

Second, it is used as a communication device to guide the interviewer through your thought process and approach. Additionally, moving through the structure allows you to ask targeted questions to the interviewer about additional data or information on each point.

Analytical test

Third, coming up with a proper structure and communicating it well is a test in itself. The interviewer tries to understand how well you can tackle unfamiliar problems. They will evaluate your thinking, logic, analytical capabilities, and problem-solving prowess as well as communication skills.

Case Structuring Course and Drills

Learn how to structure any case, regardless of the problem, industry, or context with our first-principles approach to problem deconstruction and brainstorming. We use our McKinsey interviewer experience to teach you how to structure cases like a real consultant.

Includes 25 lessons on structuring and brainstorming and 100 practice drills.

Different Types of Frameworks with Examples

Generally, two types of case frameworks exist, depending on the nature of the question.

Either you are asked to break a problem down into its parts and understand where an issue comes from to provide a recommendation (e.g. ”Our client is trying to understand why…?” ) or you are asked to answer a specific question ( ”Should our client engage in…?” ).

Figuring out a problem

A structure here is the starting point and anchor of your problem diagnostic.

First, you need to think about all potential problem areas, then drill down into each branch to figure out what is wrong exactly by collecting more information from the interviewer and exhibits; based on your probing you will receive information from the interviewer that you have to analyze qualitatively and quantitatively, then provide a recommendation in the end.

Answer a question

For these types of questions, a structure is a systematic analysis of a situation or comparison of options that you want to investigate on behalf of the client to help them with a specific goal or question.

For both types of structures, you should follow a hypothesis-driven approach, i.e. already having a clear vision of where the problem could be buried most likely or what approach or idea would best support the client’s goal.

Apart from knowing what frameworks are used for, what characteristics make a strong case interview structure?

Criteria of Strong Case Interview Frameworks

A good case interview framework follows several rules.

Let’s break them down into content requirements and principles.

Content requirements

An excellent structure is broad at the top level, goes into greater depth on the sub-levels, and consists of meaningful and insightful ideas.

• Breadth: How many buckets does your structure consist of at the top level? While in a profitability case, the top level is given, for many other cases you can expand your top level by several buckets ( Real MBB case question: ”What could be the reason our machines break down at different rates in different locations?” ).
• Depth: How deep do you go into each top-level idea and come up with levers/areas to look at below? How well can you support your top-level with the actual ideas that influence it?
• Innovation: How meaningful and insightful are your ideas? Create a mix of common components as well as more out-of-the-box answers. Tell the interviewer something they have not heard before.

Principles of success

Make sure that your structure adheres to the principles below.

• MECE-ness: Refers to a grouping principle for separating a set of ideas into subsets that are mutually exclusive (no overlaps between the different branches of the issue tree) and collectively exhaustive (covering all important aspects). It is used to break down problems into logical and clean buckets of analysis.
• Actionable: Your answer should only consist of ideas that you can exert influence on within the given time frame (e.g. if you are asked to come up with measures over the next year, everything beyond that should not be touched in your structure).
• Logically coherent: Top levels and sub-levels should be consistent within their level and across levels. They should stick to the same hierarchy of importance and logic (e.g. if you are comparing revenue and cost, they should be at the same level, and everything that influences the two should be below).
• Relevant: The content should be relevant to the case at hand, tailored to the client, and easy to follow and communicate. Avoid over-structuring your case. Find a few broad categories at the top and then break them down further.
• Hypothesis-driven: You should have a clear idea of where the problem is buried or what solution is best for the client from the start, and while moving through the structure and gathering additional information, that hypothesis should become clearer.

Memorizing Frameworks is the Worst Thing You Can Do

Upon beginning work with new clients, it becomes immediately evident when they’ve memorized standard frameworks, as this practice typically affects their early performance noticeably. It’s hard to fault them, given that prevalent case interview guidance and literature still advocate memorizing frameworks to apply or tweak across various cases.

Be aware that framework templates were applicable 15 years ago, in the era of Victor Cheng and Case in Point. McKinsey and other top-tier firms have long caught up on this and the cases you will get during the interviews are tailored in a way to test your creativity and ability to generate insights, not remember specific frameworks.

In fact, it will hurt you when you try to use a framework on a case that calls for a completely different approach. Also, it gives a false sense of security that will translate to stress once you figure out how your approach won’t work during the real interview – We have seen this so many times…

Your goal should be to master various framework creation methods, allowing you to build custom issue trees and frameworks, interpret charts , and perform math no matter the case’s context, industry, or function. Our approach teaches you this and trains your ability to come up with deep, broad, and insightful structures for each case individually.

Also, be aware that there is no typical McKinsey case interview framework, BCG case interview framework, or Bain case interview framework. All firms use a diverse set of cases, which are usually developed by each interviewer individually based on a real consulting project they have completed.

If you are looking for case interview examples, check out this article , where we have compiled a link list of all publicly available MBB and tier-2 consultancy cases.

Back to the frameworks: Memorizing frameworks for a case interview may seem like an effective strategy, but in reality, this practice is detrimental to your performance. McKinsey, BCG, Bain, and other top consulting firms want to see candidates come up with their own solutions and innovative approaches.

I want to show you why memorized frameworks like the ones from Case In Point or Victor Cheng do not work and supplement these with plenty of examples to bring the point across. In the end, I want to introduce you to my Structuring Drills course as well as my Case Interview Preparation book, The 1%: Conquer Your Consulting Case Interview . Both resources are aimed at developing you into a world-class case interviewee.

Below are the top reasons why memorized frameworks and cookie-cutter approaches do not work.

No points for problem-solving

First, case interviews are designed to test your problem-solving and critical-thinking skills, not your ability to regurgitate memorized information. Frameworks are meant to be a guide, not a script. Using a memorized framework in an interview can make it obvious that you are not thinking critically about the problem at hand, which can make it difficult for you to impress the interviewer. Interviewers want to see insightful analytical constructs, which means that they need to be tailored, relevant, and concrete.

If you just use memorized buckets, you will score badly in terms of problem-solving. To see a real scoring sheet, go here .

Cases have become much more creative

Second, case interviews often involve unique and unpredictable scenarios. No two cases are the same, so a memorized framework may not apply to the specific problem you are presented with. Attempting to force a framework onto an unrelated problem can make it clear that you lack flexibility and the ability to adapt to new situations.

For instance, let’s look at a real McKinsey case example from a couple of years ago.

You are working with an operator of a specific type of machines. They break down at different rates at different locations. What factors can you think of why that would happen? Example of a McKinsey Case Interview Structure Questions

Which Victor Cheng framework or Cosentino ideas would you present here to the interviewer? There is not a single bucket that would work.

Let us look at an example answer for this prompt.

You limit your creativity

Third, using a memorized framework can limit your ability to think creatively. When you are focused on trying to fit the problem into a pre-existing framework, you may miss opportunities to come up with innovative solutions.

1% of candidates make it through the filter of MBB . You want to provide insights the interviewer has not heard before and not be just like the other 99% that fail to impress.

You have no rationale

Fourth, case interviews also test your ability to communicate and present your thought process effectively. When you are relying on a memorized framework, you may not be able to explain the reasoning behind your solutions and ideas. This can make it difficult for the interviewer to understand your thought process and evaluate your problem-solving skills.

Interviewers want to understand why you think a certain way, not just what you think. Memorizing frameworks completely kills your ability to support and defend your choices.

In conclusion, memorized frameworks can be detrimental to your performance in a case interview. Instead, it’s better to focus on developing your problem-solving, critical thinking, flexibility, creativity, and communication skills. These are the skills that are truly valued in case interviews and a business setting later on.

Let’s have a brief look at how you can become a better problem solver and create frameworks like an actual consultant.

Apply a First-Principles Approach to Frameworks

Consultants approach problems from a first-principles perspective. If you learn how to do the same, not only will you come across as an equal to them, not just another case interviewee, but your analytical lens and case performance will skyrocket. Adopt these innovative framework creation methods for case interviews.

First-principles thinking

At the core of your idea generation should be first principles thinking, which refers to the process of systematically deconstructing a problem or situation into its constituent parts in a MECE way. Only by following this approach can you identify where the issue in a case comes from and how big it is (the what), then dive deeper to understand the reason (the why) to eventually work on a solution (the how). First principles allow you to break a situation down into its core pieces and then put it back together.

For instance:

“What do we need to build an aircraft?”

• A factory (infrastructure)
• Tools and equipment
• Financial means

From there, you go into second and third-order considerations; for instance, for staff:

• Formal education and training
• Work experience
• # of people in total
• # of people for different areas (e.g., engines vs. wings)
• Supply of and demand for labor in the area
• Job advertisement
• Working conditions
• Remuneration and benefits

There are several ways you can employ this type of thinking for creating case interview frameworks. First, we look at the top level of your issue tree, the foundation of your problem-solving, and then explore in more depth the branches, all with a first principles perspective in mind.

Framework creation techniques

For most cases, you can focus on problem deconstruction from two angles: examining the components involved and understanding the process.

To illustrate, we’ll explore the example of improving customer satisfaction for an airline.

The component approach

When we dissect a problem through the lens of its components, we look at the static elements that make up the situation. For an airline, this could include the tangible and intangible assets that affect a customer’s experience. These components might encompass the aircraft itself (comfort, cleanliness, amenities), the staff (friendliness, efficiency), the booking system (ease of use, flexibility), and ancillary services (lounge access, on-board meals).

By examining each component individually, you can identify potential areas for improvement. For example, an analysis might reveal that enhancing the on-board meal quality could significantly boost overall customer satisfaction. This approach requires a deep dive into each element, assessing its current state, impact on the customer journey, and potential for optimization.

The process approach

Alternatively, examining the problem through a process lens involves mapping out the sequence of steps a customer takes, from booking a flight to reaching their destination. This perspective allows you to identify pain points and opportunities for enhancement at each stage of the customer journey.

For instance, you might discover that the check-in process is a significant bottleneck, causing frustration and setting a negative tone for the journey. By streamlining this process, perhaps through more efficient use of technology or additional staff training, you could improve the overall customer experience, thereby increasing satisfaction.

Once you have generated your top-level buckets, expand those ideas into more concrete ideas on the levels below. For instance, from a component perspective, you might have identified staff as an area to investigate.

Next, think about what type of staff a typical passenger encounters like booking agents, check-in staff, lounge personnel, cabin crew, etc. Voila, you have created the most concrete and final level of your analytical framework structure.

Try it out yourself when you encounter the next case problem and think about it either from a process or component perspective, then dive deeper.

While it might be harder initially to use this approach of creating frameworks from scratch, the outcome over time always beats memorization. Hence, we do not recommend any other way to learn and practice frameworks.

Practicing Case Interview Framework Creation and Problem Deconstruction

Developing a strong foundation in creating case interview frameworks is essential for success in consulting interviews. This skill is not about memorizing a set of frameworks but understanding how to construct them from scratch based on the problem at hand. Here’s how you can hone this ability:

1. Master content creation techniques for problem deconstruction : Our course is designed to equip you with the right techniques for breaking down complex problems into manageable parts. We focus on first principles thinking and an intuitive way of breaking down problems, enabling you to understand the core elements of any issue you’re presented with, which is crucial for custom framework creation.

2. Practice with a variety of cases : Exposure to a wide range of case scenarios is key. Our library includes over 100 practice cases, complete with detailed answer keys and explanations. This diverse set of examples will not only improve your ability to adapt your framework to different problems but also enhance your problem-solving speed and efficiency.

3. Regularly read business publications and magazines : Keeping up-to-date with the latest in the business world is invaluable. This habit sharpens your business acumen, enriches your understanding of current market trends, and deepens your industry knowledge, all of which are critical when you need to tailor your frameworks to specific contexts.

4. Understand basic business concepts and terminology : A solid grasp of fundamental business concepts and jargon is non-negotiable. This foundational knowledge ensures you can speak the language of business fluently, making it easier to structure your thoughts and communicate effectively during the case interview.

Remember, the goal is not to memorize frameworks but to learn how to construct them dynamically as per the needs of the case. This approach ensures that your frameworks are always tailored, insightful, and directly relevant to the problem you’re solving.

Also, do not forget that creating the structure at the beginning of the case is just the first step. There are also other elements to consider in a consulting interview preparation plan .

Case Interview Framework in McKinsey Interviews

Since the McKinsey interview is interviewer-led, there is an extra emphasis on the structuring part.

At the core, McKinsey wants to see creative ideas communicated in a structured manner, the more exhaustive the better. Your goal should be to come up with a tailored and creative answer that fits the question.

In a McKinsey interview, you can take up to 2 minutes to draft your structure, IF the structure you come up with is strong and

• hits all the key points that the firm wants to see and
• is communicated in the right way.

A big issue I see with coaching candidates is that they take too little time to structure their thoughts because they feel pressured to be quick rather than exhaustive and creative.

An additional 30 seconds can often make the difference between a bad structure and a good one or a good one and an excellent one. So my battle-tested advice is to get rid of this time-pressure mindset, especially in a McKinsey interview.

Now for the content of the structure, there is no right or wrong answer. Some answers are better than others because they are

• hypothesis-driven
• follow a strong communication (MECE, top-down, signposted)

That being said, there is no 100% that you can reach or a one-and-only solution/ answer. It is important that your answers display the characteristics specified above and are supported well with arguments.

Also different from other firms, you can take up to roughly 5-6 minutes to present your structure, your qualifications, and hypotheses. This is due to the interviewer-led format that McK employs. The firm wants to see exhaustive and creative approaches to specific problems.

Again, this only applies if everything you say

• adds value to the problem analysis
• is well qualified
• includes a detailed discussion of your hypotheses at the end

The difference in format and way of answering a question is the reason why I recommend preparing differently for McKinsey interviews vs. other consultancies’ interviews.

Read more about the McKinsey interview process and the McKinsey case interview specifically.

We Help You Draft Frameworks and Communicate Them Well

I have seen memorized and cookie-cutter frameworks destroy many candidates’ performance and chances to get an offer for many years now. The only issue that is bigger than that is the typical candidate’s ability to handle case math ( but that is for another time ).

To conquer that and many other things that I think are wrong with today’s standard literature on case interviews, I wrote The 1%: Conquer Your Consulting Case Interview . The book is available on Amazon and covers frameworks, case structuring, and brainstorming in great depth. It teaches you how to think and not to memorize faulty frameworks (among 340+ pages of other valuable case interview content).

Once you have understood how to tackle a case structure, you can practice with the Case Structuring Course and Drills here on StrategyCase.com.

We have specialized in placing people from all walks of life with different backgrounds into top consulting firms, both as generalist hires as well as specialized hires and experts. As former McKinsey consultants and interview experts, we focus on teaching the best habits and strategies to ace every case interview, including idea generation, problem-solving, and brainstorming, all from a first-principles perspective.

We can help you by

• tailoring your resume and cover letter to meet consulting firms’ highest standards
• showing you how to pass the different online assessments and tests for McKinsey , BCG , and Bain
• showing you how to ace McKinsey interviews and the PEI with our video academy
• coaching you in our 1-on-1 sessions to become an excellent case solver and impress with your fit answers (90% success rate after 5 sessions)
• preparing your math to be bulletproof for every case interview
• helping you structure creative and complex frameworks for case interviews
• teaching you how to interpret charts and exhibits like a consultant
• providing you with cheat sheets and overviews for 27 industries .

Reach out to us if you have any questions! We are happy to help and offer a tailored program to help you break into consulting.

To improve your skills in all areas of the interview, check out some of our targeted offers below.

Frequently Asked Questions about Case Interview Frameworks

In more than 1600 case interview sessions at the time of editing this article, several questions have come up frequently from my clients. To assist you in this critical phase of your case interview preparation, I’ve compiled a list of frequently asked questions about case interview frameworks.

These questions aim to shed light on the nuances of preparing for and excelling in case interviews, providing you with insights to enhance your understanding and skills.

How do specific industries impact the creation of case interview frameworks? Industries play a crucial role in shaping the choice of case interview framework components, specifically at the lower levels. At the top level, most companies are built in the same way, regardless if they are offering a product or a service. The main difference to tailor it to the industry usually happens on the lower levels of the framework. For instance, while both an airline and a bookstore generate revenue, which is comprised of price times quantity, the pricing for an airline works very differently (e.g., ticket price, booking fee, seat allocation fee, baggage allowance fee, etc).

Can you provide real-life examples of case interview questions from top consulting firms and how to apply frameworks to them? While specific real-life examples are proprietary, many consulting firms publish practice cases on their websites. These can serve as a valuable resource for understanding how to apply frameworks to solve common business problems, with each case typically demonstrating the application of different analytical frameworks. We have collected many free practice cases from different firms here .

What are the common mistakes candidates make when structuring their approach in case interviews, and how can they avoid them? Common mistakes include overly relying on memorized frameworks without creating new ones for the specific case, failing to listen actively to the interviewer’s hints, and neglecting to structure answers in a MECE (mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive) manner. Avoid these by practicing flexibility, active listening, and ensuring your approach is tailored and comprehensive.

How has the approach to case interviews and the use of frameworks changed over the past decade? The approach has shifted towards evaluating candidates’ ability to think creatively and adapt frameworks dynamically rather than relying solely on memorized structures. This change reflects the consulting industry’s need for innovative problem solvers who can navigate complex and evolving business landscapes.

Are there any differences in how frameworks should be applied in virtual versus in-person case interviews? The core principles remain the same, but virtual interviews require candidates to be even more clear and structured in their communication , given the lack of physical presence. Ensuring technical setup is optimal and practicing verbalizing your thought process can help bridge the gap.

What role does creativity play in structuring case interviews, and how can candidates balance it with the use of standard frameworks? Creativity is crucial for developing tailored and insightful frameworks that go beyond standard responses. Candidates should not use standard frameworks but explore creative angles and solutions to demonstrate their unique problem-solving abilities.

How can non-business background candidates quickly grasp the concept of case interview frameworks? Non-business candidates should start with foundational problem-solving practices and business concepts and practice applying them to diverse case scenarios. Leveraging resources like business publications, online courses , and practice cases can accelerate their understanding and application of case frameworks.

What are the interviewers’ perspectives on the use of frameworks, and what do they look for in a candidate’s approach? Interviewers seek candidates who can create their own frameworks flexibly and creatively, showing an understanding of the underlying business principles. They value clarity, logical structuring, and the ability to derive actionable insights tailored to the specific case. Interviewers usually do not pass candidates who use memorized frameworks that do not fit the case.

How can candidates effectively practice and improve their framework structuring skills? Practice is key. Engaging in mock interviews, analyzing case studies, and receiving feedback from peers or mentors can greatly improve your ability to structure effective frameworks. Additionally, regularly challenging yourself with new and diverse case scenarios can build adaptability and depth in problem-solving. If frameworks are one of your key development areas, do not waste time going through full cases. Rather, work on individual drills back to back to create a habit of deconstructing problems accurately and swiftly.

What are some advanced techniques for customizing frameworks to fit unique case interview scenarios? To customize frameworks for unique case interview scenarios, focus on deconstructing the problem using first principles thinking. Break down the issue into its fundamental components or underlying steps to understand its structure. This approach enables you to create a tailored framework that directly addresses the specificities of the scenario. Apply relevant industry insights and business sense to enhance your analysis. Begin with a clear, strong hypothesis to steer your investigation and framework construction, ensuring that every part of your framework is directly relevant to unraveling the core problem at hand.

Do you have a framework-related question or struggle? Reach out to us in the comments below and we are happy to help!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Florian spent 5 years with McKinsey as a senior consultant. He is an experienced consulting interviewer and problem-solving coach, having interviewed 100s of candidates in real and mock interviews. He started StrategyCase.com to make top-tier consulting firms more accessible for top talent, using tailored and up-to-date know-how about their recruiting. He ranks as the most successful consulting case and fit interview coach, generating more than 500 offers with MBB, tier-2 firms, Big 4 consulting divisions, in-house consultancies, and boutique firms through direct coaching of his clients over the last 3.5 years. His books “The 1%: Conquer Your Consulting Case Interview” and “Consulting Career Secrets” are available via Amazon.

Most Popular Products

Search website

Strategycase.com.

© 2024 | Contact: +43 6706059449 | Mattiellistrasse 3/28, 1040 Vienna, Austria

• Terms & Conditions
• Privacy Policy
• Universities & consulting clubs
• American Express

Click on the image to learn more.

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

• Knowledge Base

Methodology

• What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods

Published on May 8, 2019 by Shona McCombes . Revised on November 20, 2023.

A case study is a detailed study of a specific subject, such as a person, group, place, event, organization, or phenomenon. Case studies are commonly used in social, educational, clinical, and business research.

A case study research design usually involves qualitative methods , but quantitative methods are sometimes also used. Case studies are good for describing , comparing, evaluating and understanding different aspects of a research problem .

Table of contents

When to do a case study, step 1: select a case, step 2: build a theoretical framework, step 3: collect your data, step 4: describe and analyze the case, other interesting articles.

A case study is an appropriate research design when you want to gain concrete, contextual, in-depth knowledge about a specific real-world subject. It allows you to explore the key characteristics, meanings, and implications of the case.

Case studies are often a good choice in a thesis or dissertation . They keep your project focused and manageable when you don’t have the time or resources to do large-scale research.

You might use just one complex case study where you explore a single subject in depth, or conduct multiple case studies to compare and illuminate different aspects of your research problem.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

Once you have developed your problem statement and research questions , you should be ready to choose the specific case that you want to focus on. A good case study should have the potential to:

• Provide new or unexpected insights into the subject
• Challenge or complicate existing assumptions and theories
• Propose practical courses of action to resolve a problem
• Open up new directions for future research

TipIf your research is more practical in nature and aims to simultaneously investigate an issue as you solve it, consider conducting action research instead.

Unlike quantitative or experimental research , a strong case study does not require a random or representative sample. In fact, case studies often deliberately focus on unusual, neglected, or outlying cases which may shed new light on the research problem.

Example of an outlying case studyIn the 1960s the town of Roseto, Pennsylvania was discovered to have extremely low rates of heart disease compared to the US average. It became an important case study for understanding previously neglected causes of heart disease.

However, you can also choose a more common or representative case to exemplify a particular category, experience or phenomenon.

Example of a representative case studyIn the 1920s, two sociologists used Muncie, Indiana as a case study of a typical American city that supposedly exemplified the changing culture of the US at the time.

While case studies focus more on concrete details than general theories, they should usually have some connection with theory in the field. This way the case study is not just an isolated description, but is integrated into existing knowledge about the topic. It might aim to:

• Exemplify a theory by showing how it explains the case under investigation
• Expand on a theory by uncovering new concepts and ideas that need to be incorporated
• Challenge a theory by exploring an outlier case that doesn’t fit with established assumptions

To ensure that your analysis of the case has a solid academic grounding, you should conduct a literature review of sources related to the topic and develop a theoretical framework . This means identifying key concepts and theories to guide your analysis and interpretation.

There are many different research methods you can use to collect data on your subject. Case studies tend to focus on qualitative data using methods such as interviews , observations , and analysis of primary and secondary sources (e.g., newspaper articles, photographs, official records). Sometimes a case study will also collect quantitative data.

Example of a mixed methods case studyFor a case study of a wind farm development in a rural area, you could collect quantitative data on employment rates and business revenue, collect qualitative data on local people’s perceptions and experiences, and analyze local and national media coverage of the development.

The aim is to gain as thorough an understanding as possible of the case and its context.

Receive feedback on language, structure, and formatting

Professional editors proofread and edit your paper by focusing on:

• Academic style
• Vague sentences
• Style consistency

See an example

In writing up the case study, you need to bring together all the relevant aspects to give as complete a picture as possible of the subject.

How you report your findings depends on the type of research you are doing. Some case studies are structured like a standard scientific paper or thesis , with separate sections or chapters for the methods , results and discussion .

Others are written in a more narrative style, aiming to explore the case from various angles and analyze its meanings and implications (for example, by using textual analysis or discourse analysis ).

In all cases, though, make sure to give contextual details about the case, connect it back to the literature and theory, and discuss how it fits into wider patterns or debates.

If you want to know more about statistics , methodology , or research bias , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

• Normal distribution
• Degrees of freedom
• Null hypothesis
• Discourse analysis
• Control groups
• Mixed methods research
• Non-probability sampling
• Quantitative research
• Ecological validity

Research bias

• Rosenthal effect
• Implicit bias
• Cognitive bias
• Selection bias
• Negativity bias
• Status quo bias

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, November 20). What Is a Case Study? | Definition, Examples & Methods. Scribbr. Retrieved July 2, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/case-study/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, primary vs. secondary sources | difference & examples, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is action research | definition & examples, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Top 10 Case Interview Frameworks: Beginner Mistakes

“Which framework to use?” is probably among the most common questions popping up in a candidate’s mind when confronting a case.

This definitive guide will not only answer that question by introducing a few common frameworks, but also tell you HOW to use those frameworks more effectively during case interviews , and what pitfalls you should be aware of.

Table of Contents

Case interview frameworks – Overview

What are case interview frameworks.

Case interview frameworks are templates used to break down and solve business problems in case interviews. A framework can be off-the-shelf or highly customized for specific cases; it can also be tailored for certain functions/industries, or versatile enough for general problem-solving.

Common case interview frameworks include:

• Profitability Framework
• Business Situation Framework
• McKinsey M&A Framework
• 4P and 7P Frameworks
• Porter Five Forces Model

External vs Internal

Qualitative vs quantitative.

• Cost vs Benefits
• 2×2 Matrix (e.g.: BCG Growth-Share Matrix)

SWOT Analysis

All of these frameworks will be discussed later in this article.

During a case interview, you use consulting frameworks to break down the problem into smaller pieces through an issue tree and test each branch to see if the root-cause is in there. If a branch indeed contains the root-cause, you break it down further. Rinse and repeat until the root-cause is identified.

The big part of problem solving is about breaking down the problem in almost every step of the case.

What should I keep in mind when using consulting frameworks?

Templates should be treated as guidelines, and not strict rules . The same applies to case interview frameworks.

In the past, case interviews were much more predictable, and frameworks were more applicable. However, nowadays, case interviews are more similar to real business problems, where frameworks need a lot of customizations (you’ll see this word repeated a lot in this article) to be useful.

In fact, the whole consulting industry exists on the basis that consultants can customize theory to real, difficult business situations and produce positive results; nobody pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for them to recite a textbook – any college freshman can do as much.

That’s why in my Case Interview End-to-End Secrets Program , I don’t teach candidates to use frameworks – instead, the focus in on the fundamentals of case interview (problem-solving and business intuition) as well as the tips and techniques for instant performance improvement.

How can I use consulting frameworks effectively?

Here’s a problem with case interview beginners – they tend to go straight for the frameworks, before even knowing the basic mechanisms and principles of case interviews.

If you are one of those beginners, you must first grasp the basics of case interviews – the fundamentals of case interview problem-solving, the issue tree, and the MECE principle. I have written extensive, separate guides on these topics, but for starters, I advice you to read this Case Interview 101 comprehensive guide. 

Busting case interview framework myths

Myth 1: “the more frameworks i know, the better”.

Before we proceed with the popular frameworks in consulting and case interviews, here are four huge myths about frameworks you should steer clear of.

Spend your time learning to draw customized frameworks/ issue trees instead. Case interviews are getting progressively more realistic and less conforming to specific frameworks, so trying to memorize dozens of frameworks is of no use.

Additionally, you should attend to the qualitative side of things, to deeply absorb each framework and its use; skimming the surface will come back to bite you later.

Myth 2: “There must be a framework out there that fits this case”

Ready-made frameworks CANNOT cover all kinds of situations. Even regarding the ones covered, existing frameworks are often “okay-fit”, but not perfectly fit.

Just create a framework/issue tree yourself. Nobody deducts your points for not using a ready-made tool, they even give you points if you can customize it.

Myth 3: “The fancier the framework, the more impressed the interviewer”

You are definitely not wooing anyone by being fancy-schmancy here. Nobody cares about your shiny frame if it does not fit with the picture.

Consultants are very practical and result-oriented people ; what impresses them are candidates who really know what they are talking about, and actually produce good results.

What’s worse is that you also run the risk of appearing superficial; it’s not difficult for consultants with years of experience in the field to fully expose your bluffing. If that happens you may as well say goodbye to your chance of getting hired.

Myth 4: “Knowledge of frameworks is irrelevant in interviewer-led cases”

The assumption underlying this myth is that in interviewer-led cases , the candidate is not the driver of the case, so he or she does not need to actively break down the problem.

This cannot be further from the truth. Many questions in interviewer-led cases are about frameworks/issue trees (“What factors would you consider to solve this problem?”).

Even with other question types you still need to structure answers like a mini-case. Appropriate knowledge of frameworks, as such, is still a MUST.

Five common case interview frameworks

Profitability framework.

Profitability is the most common problem type in case interviews – that means the Profitability Framework is the first one to master for every prospective consultant. You have to absolutely nail it every time, there’s no way around it.

In case interviews, the Profitability Framework is used to mathematically break down the problem, before switching to more qualitative frameworks to devise solutions.

Most of the time, the framework looks like this:

What’s so good about it?

• Firstly, the Profitability Framework is a surefire way to draw a structured issue tree , as the framework is fundamentally MECE.
• Secondly, this framework is grounded in a simple mathematical basis – there’s no confusing qualitative concept to get lost in; heck, “revenues minus costs equal profits” is common sense. That’s why the Profitability Framework may as well be the easiest framework ever devised by humankind (or consultant-kind).

Are there any shortcomings I should be aware of?

• The Profitability Framework is generic; it may not reflect the nuances within the business enough to draw insightful conclusions. In businesses with wide price ranges, for example, just the total sales volume and average unit price do not tell you much.
• To extract more insightful information, either drill down quantitatively by introducing revenue/cost components not expressed in the basic framework (e.g.: revenue by product), or combine it with a qualitative framework.

Business situation framework

This is an extremely versatile template you can use in nearly every case, so make sure to learn it well. It’s not even a “should”, but a “must”.

In my video , I referred to the Business Situation Framework by the more tell-tale “3C & P”, based on it being derived from the famous 3C Framework. These four letters stand for “Company, Customers, Competitors, Products” – areas that the framework analyzes to yield solutions.

• The one big advantage of the Business Situation Framework is its comprehensiveness – covering four crucial internal and external factors in business strategy.
• This framework is quite flexible – you can use it as a template to draw customized issue trees for all kinds of cases. In our video, I demonstrated this by applying it to solve an HR problem.
• The very same comprehensiveness making the Business Situation Framework flexible, also makes it generic, hence the need for extensive modifications; in many cases (the one in our video, for example), not all four components are relevant.
• It is not a beginner-friendly framework – it does not explicitly state which factors to consider under each main branch; newbies often end up in awkward situations, not knowing what to do next and thinking in a bottom-up manner.

How do you avoid that situation then? I’m inclined to say “practice”, but that much is obvious. A less obvious solution is to equip yourself with some “ninja tips” by learning how each C and P is usually segmented, although again I have to emphasize that it’s vital to maintain a flexible mindset.

McKinsey M&A framework

I absolutely love this one because it works in almost every single M&A case.

There isn’t an official name for this framework, but since it is used by McKinsey consultants when confronting an M&A issue, I’d just call it the “McKinsey M&A Framework”.

The framework assesses a proposed M&A on three dimensions: the stand-alone value of each involving companies (values, strengths, weaknesses, etc.); their synergy, i.e. will the two companies combined be greater than the sum of its parts; and other factors, such as feasibility, culture, legal issues, etc.

• Firstly, the segmentation of stand-alone values and synergy is intrinsically MECE , helping the candidate cover all possibilities – every value of each company must fall into one of these categories.
• Secondly, the framework prompts the user to actively look for “Other factors”, increasing its suitability in unique circumstances.

Are there any shortcomings I should be aware of? 

• The framework does not tell you what to look for in each branch, especially in the “Other factors” branch; this ambiguity shouldn’t be too much of an issue for experienced consultants, but might prove troublesome for candidates.
• Again, as with the previous Business Situation Framework, having a few ninja tricks up your sleeves should help you avoid getting stuck, just don’t rely on them too much.

4P / 7P Marketing Mix

This one is perhaps the single most popular framework in marketing. In case interviews , the 4P/7P Framework is used to formulate and implement marketing strategies for the supposed client, such as in competitive situation or market entry cases.

The original Marketing Mix covers four aspects – Product, Price, Place, and Promotion – thus, “4P”; note that “Place” does not pertain to any physical location, but the channel used by the company to deliver its products to its customers.

When services are involved, the mix becomes 7P; the new additions are: People – those performing the services; Process – how those services are delivered to the customers; and Physical Evidence – the visible, physical clues about the services (think of decorations inside a restaurant).

• The best thing about this framework is its sole focus on marketing, making it very efficient for situations where marketing is the primary/only concern.
• Both the 4P and 7P variants are inherently narrow in scope; candidates must always be mindful that they are not covering the big picture with this framework. Only use them to develop marketing solutions.
• The 4P Marketing Mix, specifically, is not even comprehensive enough for some tangible products, such as high-end fashion, where People, Process and Physical Evidence make huge differences.

Porter’s five forces model

Porter’s Five Forces Model is best used when candidates ask for the case context surrounding the client company; this framework helps them know what to ask.

Michael Porter’s model analyzes how a company’s Competitors, Suppliers, Customers interact with it, as well as how New Entrants and Substitute Products might threaten its place in the industry; it produces a snapshot of the relative power the business holds over its industry environment.

• The model’s coverage of the industry landscape is extensive, giving the candidate a vivid picture of the industry surrounding and interacting with the client in the case.
• This framework doesn’t give a clear answer as to what to do – that is its primary drawback; Porter’s model is not “deep” enough to answer such questions.
• The framework is not comprehensive enough for certain industries where political and legal issues, as well as complementary products, are major factors.
• Another thing to keep in mind: Don’t ever analyze a company with the Five Forces Model – the Five Forces Model describes the industry around that business, not the business itself.

Five mini-frameworks – All-purpose tools

These powerful mini-frameworks are probably the most under-appreciated problem-solving tools ever existed.

Mini-frameworks, like the larger frameworks, are also templates to break down information in a top-down, organized fashion.

Unlike their big cousins, however, these are almost never a primary or upper-most component of an issue tree. Furthermore, while common case interview frameworks are, to varying degrees, business-oriented, mini-frameworks are universal.

In this section, I’ll introduce you to five mini-frameworks I find most helpful in consulting case interviews. They feature prominently as supplements for larger frameworks in candidate-led cases , or stand-alone templates to answer questions in interviewer-led cases.

This is a quick and easy method to segment information about a particular entity. The internal branch concerns the inside of the said entity, such as functions within a company; the external branch describes anything outside that entity.

Here’s an example of this mini-framework as an adjunct to the Profitability Framework:

South Sea – a company specializing in bottled sauces – has found its profits going down badly for the past few years. They want you to find out what’s causing the problem.

You split their profits into revenues and costs; from the data provided, it seems like a revenue problem so you’re going into that branch first. How do you proceed?

Here, a quick check can be performed by splitting the factors causing the decline into two groups – external and internal, then ask the interview if the declining profits are also experienced by other American airlines; “yes” suggests an external root cause while “no” suggests an internal one.

This method of segmentation is primarily used in evaluations. By dividing items into two MECE groups, it reduces confusion and minimizes the risk of missing an important item.

For illustration, we again look at the packaged food company in the previous example:

Turns out, South Sea has quite a few internal problems, in both their production and sales functions. Coincidentally, Wilhelm International is looking to acquire South Sea. Wilhelm controls an extensive distribution network, so the South Sea management is quite interested in the deal.

It’s your task to assess whether South Sea should accept Wilhelm’s offer of acquisition or not.

For this task, I recommend using the McKinsey M&A Framework to break down the analysis into three branches: (1) South Sea’s stand-alone value, (2) its possible synergy with Wilhelm International, and of course (3) there must be an “Other factors” branch as well.

Within each branch, it’s possible to group items into quantitative (profits, growth rates) and qualitative (brand name, capabilities). This combination makes the analysis more MECE , and easier to work with.

Costs vs Benefits

This decision-making tool is pretty straightforward – if the benefits outweigh the costs, you go with that option. Otherwise, you’d be better off keeping your money under the mattress.

The Costs-and-Benefits analysis is a somewhat-business-centric twist of the omnipotent Pros-and-Cons. Both of these approaches work even better with weights attached to each evaluating criterion to reflect its impact.

Now, let’s check up on South Sea:

The acquisition is proven to be beneficial for both sides. With the sales problem solved, South Sea turns its attention to the production issue. The management considers replacing some technologies to improve product quality, but they are not sure if the investment will pay off.

How do you know if the investment is worthwhile?

A simple Costs-and-Benefits breakdown would suffice.

For benefits you have the financial gains to consider, as well as non-financial benefits such as improved brand image (because surprisingly, people love good food!).

2×2 Matrix

The 2×2 Matrix is a decision-making tool where options are examined using two criteria, each of which forms an axis of the matrix.

How do you apply this matrix in South Sea’s case, then?

Wilhelm International, after acquiring South Sea, is looking to push the sales of South Sea’s products using its distribution chain. However, South Sea’s product portfolio is quite large, and each product line differs greatly in terms of sales, branding, and market growth rate.

You must select which product lines to focus on.

The 2×2 matrix most famous in the business world, and also suitable for this case, is BCG’s Growth-Share Matrix, which uses market growth rate and market share as decision-making criteria. The position of a business on this matrix suggests whether to invest in, maintain, or discard that business.

SWOT stands for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats.

This mini-framework is seldom used in case interviews and consulting work because it’s very generic; however, for a quick and easy evaluation of a company’s positioning within the industry context, the SWOT analysis works just fine.

In most case interviews, this is where you usually turn to the Marketing Mix or the Business Situation frameworks, but even a SWOT analysis may yield some insights.

Other case interview frameworks

Besides the ones we have covered, there are some other case interview frameworks and mini-frameworks worth looking into:

• Six Forces Model: a variant of Porter’s Five Forces, introducing “Complementary Products” into the analysis.
• Lauterborn’s 4C Framework: a more consumer-oriented variant of the 4Ps, designed for niche marketing.
• McKinsey 7S Framework: a framework used in McKinsey for analyzing organizational effectiveness.
• Ansoff Matrix (Product-Market Grid): a 2×2 matrix, designed for product-market strategizing.

Applying frameworks in case interviews

Here are my five rules to effectively implement frameworks in case interviews; if you follow these rules closely, you will absolutely nail the case.

Of these five rules, the first three are about getting the right framework, while the last two are about looking smart during interviews.

• Getting to know the case: “If you know your case and know your frameworks, you need not fear the result of a hundred case interviews” – always gather as much information as possible before and when you draw your issue tree .
• Bending the frameworks: don’t ever bend reality to your frameworks; bend your frameworks to reality; remove, add, or modify elements if necessary.
• Allying with the interviewer: ask the interviewer to help you break down the problem if you get stuck . How do you get him on your side then? By displaying overwhelming consulting traits .
• 13 Reasons why: “Why do you break down the problem that way?”, “Why do you want this piece of data?” – explain all your questions and decisions as if you stand before the US Congress, and before the interviewer asks you; consultants love accountable people.
• Frameworks-which-must-not-be-named: don’t ever explicitly say the names of the frameworks (“I’m going to use the McKinsey M&A Framework”); you would sound very rigid, bookish, or worse, arrogant; consultants don’t like big words without substance.

I’ll give you a brief case sample to see how these rules work in practice:

Interviewer: Our client today is a restaurant called BurgerQueen, located on US Highway 66. The restaurant has found its profits going down last year, your task is to find out the problem and give them a solution.

Candidate: Thank you for the very interesting case, I’m quite excited to solve it. Now, before we dive in,, I would like to playback the case to make sure that we perceive it the same way, ask a few questions for clarification, then announce my approach. Does that sound good to you?

Interviewer: Okay, carry on.

Candidate: Well, let’s see… Our client is a restaurant, on a highway, specifically, Route 66. Their profits have been going bad. I am to find the cause, and solve the problem. Am I getting it right?

Interviewer: Yes, you’re right.

Candidate: Thank you. Now I’d like to clarify the case, so I have 3 questions:

(1) I assume from the name that our client focuses on burgers, and probably other kinds of fast food. Am I right? (2) Does this restaurant have a specific target customer, like truck drivers? And (3) Is it part of a rest stop?

Interviewer: I’ll answer your questions: they sell burgers, but there are many other dishes as well – although mainly fast food; the restaurant does not have a specific target customer, their customers are drivers and travelers on the highway in general; they are part of a rest stop, but they do not own other facilities in the stop, just the restaurant.

Candidate: Great, thanks for the information. Now that we’re all on the same page, and the case has been clarified, I’d like to inform you of my approach. To eliminate this problem in the long run, I think it’s best to break down the problem using an issue tree, isolate the root cause in one of the branches, and gather information until we can draw an actionable solution. Is that approach okay to you?

Interviewer: That sounds good. Continue.

Candidate: To analyze this problem, I’m breaking it down into two sides: Revenues and Costs. Unless we have information pointing in the other direction, I’ll first hypothesize that the problem comes from the revenue side. May I have some data on the restaurant’s revenue during the past year, to prove this hypothesis?

Interviewer: Well, this year their revenue went down by about 40%, but the monthly revenues followed the same pattern as the previous year.

Candidate: Thank you for the data. It’s quite a sudden decrease. I think we can confirm that at least part of this problem comes from the revenue side; I’ll come back to check on the cost side later, now I’d like to go deeper into this revenue branch. Is that okay to you?

Interviewer: Okay, go on.

Candidate: Usually, revenue is divided into sales volume and unit price, but it wouldn’t make much sense for a restaurant with many different items on the menu. My limited knowledge of the food service industry is not exactly helpful, so to draw a more spot-on issue tree, may I ask how they segment the revenue in this restaurant?

Interviewer: Okay, here’s the answer: another way they segment the revenue in a restaurant is into “number of customers” and “average ticket size”, the latter being the purchase value per customer.

What are the key takeaways here?

You can see the candidate tried to gather information on the case through the playback and clarification steps; as a result, he correctly decided that the Profitability Framework is suitable for this case.

However, he quickly found out that the conventional “revenue = volume x price” isn’t too insightful, so he knew he needed to bend the framework.

Unable to find a good way to segment, he asked for help from the interviewer – note how he showed a relevant purpose for the request, and demonstrated that he at least made an effort – these are what we call “consulting traits”.

You should also notice that throughout this brief opening part, the candidate never explicitly mentioned the name of the Profitability Framework, and he always explained his choices before being asked.

Let's practice!

EXERCISE: Develop a 2-level issue tree for this case

The Megapolis City Council is looking to solve a major problem in the city’s traffic – for the last decade, the number of traffic accidents has been rising steadily.

Which factors would you look at, to tackle this problem?

This question apparently can not be answered using any aforementioned framework. In real life, consultants rarely use pre-defined frameworks to solve their client’s issues. Rather, they create unique frameworks based on the MECE principle specific to their problems.

There are few things you should bear in mind to shortcut the way to your own framework:

• Be as MECE or structural as possible.
• Use the issue tree to sketch your framework.
• Break down your problem in a top-down style.

Practice this step-by-step with any real-life issues.

Want to learn more? Join millions of others on our Case Interview End-to-end Secret Program .

Then, to receive personalized practice, you can book a coaching session with our experienced coaches from McKinsey, BCG, or Bain. They will quickly identify your areas of improvement and help you ace your interview.

Scoring in the McKinsey PSG/Digital Assessment

The scoring mechanism in the McKinsey Digital Assessment

Related product

Case Interview End-to-End Secrets Program

Elevate your case interview skills with a well-rounded preparation package

Profitability is the most common interview case types in MBB & you will most likely face one. Thus profitability framework is a method to solve profit problems

A case interview is where candidates is asked to solve a business problem. They are used by consulting firms to evaluate problem-solving skill & soft skills

An issue tree is a breakdown method of problems into multiple levels of subsets. It will isolates the root causes and ensures impactful solutions to the problem

• Open access
• Published: 16 August 2022

Developing an implementation research logic model: using a multiple case study design to establish a worked exemplar

• Louise Czosnek   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-2362-6888 1 ,
• Eva M. Zopf 1 , 2 ,
• Prue Cormie 3 , 4 ,
• Simon Rosenbaum 5 , 6 ,
• Justin Richards 7 &
• Nicole M. Rankin 8 , 9  

Implementation Science Communications volume  3 , Article number:  90 ( 2022 ) Cite this article

9390 Accesses

4 Citations

21 Altmetric

Metrics details

Implementation science frameworks explore, interpret, and evaluate different components of the implementation process. By using a program logic approach, implementation frameworks with different purposes can be combined to detail complex interactions. The Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) facilitates the development of causal pathways and mechanisms that enable implementation. Critical elements of the IRLM vary across different study designs, and its applicability to synthesizing findings across settings is also under-explored. The dual purpose of this study is to develop an IRLM from an implementation research study that used case study methodology and to demonstrate the utility of the IRLM to synthesize findings across case sites.

The method used in the exemplar project and the alignment of the IRLM to case study methodology are described. Cases were purposely selected using replication logic and represent organizations that have embedded exercise in routine care for people with cancer or mental illness. Four data sources were selected: semi-structured interviews with purposely selected staff, organizational document review, observations, and a survey using the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT). Framework analysis was used, and an IRLM was produced at each case site. Similar elements within the individual IRLM were identified, extracted, and re-produced to synthesize findings across sites and represent the generalized, cross-case findings.

The IRLM was embedded within multiple stages of the study, including data collection, analysis, and reporting transparency. Between 33-44 determinants and 36-44 implementation strategies were identified at sites that informed individual IRLMs. An example of generalized findings describing “intervention adaptability” demonstrated similarities in determinant detail and mechanisms of implementation strategies across sites. However, different strategies were applied to address similar determinants. Dependent and bi-directional relationships operated along the causal pathway that influenced implementation outcomes.

Conclusions

Case study methods help address implementation research priorities, including developing causal pathways and mechanisms. Embedding the IRLM within the case study approach provided structure and added to the transparency and replicability of the study. Identifying the similar elements across sites helped synthesize findings and give a general explanation of the implementation process. Detailing the methods provides an example for replication that can build generalizable knowledge in implementation research.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the literature

Logic models can help understand how and why evidence-based interventions (EBIs) work to produce intended outcomes.

The implementation research logic model (IRLM) provides a method to understand causal pathways, including determinants, implementation strategies, mechanisms, and implementation outcomes.

We describe an exemplar project using a multiple case study design that embeds the IRLM at multiple stages. The exemplar explains how the IRLM helped synthesize findings across sites by identifying the common elements within the causal pathway.

By detailing the exemplar methods, we offer insights into how this approach of using the IRLM is generalizable and can be replicated in other studies.

The practice of implementation aims to get “someone…, somewhere… to do something differently” [ 1 ]. Typically, this involves changing individual behaviors and organizational processes to improve the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs). To understand this change, implementation science applies different theories, models, and frameworks (hereafter “frameworks”) to describe and evaluate the factors and steps in the implementation process [ 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Implementation science provides much-needed theoretical frameworks and a structured approach to process evaluations. One or more frameworks are often used within a program of work to investigate the different stages and elements of implementation [ 6 ]. Researchers have acknowledged that the dynamic implementation process could benefit from using logic models [ 7 ]. Logic models offer a systematic approach to combining multiple frameworks and to building causal pathways that explain the mechanisms behind individual and organizational change.

Logic models visually represent how an EBI is intended to work [ 8 ]. They link the available resources with the activities undertaken, the immediate outputs of this work, and the intermediate outcomes and longer-term impacts [ 8 , 9 ]. Through this process, causal pathways are identified. For implementation research, the causal pathway provides the interconnection between a chosen EBI, determinants, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes [ 10 ]. Testing causal mechanisms in the research translation pathway will likely dominate the next wave of implementation research [ 11 , 12 ]. Causal mechanisms (or mechanisms of change) are the “process or event through which an implementation strategy operates to affect desired implementation outcomes” [ 13 ]. Identifying mechanisms can improve implementation strategies’ selection, prioritization, and targeting [ 12 , 13 ]. This provides an efficient and evidence-informed approach to implementation.

Implementation researchers have proposed several methods to develop and examine causal pathways [ 14 , 15 ] and mechanisms [ 16 , 17 ]. This includes formalizing the inherent relationship between frameworks via developing the Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) [ 7 ]. The IRLM is a logic model designed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of implementation research. It specifies the relationship between elements of implementation (determinant, strategies, and outcomes) and the mechanisms of change. To do this, it recommends linking implementation frameworks or relevant taxonomies (e.g., determinant and evaluation frameworks and implementation strategy taxonomy). The IRLM authors suggest the tool has multiple uses, including planning, executing, and reporting on the implementation process and synthesizing implementation findings across different contexts [ 7 ]. During its development, the IRLM was tested to confirm its utility in planning, executing, and reporting; however, its utility in synthesizing findings across different contexts is ongoing. Users of the tool are encouraged to consider three principles: (1) comprehensiveness in reporting determinants, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes; (2) specifying the conceptual relationships via diagrammatic tools such as colors and arrows; and (3) detailing important elements of the study design. Further, the authors also recognize that critical elements of IRLM will vary across different study designs.

This study describes the development of an IRLM from a multiple case study design. Case study methodology can answer “how and why” questions about implementation. They enable researchers to develop a rich, in-depth understanding of a contemporary phenomenon within its natural context [ 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 ]. These methods can create coherence in the dynamic context in which EBIs exist [ 22 , 23 ]. Case studies are common in implementation research [ 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 ], with multiple case study designs suitable for undertaking comparisons across contexts [ 31 , 32 ]. However, they are infrequently applied to establish mechanisms [ 11 ] or combine implementation elements to synthesize findings across contexts (as possible through the IRLM). Hollick and colleagues [ 33 ] undertook a comparative case study, guided by a determinant framework, to explore how context influences successful implementation. The authors contrasted determinants across sites where implementation was successful versus sites where implementation failed. The study did not extend to identifying implementation strategies or mechanisms. By contrast, van Zelm et al. [ 31 ] undertook a theory-driven evaluation of successful implementation across ten hospitals. They used joint displays to present mechanisms of change aligned with evaluation outcomes; however, they did not identify the implementation strategies within the causal pathway. Our study seeks to build on these works and explore the utility of the IRLM in synthesizing findings across sites. The dual objectives of this paper were to:

Describe how case study methods can be applied to develop an IRLM

Demonstrate the utility of the IRLM in synthesizing implementation findings across case sites.

In this section, we describe the methods used in the exemplar case study and the alignment of the IRLM to this approach. The exemplar study explored the implementation of exercise EBIs in the context of the Australian healthcare system. The exemplar study aimed to investigate the integration of exercise EBIs within routine mental illness or cancer care. The evidence base detailing the therapeutic benefits of exercise for non-communicable diseases such as cancer and mental illness are extensively documented [ 34 , 35 , 36 ] but inconsistently implemented as part of routine care [ 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 ].

Additional file 1 provides the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

Case study approach

We adopted an approach to case studies based on the methods described by Yin [ 18 ]. This approach is said to have post-positivist philosophical leanings, which are typically associated with the quantitative paradigm [ 19 , 45 , 46 ]. This is evidenced by the structured, deductive approach to the methods that are described with a constant lens on objectivity, validity, and generalization [ 46 ]. Yin’s approach to case studies aligns with the IRLM for several reasons. The IRLM is designed to use established implementation frameworks. The two frameworks and one taxonomy applied in our exemplar were the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [ 47 ], Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) [ 48 ], and Proctor et al.’s implementation outcomes framework [ 49 ]. These frameworks guided multiple aspects of our study (see Table 1 ). Commencing an implementation study with a preconceived plan based upon established frameworks is deductive [ 22 ]. Second, the IRLM has its foundation in logic modeling to develop cause and effect relationships [ 8 ]. Yin advocates using logic models to analyze case study findings [ 18 ]. They argue that developing logic models encourages researchers to iterate and consider plausible counterfactual explanations before upholding the causal pathway. Further, Yin notes that case studies are particularly valuable for explaining the transitions and context within the cause-and-effect relationship [ 18 ]. In our exemplar, the transition was the mechanism between the implementation strategy and implementation outcome. Finally, the proposed function of IRLM to synthesize findings across sites aligns with the exemplar study that used a multiple case approach. Multiple case studies aim to develop generalizable knowledge [ 18 , 50 ].

Case study selection and boundaries

A unique feature of Yin’s approach to multiple case studies is using replication logic to select cases [ 18 ]. Cases are chosen to demonstrate similarities (literal replication) or differences for anticipated reasons (theoretical replication) [ 18 ]. In the exemplar study, the cases were purposely selected using literal replication and displayed several common characteristics. First, all cases had delivered exercise EBIs within normal operations for at least 12 months. Second, each case site delivered exercise EBIs as part of routine care for a non-communicable disease (cancer or mental illness diagnosis). Finally, each site delivered the exercise EBI within the existing governance structures of the Australian healthcare system. That is, the organizations used established funding and service delivery models of the Australian healthcare system.

Using replication logic, we posited that sites would exhibit some similarities in the implementation process across contexts (literal replication). However, based on existing implementation literature [ 32 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], we expected sites to adapt the EBIs through the implementation process. The determinant analysis should explain these adaptions, which is informed by the CFIR (theoretical replication). Finally, in case study methods, clearly defining the boundaries of each case and the units of analysis, such as individual, the organization or intervention, helps focus the research. We considered each healthcare organization as a separate case. Within that, organizational-level analysis [ 18 , 54 ] and operationalizing the implementation outcomes focused inquiry (Table 1 ).

Data collection

During the study conceptualization for the exemplar, we mapped the data sources to the different elements of the IRLM (Fig. 1 ). Four primary data sources informed data collection: (1) semi-structured interviews with staff; (2) document review (such as meeting minutes, strategic plans, and consultant reports); (3) naturalistic observations; and (4) a validated survey (Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT)). A case study database was developed using Microsoft Excel to manage and organize data collection [ 18 , 54 ].

Conceptual frame for the study

Semi-structured interviews

An interview guide was developed, informed by the CFIR interview guide tool [ 55 ]. Questions were selected across the five domains of the CFIR, which aligned with the delineation of determinant domains in the IRLM. Purposeful selection was used to identify staff for the interviews [ 56 ]. Adequate sample size in qualitative studies, particularly regarding the number of interviews, is often determined when data saturation is reached [ 57 , 58 ]. Unfortunately, there is little consensus on the definition of saturation [ 59 ], how to interpret when it has occurred [ 57 ], or whether it is possible to pre-determine in qualitative studies [ 60 ]. The number of participants in this study was determined based on the staff’s differential experience with the exercise EBI and their role in the organization. This approach sought to obtain a rounded view of how the EBI operated at each site [ 23 , 61 ]. Focusing on staff experiences also aligned with the organizational lens that bounded the study. Typical roles identified for the semi-structured interviews included the health professional delivering the EBI, the program manager responsible for the EBI, an organizational executive, referral sources, and other health professionals (e.g., nurses, allied health). Between five and ten interviews were conducted at each site. Interview times ranged from 16 to 72 min, most lasting around 40 min per participant.

Document review

A checklist informed by case study literature was developed outlining the typical documents the research team was seeking [ 18 ]. The types of documents sought to review included job descriptions, strategic plans/planning documents, operating procedures and organizational policies, communications (e.g., website, media releases, email, meeting minutes), annual reports, administrative databases/files, evaluation reports, third party consultant reports, and routinely collected numerical data that measured implementation outcomes [ 27 ]. As each document was identified, it was numbered, dated, and recorded in the case study database with a short description of the content related to the research aims and the corresponding IRLM construct. Between 24 and 33 documents were accessed at each site. A total of 116 documents were reviewed across the case sites.

Naturalistic observations

The onsite observations occurred over 1 week, wherein typical organizational operations were viewed. The research team interacted with staff, asked questions, and sought clarification of what was being observed; however, they did not disrupt the usual work routines. Observations allowed us to understand how the exercise EBI operated and contrast that with documented processes and procedures. They also provided the opportunity to observe non-verbal cues and interactions between staff. While onsite, case notes were recorded directly into the case study database [ 62 , 63 ]. Between 15 and 40 h were spent on observations per site. A total of 95 h was spent across sites on direct observations.

Program sustainability assessment tool (survey)

The PSAT is a planning and evaluation tool that assesses the sustainability of an intervention across eight domains [ 64 , 65 , 66 ]: (1) environmental support, (2) funding stability, (3) partnerships, (4) organizational capacity, (5) program evaluation, (6) program adaption, (7) communication, and (8) strategic planning [ 64 , 65 ]. The PSAT was administered to a subset of at least three participants per site who completed the semi-structured interview. The results were then pooled to provide an organization-wide view of EBI sustainability. Three participants per case site are consistent with previous studies that have used the tool [ 67 , 68 ] and recommendations for appropriate use [ 65 , 69 ].

We included a validated measure of sustainability, recognizing calls to improve understanding of this aspect of implementation [ 70 , 71 , 72 ]. Noting the limited number of measurement tools for evaluating sustainability [ 73 ], the PSAT’s characteristics displayed the best alignment with the study aims. To determine “best alignment,” we deferred to a study by Lennox and colleagues that helps researchers select suitable measurement tools based on the conceptualization of sustainability in the study [ 71 ]. The PSAT provides a multi-level view of sustainability. It is a measurement tool that can be triangulated with other implementation frameworks, such as the CFIR [ 74 ], to interrogate better and understand the later stages of implementation. Further, the tool provides a contemporary account of an EBIs capacity for sustainability [ 75 ]. This is consistent with case study methods, which explore complex, contemporary, real-life phenomena.

The voluminous data collection that is possible through case studies, and is often viewed as a challenge of the method [ 19 ], was advantageous to developing the IRLM in the exemplar and identifying the causal pathways. First, it aided three types of triangulation through the study (method, theory, and data source triangulation) [ 76 ]. Method triangulation involved collecting evidence via four methods: interview, observations, document review, and survey. Theoretical triangulation involved applying two frameworks and one taxonomy to understand and interpret the findings. Data source triangulation involved selecting participants with different roles within the organization to gain multiple perspectives about the phenomena being studied. Second, data collection facilitated depth and nuance in detailing determinants and implementation strategies. For the determinant analysis, this illuminated the subtleties within context and improved confidence and accuracy for prioritizing determinants. As case studies are essentially “naturalistic” studies, they provide insight into strategies that are implementable in pragmatic settings. Finally, the design’s flexibility enabled the integration of a survey and routinely collected numerical data as evaluation measures for implementation outcomes. This allowed us to contrast “numbers” against participants’ subjective experience of implementation [ 77 ].

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the PSAT and combined with the three other data sources wherein framework analysis [ 78 , 79 ] was used to analyze the data. Framework analysis includes five main phases: familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation [ 78 ]. Familiarization occurred concurrently with data collection, and the thematic frame was aligned to the two frameworks and one taxonomy we applied to the IRLM. To index and chart the data, the raw data was uploaded into NVivo 12 [ 80 ]. Codes were established to guide indexing that aligned with the thematic frame. That is, determinants within the CFIR [ 47 ], implementation strategies listed in ERIC [ 48 ], and the implementation outcomes [ 49 ] of acceptability, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability were used as codes in NVivo 12. This process produced a framework matrix that summarized the information housed under each code at each case site.

The final step of framework analysis involves mapping and interpreting the data. We used the IRLM to map and interpret the data in the exemplar. First, we identified the core elements of the implemented exercise EBI. Next, we applied the CFIR valance and strength coding to prioritize the contextual determinants. Then, we identified the implementation strategies used to address the contextual determinants. Finally, we provided a rationale (a causal mechanism) for how these strategies worked to address barriers and contribute to specific implementation outcomes. The systematic approach advocated by the IRLM provided a transparent representation of the causal pathway underpinning the implementation of the exercise EBIs. This process was followed at each case site to produce an IRLM for each organization. To compare, contrast, and synthesize findings across sites, we identified the similarities and differences in the individual IRLMs and then developed an IRLM that explained a generalized process for implementation. Through the development of the causal pathway and mechanisms, we deferred to existing literature seeking to establish these relationships [ 81 , 82 , 83 ]. Aligned with case study methods, this facilitated an iterative process of constant comparison and challenging the proposed causal relationships. Smith and colleagues advise that the IRLM “might be viewed as a somewhat simplified format,” and users are encouraged to “iterate on the design of the IRLM to increase its utility” [ 7 ]. Thus, we re-designed the IRLM within a traditional logic model structure to help make sense of the data collected through the case studies. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual frame for the study and provides a graphical representation of how the IRLM pathway was produced.

The results are presented with reference to the three principles of the IRLM: comprehensiveness, indicating the key conceptual relationship and specifying critical study design . The case study method allowed for comprehensiveness through the data collection and analysis described above. The mean number of data sources informing the analysis and development of the causal pathway at each case site was 63.75 (interviews ( M = 7), observational hours ( M =23.75), PSAT ( M =4), and document review ( M = 29). This resulted in more than 30 determinants and a similar number of implementation strategies identified at each site (determinant range per site = 33–44; implementation strategy range per site = 36–44). Developing a framework matrix meant that each determinant (prioritized and other), implementation strategy, and implementation outcome were captured. The matrix provided a direct link to the data sources that informed the content within each construct. An example from each construct was collated alongside the summary to evidence the findings.

The key conceptual relationship was articulated in a traditional linear process by aligning determinant → implementation strategy → mechanism → implementation outcome, as per the IRLM. To synthesize findings across sites, we compared and contrasted the results within each of the individual IRLM and extracted similar elements to develop a generalized IRLM that represents cross-case findings. By redeveloping the IRLM within a traditional logic model structure, we added visual representations of the bi-directional and dependent relationships, illuminating the dynamism within the implementation process. To illustrate, intervention adaptability was a prioritized determinant and enabler across sites. Healthcare providers recognized that adapting and tailoring exercise EBIs increased “fit” with consumer needs. This also extended to adapting how healthcare providers referred consumers to exercise so that it was easy in the context of their other work priorities. Successful adaption was contingent upon a qualified workforce with the required skills and competencies to enact change. Different implementation strategies were used to make adaptions across sites, such as promoting adaptability and using data experts. However, despite the different strategies, successful adaptation created positive bi-directional relationships. That is, healthcare providers’ confidence and trust in the EBI grew as consumer engagement increased and clinical improvements were observed. This triggered greater engagement with the EBI (e.g., acceptability → penetration → sustainability), albeit the degree of engagement differed across sites. Figure 2 illustrates this relationship within the IRLM and provides a contrasting relationship by highlighting how a prioritized barrier across sites (available resources) was addressed.

Example of intervention adaptability (E) contrasted with available resources (B) within a synthesised IRLM across case sites

The final principle is to specify critical study design , wherein we have described how case study methodology was used to develop the IRLM exemplar. Our intention was to produce an explanatory causal pathway for the implementation process. The implementation outcomes of acceptability and fidelity were measured at the level of the provider, and penetration and sustainability were measured at the organizational level [ 49 ]. Service level and clinical level outcomes were not identified for a priori measurement throughout the study. We did identify evidence of clinical outcomes that supported our overall findings via the document review. Historical evaluations on the service indicated patients increased their exercise level or demonstrated a change in symptomology/function. The implementation strategies specified in the study were those chosen by the organizations. We did not attempt to augment routine practice or change implementation outcomes by introducing new strategies. The barriers across sites were represented with a (B) symbol and enablers with an (E) symbol in the IRLM. In the individual IRLM, consistent determinants and strategies were highlighted (via bolding) to support extraction. Finally, within the generalized IRLM, the implementation strategies are grouped according to the ERIC taxonomy category. This accounts for the different strategies applied to achieve similar outcomes across case studies.

This study provides a comprehensive overview that uses case study methodology to develop an IRLM in an implementation research project. Using an exemplar that examines implementation in different healthcare settings, we illustrate how the IRLM (that documents the causal pathways and mechanisms) was developed and enabled the synthesis of findings across sites.

Case study methodologies are fraught with inconsistencies in terminology and approach. We adopted the method described by Yin. Its guiding paradigm, which is rooted in objectivity, means it can be viewed as less flexible than other approaches [ 46 , 84 ]. We found the approach offered sufficient flexibility within the frame of a defined process. We argue that the defined process adds to the rigor and reproducibility of the study, which is consistent with the principles of implementation science. That is, accessing multiple sources of evidence, applying replication logic to select cases, maintaining a case study database, and developing logic models to establish causal pathways, demonstrates the reliability and validity of the study. The method was flexible enough to embed the IRLM within multiple phases of the study design, including conceptualization, philosophical alignment, and analysis. Paparini and colleagues [ 85 ] are developing guidance that recognizes the challenges and unmet value of case study methods for implementation research. This work, supported by the UK Medical Research Council, aims to enhance the conceptualization, application, analysis, and reporting of case studies. This should encourage and support researchers to use case study methods in implementation research with increased confidence.

The IRLM produced a relatively linear depiction of the relationship between context, strategies, and outcomes in our exemplar. However, as noted by the authors of the IRLM, the implementation process is rarely linear. If the tool is applied too rigidly, it may inadvertently depict an overly simplistic view of a complex process. To address this, we redeveloped the IRLM within a traditional logic model structure, adding visual representations of the dependent and bidirectional relationships evident within the general IRLM pathway [ 86 ]. Further, developing a general IRLM of cross-case findings that synthesized results involved a more inductive approach to identifying and extracting similar elements. It required the research team to consider broader patterns in the data before offering a prospective account of the implementation process. This was in contrast to the earlier analysis phases that directly mapped determinants and strategies to the CFIR and ERIC taxonomy. We argue that extracting similar elements is analogous to approaches that have variously been described as portable elements [ 87 ], common elements [ 88 ], or generalization by mechanism [ 89 ]. While defined and approached slightly differently, these approaches aim to identify elements frequently shared across effective EBIs and thus can form the basis of future EBIs to increase their utility, efficiency, and effectiveness [ 88 ]. We identified similarities related to determinant detail and mechanism of different implementation strategies across sites. This finding supports the view that many implementation strategies could be suitable, and selecting the “right mix” is challenging [ 16 ]. Identifying common mechanisms, such as increased motivation, skill acquisition, or optimizing workflow, enabled elucidation of the important functions of strategies. This can help inform the selection of appropriate strategies in future implementation efforts.

Finally, by developing individual IRLMs and then re-producing a general IRLM, we synthesized findings across sites and offered generalized findings. The ability to generalize from case studies is debated [ 89 , 90 ], with some considering the concept a fallacy [ 91 ]. That is, the purpose of qualitative research is to develop a richness through data that is situated within a unique context. Trying to extrapolate from findings is at odds with exploring unique context. We suggest the method described herein and the application of IRLM could be best applied to a form of generalization called ‘transferability’ [ 91 , 92 ]. This suggests that findings from one study can be transferred to another setting or population group. In this approach, the new site takes the information supplied and determines those aspects that would fit with their unique environment. We argue that elucidating the implementation process across multiple sites improves the confidence with which certain “elements” could be applied to future implementation efforts. For example, our approach may also be helpful for multi-site implementation studies that use methods other than case studies. Developing a general IRLM through study conceptualization could identify consistencies in baseline implementation status across sites. Multi-site implementation projects may seek to introduce and empirically test implementation strategies, such as via a cluster randomized controlled trial [ 93 ]. Within this study design, baseline comparison between control and intervention sites might extend to a comparison of organizational type, location and size, and individual characteristics, but not the chosen implementation strategies [ 94 ]. Applying the approach described within our study could enhance our understanding of how to support effective implementation.

Limitations

After the research team conceived this study, the authors of the PSAT validated another tool for use in clinical settings (Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT)) [ 95 ]. This tool appears to align better with our study design due to its explicit focus on maintaining structured clinical care practices. The use of multiple data sources and consistency in some elements across the PSAT and CSAT should minimize the limitations in using the PSAT survey tool. At most case sites, limited staff were involved in developing and implementing exercise EBI. Participants who self-selected for interviews may be more invested in assuring positive outcomes for the exercise EBI. Inviting participants from various roles was intended to reduce selection bias. Finally, we recognize recent correspondence suggesting the IRLM misses a critical step in the causal pathway. That is the mechanism between determinant and selection of an appropriate implementation strategy [ 96 ]. Similarly, Lewis and colleagues note that additional elements, including pre-conditions, moderators, and mediators (distal and proximal), exist within the causal pathway [ 13 ]. Through the iterative process of developing the IRLM, decisions were made about the determinant → implementation strategy relationship; however, this is not captured in the IRLM. Secondary analysis of the case study data would allow elucidation of these relationships, as this information can be extracted through the case study database. This was outside the scope of the exemplar study.

Developing an IRLM via case study methods proved useful in identifying causal pathways and mechanisms. The IRLM can complement and enhance the study design by providing a consistent and structured approach. In detailing our approach, we offer an example of how multiple case study designs that embed the IRLM can aid the synthesis of findings across sites. It also provides a method that can be replicated in future studies. Such transparency adds to the quality, reliability, and validity of implementation research.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author [LC]. The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise research participant privacy.

Presseau J, McCleary N, Lorencatto F, Patey AM, Grimshaw JM, Francis JJ. Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): a framework for specifying behaviour. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):102.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Damschroder LJ. Clarity out of chaos: use of theory in implementation research. Psychiatry Res. 2020;283(112461).

Bauer M, Damschroder L, Hagedorn H, Smith J, Kilbourne A. An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC Psychol. 2015;3(1):32.

Nilsen P. Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):53.

Lynch EA, Mudge A, Knowles S, Kitson AL, Hunter SC, Harvey G. “There is nothing so practical as a good theory”: a pragmatic guide for selecting theoretical approaches for implementation projects. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):857.

Birken SA, Powell BJ, Presseau J, Kirk MA, Lorencatto F, Gould NJ, et al. Combined use of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF): a systematic review. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):2.

Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. The Implementation Research Logic Model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):84.

Kellogg WK. Foundation. Logic model development guide. Michigan, USA; 2004.

McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB. Logic models: a tool for telling your programs performance story. Eval Prog Plann. 1999;22(1):65–72.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anselmi L, Binyaruka P, Borghi J. Understanding causal pathways within health systems policy evaluation through mediation analysis: an application to payment for performance (P4P) in Tanzania. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):10.

Lewis C, Boyd M, Walsh-Bailey C, Lyon A, Beidas R, Mittman B, et al. A systematic review of empirical studies examining mechanisms of implementation in health. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):21.

Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ, Aarons GA, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, et al. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health. 2019;7(3).

Lewis CC, Klasnja P, Powell BJ, Lyon AR, Tuzzio L, Jones S, Walsh-Bailey C and Weiner B. From classification to causality: advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Front Public Health. 2018;6(136).

Bartholomew L, Parcel G, Kok G. Intervention mapping: a process for developing theory and evidence-based health education programs. Health Educ Behav. 1998;25(5):545–63.

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Weiner BJ, Lewis MA, Clauser SB, Stitzenberg KB. In search of synergy: strategies for combining interventions at multiple levels. JNCI Monographs. 2012;2012(44):34–41.

Powell BJ, Beidas RS, Lewis CC, Aarons GA, McMillen J, Proctor EK, et al. Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2017;44(2):177–94.

Fernandez ME, ten Hoor GA, van Lieshout S, Rodriguez SA, Beidas RS, Parcel G, Ruiter R, Markham C and Kok G. Implementation mapping: using intervention mapping to develop implementation strategies. Frontiers. Public Health. 2019;7(158).

Yin R. Case study research and applications design and methods. 6th Edition ed. United States of America: Sage Publications; 2018.

Google Scholar  

Crowe S, Cresswell K, Robertson A, Huby G, Avery A, Sheikh A. The case study approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11:100.

Stake R. The art of case study reseach. United States of America: Sage Publications; 2005.

Thomas G. How to do your case study. 2nd Edition ed. London: Sage Publications; 2016.

Ramanadhan S, Revette AC, Lee RM and Aveling E. Pragmatic approaches to analyzing qualitative data for implementation science: an introduction. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2(70).

National Cancer Institute. Qualitative methods in implementation science United States of America: National Institutes of Health Services; 2018.

Mathers J, Taylor R, Parry J. The challenge of implementing peer-led interventions in a professionalized health service: a case study of the national health trainers service in England. Milbank Q. 2014;92(4):725–53.

Powell BJ, Proctor EK, Glisson CA, Kohl PL, Raghavan R, Brownson RC, et al. A mixed methods multiple case study of implementation as usual in children’s social service organizations: study protocol. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):92.

van de Glind IM, Heinen MM, Evers AW, Wensing M, van Achterberg T. Factors influencing the implementation of a lifestyle counseling program in patients with venous leg ulcers: a multiple case study. Implement Sci. 2012;7(1):104.

Greenhalgh T, Macfarlane F, Barton-Sweeney C, Woodard F. “If we build it, will it stay?” A case study of the sustainability of whole-system change in London. Milbank Q. 2012;90(3):516–47.

Urquhart R, Kendell C, Geldenhuys L, Ross A, Rajaraman M, Folkes A, et al. The role of scientific evidence in decisions to adopt complex innovations in cancer care settings: a multiple case study in Nova Scotia, Canada. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):14.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Herinckx H, Kerlinger A, Cellarius K. Statewide implementation of high-fidelity recovery-oriented ACT: A case study. Implement Res Pract. 2021;2:2633489521994938.

Young AM, Hickman I, Campbell K, Wilkinson SA. Implementation science for dietitians: The ‘what, why and how’ using multiple case studies. Nutr Diet. 2021;78(3):276–85.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

van Zelm R, Coeckelberghs E, Sermeus W, Wolthuis A, Bruyneel L, Panella M, et al. A mixed methods multiple case study to evaluate the implementation of a care pathway for colorectal cancer surgery using extended normalization process theory. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):11.

Albers B, Shlonsky A, Mildon R. Implementation Science 3.0. Switzerland: Springer; 2020.

Book   Google Scholar  

Hollick RJ, Black AJ, Reid DM, McKee L. Shaping innovation and coordination of healthcare delivery across boundaries and borders. J Health Organ Manag. 2019;33(7/8):849–68.

Article   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Pedersen B, Saltin B. Exercise as medicine – evidence for prescribing exercise as therapy in 26 different chronic diseases. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2015;25:1–72.

Firth J, Siddiqi N, Koyanagi A, Siskind D, Rosenbaum S, Galletly C, et al. The Lancet Psychiatry Commission: a blueprint for protecting physical health in people with mental illness. Lancet Psychiatry. 2019;6(8):675–712.

Campbell K, Winters-Stone K, Wisekemann J, May A, Schwartz A, Courneya K, et al. Exercise guidelines for cancer survivors: consensus statement from international multidisciplinary roundtable. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019;51(11):2375–90.

Deenik J, Czosnek L, Teasdale SB, Stubbs B, Firth J, Schuch FB, et al. From impact factors to real impact: translating evidence on lifestyle interventions into routine mental health care. Transl Behav Med. 2020;10(4):1070–3.

Suetani S, Rosenbaum S, Scott JG, Curtis J, Ward PB. Bridging the gap: What have we done and what more can we do to reduce the burden of avoidable death in people with psychotic illness? Epidemiol Psychiatric Sci. 2016;25(3):205–10.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Stanton R, Rosenbaum S, Kalucy M, Reaburn P, Happell B. A call to action: exercise as treatment for patients with mental illness. Aust J Primary Health. 2015;21(2):120–5.

Rosenbaum S, Hobson-Powell A, Davison K, Stanton R, Craft LL, Duncan M, et al. The role of sport, exercise, and physical activity in closing the life expectancy gap for people with mental illness: an international consensus statement by Exercise and Sports Science Australia, American College of Sports Medicine, British Association of Sport and Exercise Science, and Sport and Exercise Science New Zealand. Transll J Am Coll Sports Med. 2018;3(10):72–3.

Chambers D, Vinson C, Norton W. Advancing the science of implementation across the cancer continuum. United States of America: Oxford University Press Inc; 2018.

Schmitz K, Campbell A, Stuiver M, Pinto B, Schwartz A, Morris G, et al. Exercise is medicine in oncology: engaging clinicians to help patients move through cancer. Cancer J Clin. 2019;69(6):468–84.

Santa Mina D, Alibhai S, Matthew A, Guglietti C, Steele J, Trachtenberg J, et al. Exercise in clinical cancer care: a call to action and program development description. Curr Oncol. 2012;19(3):9.

Czosnek L, Rankin N, Zopf E, Richards J, Rosenbaum S, Cormie P. Implementing exercise in healthcare settings: the potential of implementation science. Sports Med. 2020;50(1):1–14.

Harrison H, Birks M, Franklin R, Mills J. Case study research: foundations and methodological orientations. Forum: Qualitative. Soc Res. 2017;18(1).

Yazan B. Three approaches to case study methods in education: Yin, Merriam, and Stake. Qual Rep. 2015;20(2):134–52.

Damschroder L, Aaron D, Keith R, Kirsh S, Alexander J, Lowery J. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.

Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):21.

Proctor E, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

Heale R, Twycross A. What is a case study? Evid Based Nurs. 2018;21(1):7–8.

Brownson R, Colditz G, Proctor E. Dissemination and implementation research in health: translating science to practice. Second ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2017.

Quiñones MM, Lombard-Newell J, Sharp D, Way V, Cross W. Case study of an adaptation and implementation of a Diabetes Prevention Program for individuals with serious mental illness. Transl Behav Med. 2018;8(2):195–203.

Wiltsey Stirman S, Baumann AA, Miller CJ. The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):58.

Baxter P, Jack S. Qualitative case study methodology: study design and implementation for novice researchers. Qual Rep. 2008;13(4):544–59.

Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research 2018. Available from: http://www.cfirguide.org/index.html . Cited 2018 14 February.

Palinkas LA, Horwitz SM, Green CA, Wisdom JP, Duan N, Hoagwood K. Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Admin Pol Ment Health. 2015;42(5):533–44.

Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229–45.

Teddlie C, Yu F. Mixed methods sampling: a typology with examples. J Mixed Methods Res. 2007;1(1):77–100.

Saunders B, Sim J, Kingstone T, Baker S, Waterfield J, Bartlam B, et al. Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Qual Quant. 2018;52(4):1893–907.

Braun V, Clarke V. To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qual Res Sport Exerc Health. 2021;13(2):201–16.

Burau V, Carstensen K, Fredens M, Kousgaard MB. Exploring drivers and challenges in implementation of health promotion in community mental health services: a qualitative multi-site case study using Normalization Process Theory. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):36.

Phillippi J, Lauderdale J. A guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res. 2018;28(3):381–8.

Mulhall A. In the field: notes on observation in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs. 2003;41(3):306–13.

Schell SF, Luke DA, Schooley MW, Elliott MB, Herbers SH, Mueller NB, et al. Public health program capacity for sustainability: a new framework. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):15.

Washington University. The Program Sustainability Assessment Tool St Louis: Washington University; 2018. Available from: https://sustaintool.org/ . Cited 2018 14 February.

Luke DA, Calhoun A, Robichaux CB, Elliott MB, Moreland-Russell S. The Program Sustainability Assessment Tool: a new instrument for public health programs. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E12.

Stoll S, Janevic M, Lara M, Ramos-Valencia G, Stephens TB, Persky V, et al. A mixed-method application of the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to evaluate the sustainability of 4 pediatric asthma care coordination programs. Prev Chronic Dis. 2015;12:E214.

Kelly C, Scharff D, LaRose J, Dougherty NL, Hessel AS, Brownson RC. A tool for rating chronic disease prevention and public health interventions. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013;10:E206.

Calhoun A, Mainor A, Moreland-Russell S, Maier RC, Brossart L, Luke DA. Using the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool to assess and plan for sustainability. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014;11:E11.

Proctor E, Luke D, Calhoun A, McMillen C, Brownson R, McCrary S, et al. Sustainability of evidence-based healthcare: research agenda, methodological advances, and infrastructure support. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):88.

Lennox L, Maher L, Reed J. Navigating the sustainability landscape: a systematic review of sustainability approaches in healthcare. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):27.

Moore JE, Mascarenhas A, Bain J, Straus SE. Developing a comprehensive definition of sustainability. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):110.

Lewis CC, Fischer S, Weiner BJ, Stanick C, Kim M, Martinez RG. Outcomes for implementation science: an enhanced systematic review of instruments using evidence-based rating criteria. Implement Sci. 2015;10(1):155.

Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8(134).

Moullin JC, Sklar M, Green A, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, Reeder K, et al. Advancing the pragmatic measurement of sustainment: a narrative review of measures. Implement Sci Commun. 2020;1(1):76.

Denzin N. The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers; 1970.

Grant BM, Giddings LS. Making sense of methodologies: a paradigm framework for the novice researcher. Contemp Nurse. 2002;13(1):10–28.

Gale NK, Heath G, Cameron E, Rashid S, Redwood S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13(1):117.

Pope C, Ziebland S, Mays N. Qualitative research in health care. Analysing qualitative data. BMJ. 2000;320(7227):114–6.

QSR International. NVivo 11 Pro for Windows 2018. Available from: https://www.qsrinternational.com/nvivo-qualitative-data-analysissoftware/home .

Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Fernández ME, Abadie B, Damschroder LJ. Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):42.

Michie S, Johnston M, Rothman AJ, de Bruin M, Kelly MP, Carey RN, et al. Developing an evidence-based online method of linking behaviour change techniques and theoretical mechanisms of action: a multiple methods study. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals. Library. 2021;9:1.

Michie S, Johnston M, Abraham C, Lawton R, Parker D, Walker A. Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach. Qual Saf Health Care. 2005;14(1):26–33.

Ebneyamini S, Sadeghi Moghadam MR. Toward developing a framework for conducting case study research. Int J Qual Methods. 2018;17(1):1609406918817954.

Paparini S, Green J, Papoutsi C, Murdoch J, Petticrew M, Greenhalgh T, et al. Case study research for better evaluations of complex interventions: rationale and challenges. BMC Med. 2020;18(1):301.

Sarkies M, Long JC, Pomare C, Wu W, Clay-Williams R, Nguyen HM, et al. Avoiding unnecessary hospitalisation for patients with chronic conditions: a systematic review of implementation determinants for hospital avoidance programmes. Implement Sci. 2020;15(1):91.

Koorts H, Cassar S, Salmon J, Lawrence M, Salmon P, Dorling H. Mechanisms of scaling up: combining a realist perspective and systems analysis to understand successfully scaled interventions. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):42.

Engell T, Kirkøen B, Hammerstrøm KT, Kornør H, Ludvigsen KH, Hagen KA. Common elements of practice, process and implementation in out-of-school-time academic interventions for at-risk children: a systematic review. Prev Sci. 2020;21(4):545–56.

Bengtsson B, Hertting N. Generalization by mechanism: thin rationality and ideal-type analysis in case study research. Philos Soc Sci. 2014;44(6):707–32.

Tsang EWK. Generalizing from research findings: the merits of case studies. Int J Manag Rev. 2014;16(4):369–83.

Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1451–8.

Adler C, Hirsch Hadorn G, Breu T, Wiesmann U, Pohl C. Conceptualizing the transfer of knowledge across cases in transdisciplinary research. Sustain Sci. 2018;13(1):179–90.

Wolfenden L, Foy R, Presseau J, Grimshaw JM, Ivers NM, Powell BJ, et al. Designing and undertaking randomised implementation trials: guide for researchers. BMJ. 2021;372:m3721.

Nathan N, Hall A, McCarthy N, Sutherland R, Wiggers J, Bauman AE, et al. Multi-strategy intervention increases school implementation and maintenance of a mandatory physical activity policy: outcomes of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(7):385–93.

Malone S, Prewitt K, Hackett R, Lin JC, McKay V, Walsh-Bailey C, et al. The Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool: measuring organizational capacity to promote sustainability in healthcare. Implement Sci Commun. 2021;2(1):77.

Sales AE, Barnaby DP, Rentes VC. Letter to the editor on “the implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects” (Smith JD, Li DH, Rafferty MR. the implementation research logic model: a method for planning, executing, reporting, and synthesizing implementation projects. Implement Sci. 2020;15 (1):84. Doi:10.1186/s13012-020-01041-8). Implement Sci. 2021;16(1):97.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the healthcare organizations and staff who supported the study.

SR is funded by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (APP1123336). The funding body had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript development.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia

Louise Czosnek & Eva M. Zopf

Cabrini Cancer Institute, The Szalmuk Family Department of Medical Oncology, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, Australia

Eva M. Zopf

Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

Prue Cormie

Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Discipline of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Simon Rosenbaum

School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Justin Richards

Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

Nicole M. Rankin

Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

LC, EZ, SR, JR, PC, and NR contributed to the conceptualization of the study. LC undertook the data collection, and LC, EZ, SR, JR, PC, and NR supported the analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LC with NR and EZ providing first review. LC, EZ, SR, JR, PC, and NR commented on previous versions of the manuscript and provided critical review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Louise Czosnek .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

This study is approved by Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee - Concord Repatriation General Hospital (2019/ETH11806). Ethical approval is also supplied by Australian Catholic University (2018-279E), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (19/175), North Sydney Local Health District - Macquarie Hospital (2019/STE14595), and Alfred Health (516-19).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

PC is the recipient of a Victorian Government Mid-Career Research Fellowship through the Victorian Cancer Agency. PC is the Founder and Director of EX-MED Cancer Ltd, a not-for-profit organization that provides exercise medicine services to people with cancer. PC is the Director of Exercise Oncology EDU Pty Ltd, a company that provides fee for service training courses to upskill exercise professionals in delivering exercise to people with cancer.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Czosnek, L., Zopf, E.M., Cormie, P. et al. Developing an implementation research logic model: using a multiple case study design to establish a worked exemplar. Implement Sci Commun 3 , 90 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00337-8

Download citation

Received : 19 March 2022

Accepted : 01 August 2022

Published : 16 August 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00337-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Logic model
• Case study methods
• Causal pathways
• Causal mechanisms

Implementation Science Communications

ISSN: 2662-2211

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]

S T R E E T OF W A L L S

Consulting case study 101: an introduction to frameworks.

Before we look at individual Cases, it is important to begin by looking at analysis frameworks that commonly can be used to address Case Study questions. In this chapter, we will outline some of the core frameworks and some additional Consulting concepts that are important to grasp and will form part of many interviews. The frameworks will be helpful to answer certain types of cases, depending on the type of case.  In reality, few case interviews or real-life business situations cover just one concept or business problem, so you have to have the flexibility to apply a range of concepts/structures.  For example, a Company bringing a new product to market would require a market size analysis, competitor analysis, as well as understanding the key customer segments.

The more you practice, the easier the cases will become and the more articulate and structured you’ll be in your answers.

An important note on this: historically, the vast majority of Consulting candidates have used specific business frameworks to answer cases.  Frameworks remain important as concepts to answer Case Studies, but you should absolutely avoid any rigid use of a specific framework . In reality, the main purpose of learning the frameworks is to help you to structure your answers , just as the case situations in our later examples should do.

The key frameworks that follow should be used directly in certain Case situations , but more broadly they should be used as a way to expand your strategic thinking , which is the critical component of success in the Case Study interview process. Ultimately, a top-flight candidate will build his or her own framework/structure for evaluating the Case as it progresses, often drawing from many of the frameworks and concepts in this module, and potentially others. In other words, you should absolutely avoid using the phrase, “I will apply framework X to this case.” However, be aware of the “famous” frameworks in case they are mentioned in an interview setting, and don’t be shy about referencing them as you dive into the specifics of the Case Study you’re evaluating.

Porter’s Five Forces

Porter’s Five Forces has become an incredibly well known framework in the business strategy world. It is probably the most famous of all of them. It was introduced by Harvard Professor and Monitor Consulting firm founder Michael Porter.  Porter’s Five Forces is a high-level framework that you can draw upon to perform a market landscape and competitor dynamics analysis. It can help determine whether a market or company is attractive, whether the client for whom the analysis is being performed is a private equity firm thinking about buying a company, or a major company thinking about entering or exiting a certain market segment. In most cases, a Case Study will address at least some of the components found in this framework.

Here are the Five Forces in detail:

Porter’s Five Forces

• Legal or regulatory barriers (for example, patents or government contracts)
• Economies of scale
• Cost advantage (for example, unique access to lower raw material costs)
• Access to distribution channels
• Product differentiation (for example, how is this product different?)
• Industry growth rate
• Industry fragmentation
• Level of switching costs
• Motivation to reduce prices (for example, from excess capacity)
• Level of substitute products
• Buyer’s decision influenced by supplier
• Supplier inputs/products have high switching costs
• Supplier has potential to forward integrate
• Supplier accounts for large share of the inputs/products
• High customer/client concentration
• Level of commoditization of product/input
• Level of switching costs for buyer
• Buyer has significant product/market information
• Substitute products/services that can compete on price and/or quality
• Switching costs to shift to substitute products

This simple framework has been around for a long time as a way to think about any industry or company, and applies broadly to a wide range of Case Study questions. If you compare the description below to that of Porter’s Five Forces above, you will see that there is substantial overlap.

The “3 Cs” approach is to address any Case situation by assessing the:

• Competitors
• Customers/clients

The 3 C’s

• Pros and cons of product/service
• Value chain
• Revenue (price × volume) and expenses
• Core competencies
• Regulatory environment
• Distribution network
• Management and core employees
• Market share
• Fragmentation
• Financial situation (for example, deep pocket competitors?)
• Other competencies (for example, marketing or distribution channels)
• Value proposition versus client
• Demographics (age, gender, etc.)
• Value of core customers/clients
• Wants and needs of customers/clients
• Customer/client segment sizes
• Customer/client segment shares
• Customer/client segment growth rate
• Product characteristics
• Personnel (especially for B2B)

This framework is often used specifically whenever there is a marketing component involved in a case (for example: how to increase sales resulting from any profitability optimization case, deciding on an approach to enter a market, etc.). When combined with the 3 Cs, this framework can cover many topics and as you practice more Case Study questions, you’ll develop a better sense of when and how to draw from these frameworks.

The “4 Ps” approach is to address a marketing-oriented Case situation by assessing the:

The 4 P’s

• Commoditized or differentiated?
• How close are the substitutes?
• Value proposition versus substitutes (price, quality, etc.)
• Switching costs
• Why are clients/customers purchasing the product?
• Brand, availability, service, value, reliability, aesthetic, etc.
• Is our product sufficiently better to justify a higher price? Or is it somewhat commoditized?
• Customer loyalty/lock-in
• Supply/demand: current state of demand and supply for the product or service
• Price of substitute products/services
• Price of competitor products/services
• Brand position and perception
• What is the cost for the client to produce the product or offer the service?
• Select/exclusive channels or wide distribution network?
• Seamless delivery to customers
• Internal transport or outsource?
• Specific areas of a site online
• Product placement in stores
• Customer/client awareness
• Is the Company reaching and attracting its target market?
• What are the most effective marketing campaign strategies?
• Return on marketing spend
• Are we retaining our customers/clients?
• Can we up-sell or cross-sell to our current customers/clients?

SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats)

SWOT analysis is more of a mini-framework, specifically for quickly evaluating a single company in an industry. In that regard, it’s far less complete than other frameworks, and can often miss important details. However an interviewer could potentially ask you for a SWOT analysis, and you should be prepared to apply it in that case.

SWOT is effectively a quick, high-level market landscape/competitive dynamics analysis arranged using the following terminology:

SWOT Analysis

• Strengths: Company strengths within an industry
• Weaknesses: Company weaknesses within an industry
• Opportunities: Company opportunities available within the industry (or potentially by branching into a new industry)
• Threats: Company threats within the industry (or potentially from companies whose primary business is in another, related industry, or from disruptive technologies that potentially threaten all companies in an industry)

It should be noted that SWOT can be extended from comparing a specific company to the others in the industry, to comparing a specific industry or sub-industry to other, related industries or sub-industries within the economy. For example, a classic SWOT analysis might entail benchmarking Delta Airlines with the airline industry as a whole; an extension could entail benchmarking the entire airline industry against the broad transportation sector.

Other Frameworks

You should be very familiar with the well-known frameworks already discussed in this chapter, although it is unlikely that an interviewer would ask you to use a particular framework in your analysis. Instead, it is typically expected that you draw on the concepts encompassed by these frameworks and/or the concepts that we will outline in the next chapter, which breaks down the common Case Study interview question types .

In addition to these frameworks, there are a number of other frameworks that you will read about on certain Consulting firm sites, but you will probably not be expected to know them in detail or apply them specifically in an interview. It does not hurt, however, to be familiar with them. Therefore, we include these example frameworks for your reference and encourage you to at least familiarize yourself with the basics of them:

• The BCG Growth Share Matrix for evaluating product or business lines
• The McKinsey 7S Framework for evaluating organizational effectiveness
• The Product/Market Grid to determine growth opportunities
• Force Field Analysis for Change Management
• The Affinity Diagram for organizing ideas and information

Additional Analysis Concepts

There are additional, relatively simple analytical techniques that you should be prepared for in Consulting Case Study interviews. These techniques tend to be numerical, and occur frequently, although none are comprehensive or broad enough to fall into the category of a “Framework”:

Break-Even Analysis

Fixed vs. variable expenses, net profit margin, return on investment (roi), compound annual growth rate (cagr).

• Lifetime Customer Value (LCV; sometimes referred to as “User Lifetime Value”)

Product Life Cycle

Opportunity cost, elasticity (supply or demand).

• Financial Statements, Accounting, and Valuation

Let’s take a deeper look at each analysis category.

• The gist of Break-Even Analysis cases is that the Fixed Costs of a business—i.e., the costs that are unavoidable—need to be overcome by making profit from sales of products. Presumably, each incremental sale contributes to profit at a rate that can be determined (or at least estimated); the question that is to be answered is, “How many units do I have to sell in order to overcome my Fixed Costs, i.e., to ‘Break Even’?”
• In other words, the Break-Even Point is the number of units sold at which Revenue equals Total Expenses (Fixed Expenses plus Variable Expenses).
• Break-Even Analysis is often applied when deciding whether to develop a new product or make a capital equipment investment, as well as helping in making decisions around how to price products and service and the number of units to produce.
• Formulaically, Break-Even Number of Units = Fixed expenses ÷ (Revenue per unit – Variable Expenses per unit).
• Note that the expression ( Revenue per unit – Variable Expenses per unit ) is often referred to as the Unit Contribution Margin .
• An understanding of how to analyze Expenses and differentiate Fixed Expenses from Variable Expenses is useful in order to run a Break-Even Analysis of a company.
• Break-Even Analysis can get more complex, as there are microeconomic and macroeconomic considerations that can change both the Fixed and Variable Expenses, but the basic concept is an important one; therefore you will likely come across some form of Break-Even Analysis in Consulting Case Study interviews.
• Note that this concept can also be translated into a question on Break-Even Price , i.e., “Assuming a certain volume of sales, what is the sales price required in order to break even?”
• Formulaically, Break-Even Price = (Fixed Expenses ÷ Sales Volume) + Variable Expenses per unit .
• Note that the expression ( Fixed Expenses ÷ Sales Volume ) equates to the required Unit Contribution Margin at the assumed Sales Volume in order to break even. In other words, Break-Even Price = Required Unit Contribution Margin + Variable Expenses per Unit .
• Fixed Expenses (or Fixed Costs ) are expenses that do typically fluctuate regardless of the production or sales levels. These expenses can be viewed as “unavoidable,” at least in the short-term. Typical examples for Fixed Expenses include Rent, Insurance, Mortgage Payments, and Corporate Overhead Expenses.
• Variable Expenses (or Variable Costs ) are impacted by changes in production or sales levels – typical examples include are Raw Materials, Direct Labor Expenses (wages and benefits), and delivery costs.
• Understanding a Company’s Fixed vs. Variable Cost structure is important in a variety of cases (such as in Break-Even Analysis, discussed above).
• When analyzing a Case, always keep in mind that total Fixed Expenses remain constant as volume rises (or falls), but Fixed Expenses per unit decline as volume rises (rise as volume falls). For example, if a computer component manufacturer has $1,000 of Fixed Expenses and produces 100 components, then the $1,000 of Fixed Expenses will be spread across 100 components (= $10 of Fixed Expenses per unit). If the Company produced 200 components, then the Fixed Expenses per unit would decrease to $5 per unit.
• Variable Expenses, meanwhile, rise proportionately as volume increases, so Variable Expenses per unit remain constant.
• When an interviewer asks a candidate to calculate the Net Profit Margin (a.k.a. Profit Margin or Net Income Margin ), he or she will usually be referring to the total Net Income of a company or business line as a percentage of its Revenue: Net Profit Margin = Net Income ÷ Total Revenue.
• The interviewer could also refer to Gross Profit Margin , which is simply Gross Profit as a percentage of revenue: Gross Profit Margin = Gross Profit ÷ Total Revenue
• Similarly, the interview may also refer to Operating Profit Margin ( EBIT Margin ), or EBITDA Margin . In both cases, thus is simply the figure in question (Operating Profit, a.k.a. EBIT, or EBITDA) as a percentage of Revenue.
• Return on Investment (ROI) is a ratio that determines the return, or Profit, from capital invested. ROI is used in consulting interviews as a way to evaluate the return of a particular investment or to assess the feasibility of a potential investment or acquisition. Many companies have an internal ROI metric for capital investments.
• Standard ROI is calculated as follows: Profit from the Investment (Revenue minus Costs) ÷ Capital Invested .
• Note: Return on Assets (ROA) is a variation of this concept, but instead revolves around all capital invested in a project (Liabilities + Equity), rather than just Equity invested, which is typical for an ROI calculation.
• The Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is the percentage rate at which any figure, such as number of units sold, a population, or an investment must grow in each year to reach a given end value over a certain amount of time. (Note that this is not the only growth path to grow from a beginning number to an ending number, but it is the only growth path that is the same growth rate every year .)
• The formula to calculate CAGR is: [(Ending Value ÷ Beginning Value)^(1 ÷ Number of Years)] – 1.
• For example: If sales grew from $1,000 in the year 2001, when a store opened, to $2,100 in 2012, what is the CAGR?
• Answer: [(2,100 ÷ 1,000)^(1 ÷ 11)] – 1 = 2.1^(0.090909) = 7.0%
• Thus, the CAGR between 2001 and 2012 was 7.0%.
• CAGR is very similar in concept to Internal Rate of Return (IRR), which is the annual rate of return on an investment if its value grows by a specific multiple over a specific amount of time.
• Use the Rule of 72 to estimate CAGR whenever possible. The rule of 72 simply states that a quantity will roughly double in value whenever the number of years times the annual growth rate equals 72.
• Using the above example, we can see that the quantity slightly more than doubled, so the answer should be slightly above (72 ÷ 11) percent, or slightly above 6.6%. Indeed, it is!

Lifetime Customer Value (LCV)

• Lifetime Customer Value (LCV) projects the total profitability attributed to a firm’s future relationship to a typical customer.
• The idea behind this microeconomic analysis is to determine the reasonable cost to win or acquire a customer (or to maintain an existing customer, i.e., prevent him or her from “churning,” or switching to a competitor). It can also be used to determine level and type of customer service to provide, and as another way to estimate the value of a business. (In theory, the value of a business should equal the number of existing customers × the LCV per customer , plus growth opportunities.)
• The steps to calculate the LCV are as follows:
• Estimate the remaining customer years; in other words, how long is a typical customer expected to last with the company?
• Estimate future Revenue per year per customer, based on product volume per customer × price
• Estimate Total Expenses for producing those products (either separating Fixed Costs out or allocating them on a per-customer basis)
• Calculate the Net Present Value of the future profit (Revenue – Expenses) per customer (in other words, discount these future profits back into today’s equivalent dollars)
• Important for market sizing problems, the Product Life Cycle helps to calculate and project the annual market size for a given market/industry. It is often used by companies to project their own anticipated Revenue figures.
• Formulaically, Annual Market Size = Total Revenue of a product outstanding ÷ Average life of the product . For example, “Total Revenue of a product outstanding” might represent the sticker price of all cars driven in the US, while the “Average life of the product” would be the average number of years a car is driven.
• It is also worth knowing the four steps in the Product Life Cycle Curve , as the concept could come up in a hypothetical product case.
• Emerging: A new product or technology that is in initial adoption phases and therefore has very rapid growth rates (for example: electric cars)
• Growth: Product adoption is becoming widespread but still growing at an above-average rate (for example: smartphones)
• Maturity: Product adoption is widespread, or at least stabilized; growth typically comes only from price increases and growth in GDP (for example: breakfast cereal)
• Declining: Technological obsolescence, shifting consumption patterns, or increased market competition has resulted in total growth rates that are below-average or negative (for example: dairy products or wireline telephones)
• Opportunity Cost simply refers to the concept that if a person or company does X , the person or company necessarily cannot also do Y .  This is an important concept throughout business and consumer decision making, as there are only finite resources available in most cases (time, money, etc.).
• Thus, for example, it is unwise for a company to invest $1 million in a project earning $3 million if that same investment prevents it from investing the $1 million in another opportunity that would earn $10 million. In this case, the Opportunity Cost can be defined as the loss of incremental profit of $7 million ($10 million potential profit lost minus the $3 million earned).
• If X does not prevent also doing Y , then there is said to be “no Opportunity Cost” of doing X with respect to Y . In the above example, if the company had $2 million to invest and the capacity to manage both projects, it could reap the profits from both projects, i.e., $13 million.
• Elasticity is a concept from microeconomics that describes the tradeoff between Quantity and Price.
• Specifically, Elasticity is the ratio of a percentage change in quantity to the percentage change in price. Formulaically, Elasticity = % Change in Quantity Demanded or Supplied ÷ % Change in Price .
• For example, if an increase in the price of oranges from $1.00 apiece to $1.50 apiece causes demand for those oranges to fall from 100 units to 80 units, then the % Change in Quantity = –20% and the % Change in Price = 50%. Therefore the Elasticity of Demand = (–20 ÷ 50) = –0.4.
• Note that for normal goods, Elasticity of Demand will always be negative (higher prices mean less quantity is purchased) while Elasticity of Supply will always be positive (higher prices mean that suppliers are willing to produce and/or supply more goods).
• The concept comes up in multiple types of cases, such as pricing optimization. Clients often ask what the impact would be on volume if they adjust the price. Usually the correct answer is to increase prices in Inelastic markets (price increases lead to a relatively small decrease in products sold) and decrease them in Highly Elastic markets (price increases lead to a large decrease in product sold).

Financial Statements, Accounting and Valuation

Unlike Investment Banking interviews, which can be detailed and highly technical in terms of Finance and Accounting, Consulting interviews and the Consulting job itself revolve much more around estimation and exercising business judgment and “what-if” analysis. Rarely would a Consultant be called upon to develop and maintain a detailed, precise financial model for Discounted Cash Flow valuation, for example.

That being said, a basic-to-moderate understanding of the Income Statement, Balance Sheet and Statement of Cash Flows, and how they work together, is very relevant to many interviews. (You might even be provided with a basic Income Statement or Balance Sheet of a company as part of a Case Study interview question.)

Rather than reinventing the wheel and writing content on Finance and Accounting in this guide, we recommend you review any standard, basic Financial Accounting textbook to familiarize yourself with the components of basic Financial Statements:

• Income Statement (Revenue, Expenses, and Profit)
• Balance Sheet (Assets, Liabilities, and Equity)
• Statement of Cash Flows (Cash Flows broken out into the following categories of sources: Operating Activities, Investing Activities and Financing Activities)

We also recommend that you familiarize yourself with some basic core Finance concepts (Net Income, EBIT (Operating Profit), EBITDA, Free Cash Flow, Internal Rate of Return, Net Present Value, and Enterprise Value are good places to start) and core Valuation techniques (Cost of Capital, Comparable Company Analysis, Precedent Transaction Analysis, Discounted Cash Flow analysis, and Leverage Buyout analysis).  Although these concepts will not be tested and do not form a major part of general Consulting Case Study interviews, these topics can appear in a general discussion about a particular business situation and you should be able to discuss them at least on a basic level.

If you are applying for a job in Business Development, or for a Consulting position in a Corporate Finance group or at a firm that does a lot of Corporate Finance Consulting work, then you should definitely study up and be prepared for these core Finance and Accounting concepts, because they will likely be tested on in detail in your interviews. In addition to introductory Finance and Accounting textbooks, we highly recommend that these candidates read the Street of Walls Investment Banking Technical Training guide, which addresses complex details around Financial Statements, Accounting and Valuation at a very detailed level. (We also recommend this training guide in general to anyone who is interested in advancing their Finance and Accounting skills—particularly when it comes to Corporate Valuation.)

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Implement Sci Commun

Developing an implementation research logic model: using a multiple case study design to establish a worked exemplar

Louise czosnek.

1 Mary MacKillop Institute for Health Research, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia

Eva M. Zopf

2 Cabrini Cancer Institute, The Szalmuk Family Department of Medical Oncology, Cabrini Health, Melbourne, Australia

Prue Cormie

3 Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

4 Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Simon Rosenbaum

5 Discipline of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

6 School of Health Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

Justin Richards

7 Faculty of Health, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

Nicole M. Rankin

8 Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

9 Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

Associated Data

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author [LC]. The data are not publicly available due to them containing information that could compromise research participant privacy.

Implementation science frameworks explore, interpret, and evaluate different components of the implementation process. By using a program logic approach, implementation frameworks with different purposes can be combined to detail complex interactions. The Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) facilitates the development of causal pathways and mechanisms that enable implementation. Critical elements of the IRLM vary across different study designs, and its applicability to synthesizing findings across settings is also under-explored. The dual purpose of this study is to develop an IRLM from an implementation research study that used case study methodology and to demonstrate the utility of the IRLM to synthesize findings across case sites.

The method used in the exemplar project and the alignment of the IRLM to case study methodology are described. Cases were purposely selected using replication logic and represent organizations that have embedded exercise in routine care for people with cancer or mental illness. Four data sources were selected: semi-structured interviews with purposely selected staff, organizational document review, observations, and a survey using the Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT). Framework analysis was used, and an IRLM was produced at each case site. Similar elements within the individual IRLM were identified, extracted, and re-produced to synthesize findings across sites and represent the generalized, cross-case findings.

The IRLM was embedded within multiple stages of the study, including data collection, analysis, and reporting transparency. Between 33-44 determinants and 36-44 implementation strategies were identified at sites that informed individual IRLMs. An example of generalized findings describing “intervention adaptability” demonstrated similarities in determinant detail and mechanisms of implementation strategies across sites. However, different strategies were applied to address similar determinants. Dependent and bi-directional relationships operated along the causal pathway that influenced implementation outcomes.

Conclusions

Case study methods help address implementation research priorities, including developing causal pathways and mechanisms. Embedding the IRLM within the case study approach provided structure and added to the transparency and replicability of the study. Identifying the similar elements across sites helped synthesize findings and give a general explanation of the implementation process. Detailing the methods provides an example for replication that can build generalizable knowledge in implementation research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00337-8.

Contributions to the literature

• Logic models can help understand how and why evidence-based interventions (EBIs) work to produce intended outcomes.
• The implementation research logic model (IRLM) provides a method to understand causal pathways, including determinants, implementation strategies, mechanisms, and implementation outcomes.
• We describe an exemplar project using a multiple case study design that embeds the IRLM at multiple stages. The exemplar explains how the IRLM helped synthesize findings across sites by identifying the common elements within the causal pathway.
• By detailing the exemplar methods, we offer insights into how this approach of using the IRLM is generalizable and can be replicated in other studies.

The practice of implementation aims to get “someone…, somewhere… to do something differently” [ 1 ]. Typically, this involves changing individual behaviors and organizational processes to improve the use of evidence-based interventions (EBIs). To understand this change, implementation science applies different theories, models, and frameworks (hereafter “frameworks”) to describe and evaluate the factors and steps in the implementation process [ 2 – 5 ]. Implementation science provides much-needed theoretical frameworks and a structured approach to process evaluations. One or more frameworks are often used within a program of work to investigate the different stages and elements of implementation [ 6 ]. Researchers have acknowledged that the dynamic implementation process could benefit from using logic models [ 7 ]. Logic models offer a systematic approach to combining multiple frameworks and to building causal pathways that explain the mechanisms behind individual and organizational change.

Logic models visually represent how an EBI is intended to work [ 8 ]. They link the available resources with the activities undertaken, the immediate outputs of this work, and the intermediate outcomes and longer-term impacts [ 8 , 9 ]. Through this process, causal pathways are identified. For implementation research, the causal pathway provides the interconnection between a chosen EBI, determinants, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes [ 10 ]. Testing causal mechanisms in the research translation pathway will likely dominate the next wave of implementation research [ 11 , 12 ]. Causal mechanisms (or mechanisms of change) are the “process or event through which an implementation strategy operates to affect desired implementation outcomes” [ 13 ]. Identifying mechanisms can improve implementation strategies’ selection, prioritization, and targeting [ 12 , 13 ]. This provides an efficient and evidence-informed approach to implementation.

Implementation researchers have proposed several methods to develop and examine causal pathways [ 14 , 15 ] and mechanisms [ 16 , 17 ]. This includes formalizing the inherent relationship between frameworks via developing the Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM) [ 7 ]. The IRLM is a logic model designed to improve the rigor and reproducibility of implementation research. It specifies the relationship between elements of implementation (determinant, strategies, and outcomes) and the mechanisms of change. To do this, it recommends linking implementation frameworks or relevant taxonomies (e.g., determinant and evaluation frameworks and implementation strategy taxonomy). The IRLM authors suggest the tool has multiple uses, including planning, executing, and reporting on the implementation process and synthesizing implementation findings across different contexts [ 7 ]. During its development, the IRLM was tested to confirm its utility in planning, executing, and reporting; however, its utility in synthesizing findings across different contexts is ongoing. Users of the tool are encouraged to consider three principles: (1) comprehensiveness in reporting determinants, implementation strategies, and implementation outcomes; (2) specifying the conceptual relationships via diagrammatic tools such as colors and arrows; and (3) detailing important elements of the study design. Further, the authors also recognize that critical elements of IRLM will vary across different study designs.

This study describes the development of an IRLM from a multiple case study design. Case study methodology can answer “how and why” questions about implementation. They enable researchers to develop a rich, in-depth understanding of a contemporary phenomenon within its natural context [ 18 – 21 ]. These methods can create coherence in the dynamic context in which EBIs exist [ 22 , 23 ]. Case studies are common in implementation research [ 24 – 30 ], with multiple case study designs suitable for undertaking comparisons across contexts [ 31 , 32 ]. However, they are infrequently applied to establish mechanisms [ 11 ] or combine implementation elements to synthesize findings across contexts (as possible through the IRLM). Hollick and colleagues [ 33 ] undertook a comparative case study, guided by a determinant framework, to explore how context influences successful implementation. The authors contrasted determinants across sites where implementation was successful versus sites where implementation failed. The study did not extend to identifying implementation strategies or mechanisms. By contrast, van Zelm et al. [ 31 ] undertook a theory-driven evaluation of successful implementation across ten hospitals. They used joint displays to present mechanisms of change aligned with evaluation outcomes; however, they did not identify the implementation strategies within the causal pathway. Our study seeks to build on these works and explore the utility of the IRLM in synthesizing findings across sites. The dual objectives of this paper were to:

• Describe how case study methods can be applied to develop an IRLM
• Demonstrate the utility of the IRLM in synthesizing implementation findings across case sites.

In this section, we describe the methods used in the exemplar case study and the alignment of the IRLM to this approach. The exemplar study explored the implementation of exercise EBIs in the context of the Australian healthcare system. The exemplar study aimed to investigate the integration of exercise EBIs within routine mental illness or cancer care. The evidence base detailing the therapeutic benefits of exercise for non-communicable diseases such as cancer and mental illness are extensively documented [ 34 – 36 ] but inconsistently implemented as part of routine care [ 37 – 44 ].

Additional file 1 provides the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR).

Case study approach

We adopted an approach to case studies based on the methods described by Yin [ 18 ]. This approach is said to have post-positivist philosophical leanings, which are typically associated with the quantitative paradigm [ 19 , 45 , 46 ]. This is evidenced by the structured, deductive approach to the methods that are described with a constant lens on objectivity, validity, and generalization [ 46 ]. Yin’s approach to case studies aligns with the IRLM for several reasons. The IRLM is designed to use established implementation frameworks. The two frameworks and one taxonomy applied in our exemplar were the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) [ 47 ], Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) [ 48 ], and Proctor et al.’s implementation outcomes framework [ 49 ]. These frameworks guided multiple aspects of our study (see Table ​ Table1). 1 ). Commencing an implementation study with a preconceived plan based upon established frameworks is deductive [ 22 ]. Second, the IRLM has its foundation in logic modeling to develop cause and effect relationships [ 8 ]. Yin advocates using logic models to analyze case study findings [ 18 ]. They argue that developing logic models encourages researchers to iterate and consider plausible counterfactual explanations before upholding the causal pathway. Further, Yin notes that case studies are particularly valuable for explaining the transitions and context within the cause-and-effect relationship [ 18 ]. In our exemplar, the transition was the mechanism between the implementation strategy and implementation outcome. Finally, the proposed function of IRLM to synthesize findings across sites aligns with the exemplar study that used a multiple case approach. Multiple case studies aim to develop generalizable knowledge [ 18 , 50 ].

Theoretical application within the study and operational definitions/measures for implementation outcomes

EBI evidence-based intervention, PSAT Program Sustainability Assessment Tool, CFIR Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, ERIC Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change

Case study selection and boundaries

A unique feature of Yin’s approach to multiple case studies is using replication logic to select cases [ 18 ]. Cases are chosen to demonstrate similarities (literal replication) or differences for anticipated reasons (theoretical replication) [ 18 ]. In the exemplar study, the cases were purposely selected using literal replication and displayed several common characteristics. First, all cases had delivered exercise EBIs within normal operations for at least 12 months. Second, each case site delivered exercise EBIs as part of routine care for a non-communicable disease (cancer or mental illness diagnosis). Finally, each site delivered the exercise EBI within the existing governance structures of the Australian healthcare system. That is, the organizations used established funding and service delivery models of the Australian healthcare system.

Using replication logic, we posited that sites would exhibit some similarities in the implementation process across contexts (literal replication). However, based on existing implementation literature [ 32 , 51 – 53 ], we expected sites to adapt the EBIs through the implementation process. The determinant analysis should explain these adaptions, which is informed by the CFIR (theoretical replication). Finally, in case study methods, clearly defining the boundaries of each case and the units of analysis, such as individual, the organization or intervention, helps focus the research. We considered each healthcare organization as a separate case. Within that, organizational-level analysis [ 18 , 54 ] and operationalizing the implementation outcomes focused inquiry (Table ​ (Table1 1 ).

Data collection

During the study conceptualization for the exemplar, we mapped the data sources to the different elements of the IRLM (Fig. ​ (Fig.1). 1 ). Four primary data sources informed data collection: (1) semi-structured interviews with staff; (2) document review (such as meeting minutes, strategic plans, and consultant reports); (3) naturalistic observations; and (4) a validated survey (Program Sustainability Assessment Tool (PSAT)). A case study database was developed using Microsoft Excel to manage and organize data collection [ 18 , 54 ].

Conceptual frame for the study

Semi-structured interviews

An interview guide was developed, informed by the CFIR interview guide tool [ 55 ]. Questions were selected across the five domains of the CFIR, which aligned with the delineation of determinant domains in the IRLM. Purposeful selection was used to identify staff for the interviews [ 56 ]. Adequate sample size in qualitative studies, particularly regarding the number of interviews, is often determined when data saturation is reached [ 57 , 58 ]. Unfortunately, there is little consensus on the definition of saturation [ 59 ], how to interpret when it has occurred [ 57 ], or whether it is possible to pre-determine in qualitative studies [ 60 ]. The number of participants in this study was determined based on the staff’s differential experience with the exercise EBI and their role in the organization. This approach sought to obtain a rounded view of how the EBI operated at each site [ 23 , 61 ]. Focusing on staff experiences also aligned with the organizational lens that bounded the study. Typical roles identified for the semi-structured interviews included the health professional delivering the EBI, the program manager responsible for the EBI, an organizational executive, referral sources, and other health professionals (e.g., nurses, allied health). Between five and ten interviews were conducted at each site. Interview times ranged from 16 to 72 min, most lasting around 40 min per participant.

Document review

A checklist informed by case study literature was developed outlining the typical documents the research team was seeking [ 18 ]. The types of documents sought to review included job descriptions, strategic plans/planning documents, operating procedures and organizational policies, communications (e.g., website, media releases, email, meeting minutes), annual reports, administrative databases/files, evaluation reports, third party consultant reports, and routinely collected numerical data that measured implementation outcomes [ 27 ]. As each document was identified, it was numbered, dated, and recorded in the case study database with a short description of the content related to the research aims and the corresponding IRLM construct. Between 24 and 33 documents were accessed at each site. A total of 116 documents were reviewed across the case sites.

Naturalistic observations

The onsite observations occurred over 1 week, wherein typical organizational operations were viewed. The research team interacted with staff, asked questions, and sought clarification of what was being observed; however, they did not disrupt the usual work routines. Observations allowed us to understand how the exercise EBI operated and contrast that with documented processes and procedures. They also provided the opportunity to observe non-verbal cues and interactions between staff. While onsite, case notes were recorded directly into the case study database [ 62 , 63 ]. Between 15 and 40 h were spent on observations per site. A total of 95 h was spent across sites on direct observations.

Program sustainability assessment tool (survey)

The PSAT is a planning and evaluation tool that assesses the sustainability of an intervention across eight domains [ 64 – 66 ]: (1) environmental support, (2) funding stability, (3) partnerships, (4) organizational capacity, (5) program evaluation, (6) program adaption, (7) communication, and (8) strategic planning [ 64 , 65 ]. The PSAT was administered to a subset of at least three participants per site who completed the semi-structured interview. The results were then pooled to provide an organization-wide view of EBI sustainability. Three participants per case site are consistent with previous studies that have used the tool [ 67 , 68 ] and recommendations for appropriate use [ 65 , 69 ].

We included a validated measure of sustainability, recognizing calls to improve understanding of this aspect of implementation [ 70 – 72 ]. Noting the limited number of measurement tools for evaluating sustainability [ 73 ], the PSAT’s characteristics displayed the best alignment with the study aims. To determine “best alignment,” we deferred to a study by Lennox and colleagues that helps researchers select suitable measurement tools based on the conceptualization of sustainability in the study [ 71 ]. The PSAT provides a multi-level view of sustainability. It is a measurement tool that can be triangulated with other implementation frameworks, such as the CFIR [ 74 ], to interrogate better and understand the later stages of implementation. Further, the tool provides a contemporary account of an EBIs capacity for sustainability [ 75 ]. This is consistent with case study methods, which explore complex, contemporary, real-life phenomena.

The voluminous data collection that is possible through case studies, and is often viewed as a challenge of the method [ 19 ], was advantageous to developing the IRLM in the exemplar and identifying the causal pathways. First, it aided three types of triangulation through the study (method, theory, and data source triangulation) [ 76 ]. Method triangulation involved collecting evidence via four methods: interview, observations, document review, and survey. Theoretical triangulation involved applying two frameworks and one taxonomy to understand and interpret the findings. Data source triangulation involved selecting participants with different roles within the organization to gain multiple perspectives about the phenomena being studied. Second, data collection facilitated depth and nuance in detailing determinants and implementation strategies. For the determinant analysis, this illuminated the subtleties within context and improved confidence and accuracy for prioritizing determinants. As case studies are essentially “naturalistic” studies, they provide insight into strategies that are implementable in pragmatic settings. Finally, the design’s flexibility enabled the integration of a survey and routinely collected numerical data as evaluation measures for implementation outcomes. This allowed us to contrast “numbers” against participants’ subjective experience of implementation [ 77 ].

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for the PSAT and combined with the three other data sources wherein framework analysis [ 78 , 79 ] was used to analyze the data. Framework analysis includes five main phases: familiarization, identifying a thematic framework, indexing, charting, and mapping and interpretation [ 78 ]. Familiarization occurred concurrently with data collection, and the thematic frame was aligned to the two frameworks and one taxonomy we applied to the IRLM. To index and chart the data, the raw data was uploaded into NVivo 12 [ 80 ]. Codes were established to guide indexing that aligned with the thematic frame. That is, determinants within the CFIR [ 47 ], implementation strategies listed in ERIC [ 48 ], and the implementation outcomes [ 49 ] of acceptability, fidelity, penetration, and sustainability were used as codes in NVivo 12. This process produced a framework matrix that summarized the information housed under each code at each case site.

The final step of framework analysis involves mapping and interpreting the data. We used the IRLM to map and interpret the data in the exemplar. First, we identified the core elements of the implemented exercise EBI. Next, we applied the CFIR valance and strength coding to prioritize the contextual determinants. Then, we identified the implementation strategies used to address the contextual determinants. Finally, we provided a rationale (a causal mechanism) for how these strategies worked to address barriers and contribute to specific implementation outcomes. The systematic approach advocated by the IRLM provided a transparent representation of the causal pathway underpinning the implementation of the exercise EBIs. This process was followed at each case site to produce an IRLM for each organization. To compare, contrast, and synthesize findings across sites, we identified the similarities and differences in the individual IRLMs and then developed an IRLM that explained a generalized process for implementation. Through the development of the causal pathway and mechanisms, we deferred to existing literature seeking to establish these relationships [ 81 – 83 ]. Aligned with case study methods, this facilitated an iterative process of constant comparison and challenging the proposed causal relationships. Smith and colleagues advise that the IRLM “might be viewed as a somewhat simplified format,” and users are encouraged to “iterate on the design of the IRLM to increase its utility” [ 7 ]. Thus, we re-designed the IRLM within a traditional logic model structure to help make sense of the data collected through the case studies. Figure ​ Figure1 1 depicts the conceptual frame for the study and provides a graphical representation of how the IRLM pathway was produced.

The results are presented with reference to the three principles of the IRLM: comprehensiveness, indicating the key conceptual relationship and specifying critical study design . The case study method allowed for comprehensiveness through the data collection and analysis described above. The mean number of data sources informing the analysis and development of the causal pathway at each case site was 63.75 (interviews ( M = 7), observational hours ( M =23.75), PSAT ( M =4), and document review ( M = 29). This resulted in more than 30 determinants and a similar number of implementation strategies identified at each site (determinant range per site = 33–44; implementation strategy range per site = 36–44). Developing a framework matrix meant that each determinant (prioritized and other), implementation strategy, and implementation outcome were captured. The matrix provided a direct link to the data sources that informed the content within each construct. An example from each construct was collated alongside the summary to evidence the findings.

The key conceptual relationship was articulated in a traditional linear process by aligning determinant → implementation strategy → mechanism → implementation outcome, as per the IRLM. To synthesize findings across sites, we compared and contrasted the results within each of the individual IRLM and extracted similar elements to develop a generalized IRLM that represents cross-case findings. By redeveloping the IRLM within a traditional logic model structure, we added visual representations of the bi-directional and dependent relationships, illuminating the dynamism within the implementation process. To illustrate, intervention adaptability was a prioritized determinant and enabler across sites. Healthcare providers recognized that adapting and tailoring exercise EBIs increased “fit” with consumer needs. This also extended to adapting how healthcare providers referred consumers to exercise so that it was easy in the context of their other work priorities. Successful adaption was contingent upon a qualified workforce with the required skills and competencies to enact change. Different implementation strategies were used to make adaptions across sites, such as promoting adaptability and using data experts. However, despite the different strategies, successful adaptation created positive bi-directional relationships. That is, healthcare providers’ confidence and trust in the EBI grew as consumer engagement increased and clinical improvements were observed. This triggered greater engagement with the EBI (e.g., acceptability → penetration → sustainability), albeit the degree of engagement differed across sites. Figure ​ Figure2 2 illustrates this relationship within the IRLM and provides a contrasting relationship by highlighting how a prioritized barrier across sites (available resources) was addressed.

Example of intervention adaptability (E) contrasted with available resources (B) within a synthesised IRLM across case sites

The final principle is to specify critical study design , wherein we have described how case study methodology was used to develop the IRLM exemplar. Our intention was to produce an explanatory causal pathway for the implementation process. The implementation outcomes of acceptability and fidelity were measured at the level of the provider, and penetration and sustainability were measured at the organizational level [ 49 ]. Service level and clinical level outcomes were not identified for a priori measurement throughout the study. We did identify evidence of clinical outcomes that supported our overall findings via the document review. Historical evaluations on the service indicated patients increased their exercise level or demonstrated a change in symptomology/function. The implementation strategies specified in the study were those chosen by the organizations. We did not attempt to augment routine practice or change implementation outcomes by introducing new strategies. The barriers across sites were represented with a (B) symbol and enablers with an (E) symbol in the IRLM. In the individual IRLM, consistent determinants and strategies were highlighted (via bolding) to support extraction. Finally, within the generalized IRLM, the implementation strategies are grouped according to the ERIC taxonomy category. This accounts for the different strategies applied to achieve similar outcomes across case studies.

This study provides a comprehensive overview that uses case study methodology to develop an IRLM in an implementation research project. Using an exemplar that examines implementation in different healthcare settings, we illustrate how the IRLM (that documents the causal pathways and mechanisms) was developed and enabled the synthesis of findings across sites.

Case study methodologies are fraught with inconsistencies in terminology and approach. We adopted the method described by Yin. Its guiding paradigm, which is rooted in objectivity, means it can be viewed as less flexible than other approaches [ 46 , 84 ]. We found the approach offered sufficient flexibility within the frame of a defined process. We argue that the defined process adds to the rigor and reproducibility of the study, which is consistent with the principles of implementation science. That is, accessing multiple sources of evidence, applying replication logic to select cases, maintaining a case study database, and developing logic models to establish causal pathways, demonstrates the reliability and validity of the study. The method was flexible enough to embed the IRLM within multiple phases of the study design, including conceptualization, philosophical alignment, and analysis. Paparini and colleagues [ 85 ] are developing guidance that recognizes the challenges and unmet value of case study methods for implementation research. This work, supported by the UK Medical Research Council, aims to enhance the conceptualization, application, analysis, and reporting of case studies. This should encourage and support researchers to use case study methods in implementation research with increased confidence.

The IRLM produced a relatively linear depiction of the relationship between context, strategies, and outcomes in our exemplar. However, as noted by the authors of the IRLM, the implementation process is rarely linear. If the tool is applied too rigidly, it may inadvertently depict an overly simplistic view of a complex process. To address this, we redeveloped the IRLM within a traditional logic model structure, adding visual representations of the dependent and bidirectional relationships evident within the general IRLM pathway [ 86 ]. Further, developing a general IRLM of cross-case findings that synthesized results involved a more inductive approach to identifying and extracting similar elements. It required the research team to consider broader patterns in the data before offering a prospective account of the implementation process. This was in contrast to the earlier analysis phases that directly mapped determinants and strategies to the CFIR and ERIC taxonomy. We argue that extracting similar elements is analogous to approaches that have variously been described as portable elements [ 87 ], common elements [ 88 ], or generalization by mechanism [ 89 ]. While defined and approached slightly differently, these approaches aim to identify elements frequently shared across effective EBIs and thus can form the basis of future EBIs to increase their utility, efficiency, and effectiveness [ 88 ]. We identified similarities related to determinant detail and mechanism of different implementation strategies across sites. This finding supports the view that many implementation strategies could be suitable, and selecting the “right mix” is challenging [ 16 ]. Identifying common mechanisms, such as increased motivation, skill acquisition, or optimizing workflow, enabled elucidation of the important functions of strategies. This can help inform the selection of appropriate strategies in future implementation efforts.

Finally, by developing individual IRLMs and then re-producing a general IRLM, we synthesized findings across sites and offered generalized findings. The ability to generalize from case studies is debated [ 89 , 90 ], with some considering the concept a fallacy [ 91 ]. That is, the purpose of qualitative research is to develop a richness through data that is situated within a unique context. Trying to extrapolate from findings is at odds with exploring unique context. We suggest the method described herein and the application of IRLM could be best applied to a form of generalization called ‘transferability’ [ 91 , 92 ]. This suggests that findings from one study can be transferred to another setting or population group. In this approach, the new site takes the information supplied and determines those aspects that would fit with their unique environment. We argue that elucidating the implementation process across multiple sites improves the confidence with which certain “elements” could be applied to future implementation efforts. For example, our approach may also be helpful for multi-site implementation studies that use methods other than case studies. Developing a general IRLM through study conceptualization could identify consistencies in baseline implementation status across sites. Multi-site implementation projects may seek to introduce and empirically test implementation strategies, such as via a cluster randomized controlled trial [ 93 ]. Within this study design, baseline comparison between control and intervention sites might extend to a comparison of organizational type, location and size, and individual characteristics, but not the chosen implementation strategies [ 94 ]. Applying the approach described within our study could enhance our understanding of how to support effective implementation.

Limitations

After the research team conceived this study, the authors of the PSAT validated another tool for use in clinical settings (Clinical Sustainability Assessment Tool (CSAT)) [ 95 ]. This tool appears to align better with our study design due to its explicit focus on maintaining structured clinical care practices. The use of multiple data sources and consistency in some elements across the PSAT and CSAT should minimize the limitations in using the PSAT survey tool. At most case sites, limited staff were involved in developing and implementing exercise EBI. Participants who self-selected for interviews may be more invested in assuring positive outcomes for the exercise EBI. Inviting participants from various roles was intended to reduce selection bias. Finally, we recognize recent correspondence suggesting the IRLM misses a critical step in the causal pathway. That is the mechanism between determinant and selection of an appropriate implementation strategy [ 96 ]. Similarly, Lewis and colleagues note that additional elements, including pre-conditions, moderators, and mediators (distal and proximal), exist within the causal pathway [ 13 ]. Through the iterative process of developing the IRLM, decisions were made about the determinant → implementation strategy relationship; however, this is not captured in the IRLM. Secondary analysis of the case study data would allow elucidation of these relationships, as this information can be extracted through the case study database. This was outside the scope of the exemplar study.

Developing an IRLM via case study methods proved useful in identifying causal pathways and mechanisms. The IRLM can complement and enhance the study design by providing a consistent and structured approach. In detailing our approach, we offer an example of how multiple case study designs that embed the IRLM can aid the synthesis of findings across sites. It also provides a method that can be replicated in future studies. Such transparency adds to the quality, reliability, and validity of implementation research.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the healthcare organizations and staff who supported the study.

Authors’ contributions

LC, EZ, SR, JR, PC, and NR contributed to the conceptualization of the study. LC undertook the data collection, and LC, EZ, SR, JR, PC, and NR supported the analysis. The first draft of the manuscript was written by LC with NR and EZ providing first review. LC, EZ, SR, JR, PC, and NR commented on previous versions of the manuscript and provided critical review. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

SR is funded by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (APP1123336). The funding body had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, interpretation, or manuscript development.

Availability of data and materials

Declarations.

This study is approved by Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee - Concord Repatriation General Hospital (2019/ {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"ETH11806","term_id":"565702355"}} ETH11806 ). Ethical approval is also supplied by Australian Catholic University (2018-279E), Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre (19/175), North Sydney Local Health District - Macquarie Hospital (2019/ {"type":"entrez-protein","attrs":{"text":"STE14595","term_id":"1438690294"}} STE14595 ), and Alfred Health (516-19).

Not applicable.

PC is the recipient of a Victorian Government Mid-Career Research Fellowship through the Victorian Cancer Agency. PC is the Founder and Director of EX-MED Cancer Ltd, a not-for-profit organization that provides exercise medicine services to people with cancer. PC is the Director of Exercise Oncology EDU Pty Ltd, a company that provides fee for service training courses to upskill exercise professionals in delivering exercise to people with cancer.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

TR172: Framework and Case Studies Comparing Implementations and Impacts of 3D/4D Modeling Across Projects

Abstract/contents.

Today few project teams avail themselves of the continued and widespread use of 3D/4D modeling to the extent effective and efficient. Due to this limited practice, the implementation of 3D/4D modeling is mostly based on anecdotes from a few past projects. However, ad-hoc experiences from individual projects are not sufficient for AEC professionals to guide implementations of 3D/4D modeling. In addition, we found a number of general beliefs (p.2) about what has been learned from implementations and impacts of 3D/4D modeling. These beliefs are tacit knowledge and hence might be valid or could be wrong when AEC professionals apply them from one situation to another. Therefore, the goals of our research were to: • develop a framework to capture, describe, and organize the characteristics of 3D/4D modeling implementations so that AEC professionals can document 3D/4D modeling experiences and compare them across projects; and

• provide researchers with a framework for cross-case pattern analysis that supports the generation of insights and guidelines.

Description

Creators/Contributors

Bibliographic information

Access conditions

Preferred citation.

CIFE Publications

Contact information

Loading usage metrics...

Educational resources and simple solutions for your research journey

What is a Theoretical Framework? How to Write It (with Examples) 

Theoretical framework 1,2 is the structure that supports and describes a theory. A theory is a set of interrelated concepts and definitions that present a systematic view of phenomena by describing the relationship among the variables for explaining these phenomena. A theory is developed after a long research process and explains the existence of a research problem in a study. A theoretical framework guides the research process like a roadmap for the research study and helps researchers clearly interpret their findings by providing a structure for organizing data and developing conclusions.   

A theoretical framework in research is an important part of a manuscript and should be presented in the first section. It shows an understanding of the theories and concepts relevant to the research and helps limit the scope of the research.  

Table of Contents

What is a theoretical framework ?  

A theoretical framework in research can be defined as a set of concepts, theories, ideas, and assumptions that help you understand a specific phenomenon or problem. It can be considered a blueprint that is borrowed by researchers to develop their own research inquiry. A theoretical framework in research helps researchers design and conduct their research and analyze and interpret their findings. It explains the relationship between variables, identifies gaps in existing knowledge, and guides the development of research questions, hypotheses, and methodologies to address that gap.  

Now that you know the answer to ‘ What is a theoretical framework? ’, check the following table that lists the different types of theoretical frameworks in research: 3

Developing a theoretical framework in research can help in the following situations: 4

• When conducting research on complex phenomena because a theoretical framework helps organize the research questions, hypotheses, and findings  
• When the research problem requires a deeper understanding of the underlying concepts  
• When conducting research that seeks to address a specific gap in knowledge  
• When conducting research that involves the analysis of existing theories  

Summarizing existing literature for theoretical frameworks is easy. Get our Research Ideation pack  

Importance of a theoretical framework  

The purpose of theoretical framework s is to support you in the following ways during the research process: 2  

• Provide a structure for the complete research process  
• Assist researchers in incorporating formal theories into their study as a guide  
• Provide a broad guideline to maintain the research focus  
• Guide the selection of research methods, data collection, and data analysis  
• Help understand the relationships between different concepts and develop hypotheses and research questions  
• Address gaps in existing literature  
• Analyze the data collected and draw meaningful conclusions and make the findings more generalizable  

Theoretical vs. Conceptual framework  

While a theoretical framework covers the theoretical aspect of your study, that is, the various theories that can guide your research, a conceptual framework defines the variables for your study and presents how they relate to each other. The conceptual framework is developed before collecting the data. However, both frameworks help in understanding the research problem and guide the development, collection, and analysis of the research.  

The following table lists some differences between conceptual and theoretical frameworks . 5

How to write a theoretical framework  

The following general steps can help those wondering how to write a theoretical framework: 2

• Identify and define the key concepts clearly and organize them into a suitable structure.  
• Use appropriate terminology and define all key terms to ensure consistency.  
• Identify the relationships between concepts and provide a logical and coherent structure.  
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.  
• Keep it concise and focused with clear and specific aims.  

Write a theoretical framework 2x faster. Get our Manuscript Writing pack  

Examples of a theoretical framework  

Here are two examples of a theoretical framework. 6,7

Example 1 .   

An insurance company is facing a challenge cross-selling its products. The sales department indicates that most customers have just one policy, although the company offers over 10 unique policies. The company would want its customers to purchase more than one policy since most customers are purchasing policies from other companies.  

Objective : To sell more insurance products to existing customers.  

Problem : Many customers are purchasing additional policies from other companies.  

Research question : How can customer product awareness be improved to increase cross-selling of insurance products?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between product awareness and sales? Which factors determine product awareness?  

Since “product awareness” is the main focus in this study, the theoretical framework should analyze this concept and study previous literature on this subject and propose theories that discuss the relationship between product awareness and its improvement in sales of other products.  

Example 2 .

A company is facing a continued decline in its sales and profitability. The main reason for the decline in the profitability is poor services, which have resulted in a high level of dissatisfaction among customers and consequently a decline in customer loyalty. The management is planning to concentrate on clients’ satisfaction and customer loyalty.  

Objective: To provide better service to customers and increase customer loyalty and satisfaction.  

Problem: Continued decrease in sales and profitability.  

Research question: How can customer satisfaction help in increasing sales and profitability?  

Sub-questions: What is the relationship between customer loyalty and sales? Which factors influence the level of satisfaction gained by customers?  

Since customer satisfaction, loyalty, profitability, and sales are the important topics in this example, the theoretical framework should focus on these concepts.  

Benefits of a theoretical framework  

There are several benefits of a theoretical framework in research: 2  

• Provides a structured approach allowing researchers to organize their thoughts in a coherent way.  
• Helps to identify gaps in knowledge highlighting areas where further research is needed.  
• Increases research efficiency by providing a clear direction for research and focusing efforts on relevant data.  
• Improves the quality of research by providing a rigorous and systematic approach to research, which can increase the likelihood of producing valid and reliable results.  
• Provides a basis for comparison by providing a common language and conceptual framework for researchers to compare their findings with other research in the field, facilitating the exchange of ideas and the development of new knowledge.  

Frequently Asked Questions 

Q1. How do I develop a theoretical framework ? 7

A1. The following steps can be used for developing a theoretical framework :  

• Identify the research problem and research questions by clearly defining the problem that the research aims to address and identifying the specific questions that the research aims to answer.
• Review the existing literature to identify the key concepts that have been studied previously. These concepts should be clearly defined and organized into a structure.
• Develop propositions that describe the relationships between the concepts. These propositions should be based on the existing literature and should be testable.
• Develop hypotheses that can be tested through data collection and analysis.
• Test the theoretical framework through data collection and analysis to determine whether the framework is valid and reliable.

Q2. How do I know if I have developed a good theoretical framework or not? 8

A2. The following checklist could help you answer this question:  

• Is my theoretical framework clearly seen as emerging from my literature review?  
• Is it the result of my analysis of the main theories previously studied in my same research field?  
• Does it represent or is it relevant to the most current state of theoretical knowledge on my topic?  
• Does the theoretical framework in research present a logical, coherent, and analytical structure that will support my data analysis?  
• Do the different parts of the theory help analyze the relationships among the variables in my research?  
• Does the theoretical framework target how I will answer my research questions or test the hypotheses?  
• Have I documented every source I have used in developing this theoretical framework ?  
• Is my theoretical framework a model, a table, a figure, or a description?  
• Have I explained why this is the appropriate theoretical framework for my data analysis?  

Q3. Can I use multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study?  

A3. Using multiple theoretical frameworks in a single study is acceptable as long as each theory is clearly defined and related to the study. Each theory should also be discussed individually. This approach may, however, be tedious and effort intensive. Therefore, multiple theoretical frameworks should be used only if absolutely necessary for the study.  

Q4. Is it necessary to include a theoretical framework in every research study?  

A4. The theoretical framework connects researchers to existing knowledge. So, including a theoretical framework would help researchers get a clear idea about the research process and help structure their study effectively by clearly defining an objective, a research problem, and a research question.  

Q5. Can a theoretical framework be developed for qualitative research?  

A5. Yes, a theoretical framework can be developed for qualitative research. However, qualitative research methods may or may not involve a theory developed beforehand. In these studies, a theoretical framework can guide the study and help develop a theory during the data analysis phase. This resulting framework uses inductive reasoning. The outcome of this inductive approach can be referred to as an emergent theoretical framework . This method helps researchers develop a theory inductively, which explains a phenomenon without a guiding framework at the outset.  

Q6. What is the main difference between a literature review and a theoretical framework ?  

A6. A literature review explores already existing studies about a specific topic in order to highlight a gap, which becomes the focus of the current research study. A theoretical framework can be considered the next step in the process, in which the researcher plans a specific conceptual and analytical approach to address the identified gap in the research.  

Theoretical frameworks are thus important components of the research process and researchers should therefore devote ample amount of time to develop a solid theoretical framework so that it can effectively guide their research in a suitable direction. We hope this article has provided a good insight into the concept of theoretical frameworks in research and their benefits.  

References  

• Organizing academic research papers: Theoretical framework. Sacred Heart University library. Accessed August 4, 2023. https://library.sacredheart.edu/c.php?g=29803&p=185919#:~:text=The%20theoretical%20framework%20is%20the,research%20problem%20under%20study%20exists .  
• Salomao A. Understanding what is theoretical framework. Mind the Graph website. Accessed August 5, 2023. https://mindthegraph.com/blog/what-is-theoretical-framework/  
• Theoretical framework—Types, examples, and writing guide. Research Method website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://researchmethod.net/theoretical-framework/  
• Grant C., Osanloo A. Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.” Administrative Issues Journal : Connecting Education, Practice, and Research; 4(2):12-26. 2014. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1058505.pdf  
• Difference between conceptual framework and theoretical framework. MIM Learnovate website. Accessed August 7, 2023. https://mimlearnovate.com/difference-between-conceptual-framework-and-theoretical-framework/  
• Example of a theoretical framework—Thesis & dissertation. BacherlorPrint website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.bachelorprint.com/dissertation/example-of-a-theoretical-framework/  
• Sample theoretical framework in dissertation and thesis—Overview and example. Students assignment help website. Accessed August 6, 2023. https://www.studentsassignmenthelp.co.uk/blogs/sample-dissertation-theoretical-framework/#Example_of_the_theoretical_framework  
• Kivunja C. Distinguishing between theory, theoretical framework, and conceptual framework: A systematic review of lessons from the field. Accessed August 8, 2023. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1198682.pdf  

Researcher.Life is a subscription-based platform that unifies the best AI tools and services designed to speed up, simplify, and streamline every step of a researcher’s journey. The Researcher.Life All Access Pack is a one-of-a-kind subscription that unlocks full access to an AI writing assistant, literature recommender, journal finder, scientific illustration tool, and exclusive discounts on professional publication services from Editage.  

Based on 21+ years of experience in academia, Researcher.Life All Access empowers researchers to put their best research forward and move closer to success. Explore our top AI Tools pack, AI Tools + Publication Services pack, or Build Your Own Plan. Find everything a researcher needs to succeed, all in one place –  Get All Access now starting at just $17 a month !    

Related Posts

What is a Case Study in Research? Definition, Methods, and Examples

Take Top AI Tools for Researchers for a Spin with the Editage All Access 7-Day Pass!

Training Industry

Setting clear expectations with competency modeling: case study.

Nesnah Ventures is a family-owned private equity firm that provides financial, administrative and strategic support to all of its operating companies. The organization owns six companies in the agriculture and/or service sectors: Burrachos Fresh Mexican Grill, Venture Fuels, Coda Bow, Unifide CST Scale Systems, Star Blends and Nesnah Properties. Since each company is unlike the next, the talent pool is diverse with a range of roles and specialties, from a caterer to an in-office employee and technician. Lisa Paulson, the learning and development (L&D) manager at Nesnah Ventures, oversees training and development for the entire firm.

Paulson is the sole L&D practitioner in the human resources (HR) department, which consists of seven HR professionals each tasked with different responsibilities in talent management. As the L&D leader of Nesnah, Paulson is tasked with aligning training to business strategy, ensuring the workforce has the skills needed to contribute toward achieving sustainable success. This is how she recognized the organization’s need to determine and define the specific skills and proficiencies needed to fulfill new roles and move internally within the company. In this case study, we’ll review a real-life example of how Nesnah Ventures built a competency model from scratch to provide clear career pathways within the company, promoting leadership development, higher employee retention and increased engagement for the business.

A Case Study of Nesnah Ventures

Competency models are frameworks that identify and define the skills and knowledge expected within a particular role. For an employee to move up the ladder, they must be proficient in these expected behaviors and skills. And many times, they are expected to go above and beyond. This was the case for some of the high-potential contributors at Nesnah Ventures. These employees were interested in being promoted and felt as if their performance aligned with their job description and the company’s expectations. However, this wasn’t the case.

They were completing the tasks and functions based on what they were assigned, however, despite these efforts, they weren’t able to move up a level. This misalignment in expectations caused a lot of confusion and frustration for both employees and their managers. This was especially the case during one on ones when conducting performance discussions. The lack of defined competencies also created confusion in C-suite. Leadership had different opinions on how many and what type of skills were relevant to certain roles, causing inconsistencies of expectations across the organization.

There also wasn’t an established method for identifying high-potential employees for succession planning. As a result, employees were beginning to leave the company to find growth and career development opportunities elsewhere. Nesnah Ventures hadn’t clearly defined what specific skills employees needed to fulfill more challenging roles. These expectations for career growth weren’t officially determined or documented, so for some employees, having a long-term future with Nesnah seemed unattainable.

The Solution: Building a Competency Model

Paulson recognized this dip in the talent pool, and that it was the same employees who were turned down for a promotion. As the solution, Paulson decided to build a competency model for her organization. The framework was called “expectations model” since the skills and behaviors listed in the model were company expectations of how to perform in each role. Within the model, there’d be “role cards,” which listed the specific skills required for that particular job role. The role cards would be accessible via Nesnah Ventures’s human resources information system (HRIS) self-serve portal, which employees would also be able to access via a mobile app.

Paulson’s objective for creating the model was to give employees and managers a tool to conduct better performance conversations, clarify role expectations and identify high-potential employees who could fulfill a leadership role with proper training and development. That way, employees could have a clear roadmap to moving up in the company, and leaders have a better way of explaining the steps to reaching those career goals.

Methodology and Implementation

When starting the process of building the role cards for the expectations model, Paulson says they didn’t officially define what success would look like because they weren’t sure where they were going with the project. It was the first time the company had created a competency model, so they were agile in their approach. However, the main indicator that Paulson was looking for were more candid and open conversations about performance. This impact could be seen through higher employee performance rates as well as a decrease in employee attrition as entry-level employees aspiring to move up receive a clear pathway to their career goals.

After evaluating the organization’s management levels, Paulson determined that the company had three different job levels. The first level included managers/supervisors, the second level included mid-level managers and executives fell into the third level. This categorization of managerial levels helped Nesnah Ventures determine competencies that should be consistent for each manager level across the organization.

Here’s an example of a role card that shows the job level, title and associated competencies:

Here are the steps Paulson took to develop their organization’s competency model:

• Planning : They researched existing competency models from other companies and adapted elements from existing frameworks to support the creation of their own unique model, tailored for their organization’s needs. A lot of meetings were held with executive level leaders and management to gain multiple viewpoints. They met with employee groups, too, to gather data on what they’d like to see and what would help them in having performance discussions and knowing what these role expectations are. This process helped create organization-wide expectations.
• Defining : “Leading self and others in the organization” is an established term for the company, meaning that everyone is a leader, it just depends on which kind at that moment. Paulson used this terminology to hone in on how the company identified and defined “leading self and others” and what that looks like. This was to unify everyone’s separate definition and perspective of what those words meant, connecting it to the business’s expectations. Paulson mentions that the process of defining was the longest step because it was foundational and set the tone for the program.
• Creating : From there they met with each leader of a functional area of business and talked about every single role and what the expectations were. The first couple of meetings weren’t as successful as Paulson hoped since leaders weren’t necessarily sure where to begin with describing each specific role. As a solution, Paulson did some pre-work by creating possible expectations to give leaders a starting point. This turned out to be very helpful, enabling them to clarify and articulate what these competencies and behaviors look like. During this process, there was a lot of debate between the word skills and competencies. Since a lot of these expectations could be either behavioral, skills or knowledge-based, they found it more appropriate to consider them as expectations. Employees were also hesitant to the term “competency model.” However, when they heard “role card” and “expectations” they felt much more at ease.
• Implementing : The project took approximately a year to complete, with six months dedicated to meeting with managers and executives to go through different iterations. Besides the collective perspectives sought from leadership, Paulson was the only one working on the project, so that also had a factor with completion time.
• Evaluation : To ensure program success, Paulson set up one-on-one meetings and group meetings with leadership to solicit feedback. In-person meetings are preferable to company managers, so they tend to avoid surveys for gathering data.

Challenges and Encounters

The vision for the role cards changed a few times after deployment after having conversations with different groups of stakeholders. The model had to be modified a few times, which was a challenge since it required constant pivoting to incorporate new information. Another issue was creating different definitions for the same competencies based on that particular team, role and industry. For example, the expectations for digital skills may look different for a team of accountants versus a sales team, and as a result, will need to be worded and defined accordingly.

Lastly, the library of competencies was becoming too long. As a solution, Paulson revisited the role card with leaders to see which competencies could be made into one. To ensure buy in throughout the process, Paulson kept leadership closely involved and informed, giving them a hand in the revisions. A maximum number of six competencies per card was also established to prevent leaders from going overboard.

Business Results and Outcomes

Thanks to the role cards, employees are more empowered to conduct performance discussions with their supervisors. They are also more confident in their future with the company with a clear road to success. Every role card is made accessible to Nesnah Ventures’s people, providing all employees with the opportunity to fulfill any of the roles within the firm, promoting continuous internal mobility and career development.

• #building impactful competency models
• #competency modeling
• #competency models

Danielle Johnson

Danielle Johnson is an editor at Training Industry, Inc. with 5+ years’ experience in writing/editing and the talent to curate compelling, creative content for a target audience. At Training Industry, Danielle connects with thought leaders to publish articles with actionable solutions.

This topic is proudly sponsored by

Related Content

Email marketing best practices for l&d: engage training managers effectively, case study: how usaid engages learners around the globe, telling your l&d career story .

Stay up to date on the latest articles, webinars and resources for learning and development.

Privacy Overview

More From Forbes

Utilizing the mudholkar patent assessment framework for effective patent evaluation.

• Share to Facebook
• Share to Twitter
• Share to Linkedin

Ranjeet Mudholkar is a leading EB1A expert & CEO of Next League Executive Board LLC , which helps professionals fulfill their American Dream.

In a world where technological breakthroughs shape our future, the process of patent evaluation has emerged as a critical gatekeeper, separating true innovation from mere iterations. As professionals navigating this ever-evolving landscape, understanding the intricate mechanics of patent evaluation and its profound impact on human progress is essential.

The Purpose And Importance Of Patent Evaluation

Patent evaluation serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it ensures that the invention is truly novel and adds significant value to existing technologies. Secondly, it aligns with stringent criteria such as those outlined in the EB1A Green Card category, which focuses on extraordinary abilities in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Thirdly, it could potentially help the valuation of the patent and the company.

It could serve as the precursor to valuation of the patent by applying suitable accounting standards to value the patent as an intangible asset as well and be placed in the balance sheet as an asset. Evaluating a patent through this lens involves a detailed examination of its impact on industry standards and its potential to revolutionize the market.

Guidelines For Adoption

The framework I designed—the Mudholkar Patent Assessment Framework—is an option to evaluate your patent's value. Let me walk you through how to effectively utilize it with these step-by-step guidelines:

Best High-Yield Savings Accounts Of 2024

Best 5% interest savings accounts of 2024.

1. Understand the Market Landscape: Begin by analyzing the current market to identify gaps your invention addresses. This context forms the foundation for assessing the invention's novelty and value proposition.

2. Technical Examination: Evaluate the invention's technical details, including its mechanism of action, user interaction and integration potential with existing systems. This ensures both technological prowess and practical applicability are considered.

3. Apply the Mudholkar Mastery Matrix : Evaluate the originality and impact of the invention across five dimensions: knowledge spectrum, scientific foundation, autonomous value, expansive impact and documented evolution. This matrix offers a comprehensive view of the invention's contribution.

4. Benchmark Against Existing Technologies: Conduct a comparative analysis to measure the invention's worth against existing technologies, highlighting its unique advantages and selling points.

5. Gather Expert Testimonials : Enhance the evaluation with testimonials from industry experts and end users who have experienced the invention's benefits firsthand. These voices add a human dimension to the evaluation, showcasing the tangible impact of the innovation.

6. Conduct Economic Analysis : Perform rigorous economic analysis to forecast the invention's financial viability, market adoption potential and societal impact. This analysis serves as a roadmap for investors, entrepreneurs and decision-makers.

Best Practices For Using The Framework

1. Engage Qualified Evaluators: The first step is to identify the evaluator, who should be an independent expert. Ensure evaluators are highly qualified with a track record of successful patents and a deep market understanding. This evaluator could be an academician, an industry expert or a patent specialist, bringing a unique and invaluable perspective to the evaluation process. Their independence and expertise ensure a thorough and unbiased assessment of the patent. Their insights are crucial for guiding the patent through the evaluation process.

2. Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Stay updated with the latest trends and advancements in technology and patent evaluation. Continuous learning ensures the framework remains relevant and effective.

3. Adopt a Holistic Approach: Consider both technological and practical aspects of the invention for a well-rounded evaluation. This comprehensive assessment covers all critical angles.

Case Study: Successful Implementation

Consider the case of Kishore, working with an autonomous vehicle company with a patent for a microchip for having developed the circuitry. Kishore utilized this patent to demonstrate this as his Original Contribution for his EB1A Green Card application.

In his submission to USCIS, he used this framework to evaluate the patent through a professor of physics and its application by the company and its benefits viz. commercial as well as technical. By following the guidelines above and best practices, Kishore demonstrated unique market gaps, thoroughly examined technical details, and benchmarked his innovation against existing solutions.

Testimonials from industry experts, his company and a detailed economic analysis demonstrated the patent's potential, leading to successful EB1A Green Card approval based on the right presentation according to the given framework.

By following the outlined guidelines and best practices, professionals can effectively utilize this framework to ensure deserving innovations reach the forefront of their fields.

As professionals, we witness this transformative process and hold the responsibility to drive it forward. Let us celebrate the unsung heroes of patent evaluation, the maestros who wield the Mudholkar Patent Assessment Framework with skill and discernment. Their work may often go unnoticed, but its impact echoes through every corner of our lives, propelling us toward a future that is brighter, bolder and more innovatively brilliant than ever before.

Forbes Business Council is the foremost growth and networking organization for business owners and leaders. Do I qualify?

• Editorial Standards
• Reprints & Permissions

Improving urban road infrastructure analysis and design using an integrated BIM-GIS and traffic microsimulation framework

• Technical Paper
• Published: 02 July 2024
• Volume 9 , article number  285 , ( 2024 )

Cite this article

• Mohammad Sohaib 1 ,
• Aaqib Najeeb 1 ,
• Muhammad Umair 2 ,
• Muhammad Arsalan Khan   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6656-4891 1 ,
• Muhammad Umer Zubair 3 ,
• Zulqarnain Jehan 1 &
• Afaq Khattak 4  

Modern cities are experiencing increased traffic issues, such as congestion, pollution, and accidents, necessitating a sustainable approach to traffic management and infrastructure improvement. Integrating building information modelling with geographic information systems and traffic analysis techniques has emerged as a promising approach to address these challenges. Despite advancements in BIM and GIS, there is a need for holistic improvement in the analysis and design of new as well as existing transportation infrastructure. In particular, the analysis and design of urban road intersections, where multiple conflicts arise due to the evolving dynamics of traffic demand and built-up areas, requires a multifaceted approach based on modern tools, technologies and methodologies. Therefore, to bridge the gap, this study proposes a comprehensive framework to effectively integrate different tools including BIM, GIS and traffic microsimulation for analysis, modelling, design and visualization of urban road infrastructure. A detailed case study was conducted for an urban signalized interesection in Islamabad, Pakistan to validate the proposed framework. Microsimulation traffic analysis was employed to formulate four different alternatives for the improvement of the study area according to current and future traffic conditions. The proposed framework was demonstrated to assist in identifying the best-performing alternative based on various traffic parameters such as travel time, distance travelled, carbon-oxides emission, queue length, fuel consumption, density, speed, etc. In addition to traffic parameters, a precise BIM model integrated with GIS was developed to visualize and evaluate the proposed alternatives in terms of design and site suitability factors. Simulations revealed that the best alternative i.e. underpass resulted in 86%, 37%, 87%, 83%, 81%, and 10% reduction in travel time, distance travelled, COx emission, queue length, fuel consumption, and density, respectively as compared to the existing traffic scenario. In addition to the traffic parameters, BIM-GIS models assisted in visualizing and identifying the best alternative in terms of construction quantities, ease of construction, site suitability factors etc. Based on the comprehensive analysis, underpass was eventually selected as the optimal choice. The outcomes of the study emphasize that the proposed framework can provide a comprehensive and articulated environment for better coordination among stakeholders, eventually assisting in well-informed infrastructural decision-making.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Costin A, Adibfar A, Hu H, Chen SS (2018) Building Information Modeling (BIM) for transportation infrastructure—literature review, applications, challenges, and recommendations. Autom Constr 94:257–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2018.07.001

Article   Google Scholar  

Lin C, Wang K, Wu D, Gong B (2020) Passenger flow prediction based on land use around metro stations: a case study. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU12176844

Soehodho S (2017) Public transportation development and traffic accident prevention in Indonesia. IATSS Res 40(2):76–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2016.05.001

Phun VK, Yai T (2016) State of the art of paratransit literatures in Asian developing countries. Asian Transp Stud 4(1):57–77. https://doi.org/10.11175/eastsats.4.57

Pojani D, Stead D (2015) Sustainable urban transport in the developing world: beyond megacities. Sustainability 7(6):7784–7805. https://doi.org/10.3390/su7067784

Ali Z, Shah AA, Hussain A (2020) Growing traffic in Peshawar: an analysis of causes and impacts. South Asian Stud 27(2)

Government of Pakistan Ministry of Communications, National Highway Authority (2017) Traffic study report (Peshawar-Torkham section) of feasibility study and preliminary design of Peshawar-Kabul motorway project. Islamabad

Executive summary (2006) Air quality guidelines for particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide: Global update 2005: summary of risk assessment

Yin W, Zhang Y (2020) Identification method for optimal urban bus corridor location. Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177167

Ya-dan Y, Zuo-qiang N, Hui Li, Dong-wei W (2016) Urban expressway functional reliability. Highw Transp Res Dev. https://doi.org/10.1061/JHTRCQ.0000504

Miyim AM, Muhammed MA (2019) Smart traffic management system. In: 2019 15th International conference on electronics, computer and computation, ICECCO 2019. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.

Hosseinlou MH, Zolfaghari A, Yazdanpanah M (2016) Road pricing effect on the emission of traffic pollutants, a case study in tehran cite this paper civil engineering journal road pricing effect on the emission of traffic pollutants, a case study in Tehran

Kutlimuratov K, Khakimov S, Mukhitdinov A, Samatov R (2021) Modelling traffic flow emissions at signalized intersection with PTV vissim. In: E3S web of conferences. EDP sciences

Mohapatra DR (2020) An economic analysis of Djibouti - Ethiopia railway project. Eur Acad Res 3(10):11376–11400

Google Scholar  

Gouda Mohamed A, Abdallah MR, Marzouk M (2020) BIM and semantic web-based maintenance information for existing buildings. Autom Constr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2020.103209

Sánchez-Rivera OG, Galvis-Guerra JA, Porras-Díaz H et al (2017) BIM 5D models and lean construction for planning work activities in reinforced concrete bridges. Revista Facultad de Ingeniería 26:39–50. https://doi.org/10.19053/01211129.v26.n46.2017.7314

Tang S, Shelden DR, Eastman CM et al (2020) BIM assisted building automation system information exchange using BACnet and IFC. Autom Constr. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.103049

Adibfar A, Costin A (2019) Next generation of transportation infrastructure management: fusion of intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and bridge information modeling (BrIM). In: advances in informatics and computing in civil and construction engineering, Springer international publishing, pp 43–50

Aziz Z, Riaz Z, Arslan M (2017) Leveraging BIM and big data to deliver well-maintained highways. Facilities 35:818–832. https://doi.org/10.1108/F-02-2016-0021

Biancardo SA, Capano A, de Oliveira SG, Tibaut A (2020) Integration of BIM and procedural modeling tools for road design. Infrastructures. https://doi.org/10.3390/infrastructures5040037

Bongiorno N, Bosurgi G, Carbone F et al (2019) Potentialities of a highway alignment optimization method in an i-bim environment. Period Polytech Civil Eng 63:352–361. https://doi.org/10.3311/PPci.12220

Kahn Ribeiro S (2007) Chapter 5: Transportation and its infrastructure. In: Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, edited by B. Metz. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York, pp 431–516

Bared JG, Federal PE, Administration H, Kaisar EI, Median U-turn design as an alternative treatment for left turns at signalized intersections In proceedings of the 88th annual meeting of the transportation research board, Washington, DC, USA, 2009, pp. 1–15.

Sperling D, Salon D (2002) Transportation in developing countries: an overview of greenhouse gas reduction strategies. University of California Transportation Center

Dowling R, Skabardonis A, Halkias J et al (2004) Guidelines for calibration of microsimulation models framework and applications. IEEE Trans Intell Transp Syst 5(4):308–321

Ozbay K, Yang H, Bartin B, Mudigonda S (2008) Derivation and simulation of new simulation-based surrogate safety measures. Transp Res Rec 2083(1):105–113

Comert G (2013) Simple analytical models for estimating the queue lengths from probe vehicles at traffic signals. Transp Res Part B Methodol 55:59–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trb.2013.05.001

Mahmud SMS, Ferreira L, Tavassoli A (2016) Traditional approaches to Traffic Safety Evaluation (TSE): application challenges and future directions. In: Bridging the east and west, pp 242–262

Rincón-Numpaque N, Moreno-Anselmi LÁ, Rodríguez-Polo KA, Gaviria-Mendoza CA (2020) Alternatives to improve operational traffic in roundabouts using microsimulation. Respuestas. https://doi.org/10.22463/0122820x.2372

Alzoubaidi M, Al-Balbissi A, Alzoubaidi AR et al (2021) Connected vehicles versus conventional traffic congestion mitigation measures: an operational economic analysis. Azerb J High Perform Comput 4:155–169. https://doi.org/10.32010/26166127.2021.4.2.155.169

Kumar Dey C, Prasad Mishra S, Kumar Barik K, Sahu DK (2022) Shaping smart city transportation with traffic congestion solutions: Bhubaneswar Odisha. Curr J Appl Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.9734/cjast/2022/v41i731678

Thanapongporn A, Saengchote K, Gowanit C (2023) Factors shaping thai millennials’ low-carbon behavior: insights from extended theory of planned behavior. HighTech Innov J 4:482–504. https://doi.org/10.28991/HIJ-2023-04-03-02

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Othman K (2023) Impact of prior knowledge about autonomous vehicles on the public attitude. Civil Eng J 9:990–1006. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-04-017

Narindri BPK, Nugroho ASB, Aminullah A (2022) Developing building management system framework using web-based-GIS and BIM integration. Civil Eng Dimens 24:71–84. https://doi.org/10.9744/ced.24.2.71-84

Ma Z, Ren Y (2017) Integrated application of BIM and GIS: an overview. Proced Eng 196:1072–1079

Bae A, Lee D, Park B (2016) Building information modeling utilization for optimizing milling quantity and hot mix asphalt pavement overlay quality. Can J Civ Eng 43:886–896. https://doi.org/10.1139/cjce-2015-0001

Kim JU, Kim YJ, Ok H, Yang SH (2016) A study on the status of infrastructure BIM and BIM library development. In: proceedings-2015 international conference on computational science and computational intelligence, CSCI 2015. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc. pp 857–858

Bensalah M, Elouadi A, Mharzi H (2019) Overview: the opportunity of BIM in railway. Smart Sustain Built Environ 8:103–116. https://doi.org/10.1108/SASBE-11-2017-0060

Bradley A, Li H, Lark R, Dunn S (2016) BIM for infrastructure: An overall review and constructor perspective. Autom Constr 71:139–152

Wang J, Hou L, Wu P (2016) BIM-supported tunnel light environment evaluation: a case study on Shanghai Chenxiang Road Tunnel Project. In: Proceedings of the international conference on computing in civil and building engineering, pp 1023–1030

Cheng JCP, Lu Q, Deng Y (2016) Analytical review and evaluation of civil information modeling. Autom Constr 67:31–47

Wong AKD, Wong FKW, Nadeem A (2009) Attributes of building information modelling and its development in Hong Kong. HKIE Trans Hong Kong Inst Eng 16:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/1023697X.2009.10668156

Vilgertshofer S, Borrmann A (2017) Using graph rewriting methods for the semi-automatic generation of parametric infrastructure models. Adv Eng Inform 33:502–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aei.2017.07.003

Breunig M, Borrmann A, Rank E (2017) Collaborative multi-scale 3D city and infrastructure modeling and simulation. In: International archives of the photogrammetry, remote sensing and spatial information sciences - ISPRS archives. International Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, pp 341–352

Vick S, Brilakis I (2016) A review of linear transportation construction progress monitoring techniques. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on computing in civil and building engineering, Osaka, Japan

Zhu J, Wu P, Chen M et al (2020) Automatically processing IFC clipping representation for BIM and GIS integration at the process level. Appl Sci. https://doi.org/10.3390/app10062009

Stal C, Verbeurgt J, De Sloover L, De Wulf A (2021) Assessment of handheld mobile terrestrial laser scanning for estimating tree parameters. J For Res 32:1503–1513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-020-01214-7

Del Giudice M, Osello A, Patti E (2015) BIM and GIS for district modeling. In: eWork and eBusiness in architecture, engineering and construction-proceedings of the 10th European conference on product and process modelling, ECPPM 2014. CRC Press/Balkema, pp 851–854

Alsaggaf A, Jrade A (2017) A framework for an integrated BIM-GIS decision support model for site layout planning. In 6th CSCE/ASCE/CRC international construction specialty conference: annual conference, Vancouver, Canada, May 31–June 3, 2017

Berawi MA, Sari M, Miraj P et al (2023) Lean construction practice on toll road project improvement: a case study in developing country. Civil Eng J 9:3186–3201. https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-12-016

Fu Q, Zhang LW, Xie MW, He XD (2012) Development and application of BIM-based highway construction management platform. In: Rock mechanics: achievements and ambitions, pp 875–878

Arliansyah J, Bawono RT (2018) Study on performance of intersection around the underpass using micro simulation program. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental science. Institute of Physics Publishing

Zhu J, Wang X, Wang P et al (2019) Integration of BIM and GIS: geometry from IFC to shapefile using open-source technology. Autom Constr 102:105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2019.02.014

Transportation Research Board (2015) Traffic and transportation simulation: looking back and looking ahead: celebrating 50 years of traffic flow theory, a workshop (Issue Number: E-C195). Transportation Research Board. ISSN 0097-8515. Accession Number: 01566122

Yu R, Abdel-Aty M (2014) An optimal variable speed limits system to ameliorate traffic safety risk. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 46:235–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2014.05.016

Nezamuddin N, Jiang N, Zhang T, Waller ST, Sun D (2011) Traffic operations and safety benefits of active traffic strategies on TxDOT freeways. Report No. FHWA/TX-12/0-6576-1, Report 0-6576-1. University of Texas, Austin, Center for Transportation Research

Barazzetti L (2018) Duality between BIM and GIS: An example related to the medieval bridge Azzone Visconti. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering. Institute of physics publishing

Guerreiro CDBB, Ortiz AG, de Leeuw F, Viana M (2018) Air quality 2018 - EEA report 12 2018. European Environment Agency. https://doi.org/10.2800/777411

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank all stakeholders for their support in the completion of this study.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Civil Engineering, International Islamic University (IIU), Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

Mohammad Sohaib, Aaqib Najeeb, Muhammad Arsalan Khan & Zulqarnain Jehan

Department of Construction Engineering and Management, National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, 44000, Pakistan

Muhammad Umair

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, King Faisal University, Alhofuf, Saudi Arabia

Muhammad Umer Zubair

The Key Laboratory of Road and Traffic Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai, 201804, China

Afaq Khattak

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

The concept was proposed by MS and AN. MAK proposed the methodology. Data collection and curation was done by MS and ZJ. AN and MS developed different models. Analysis was carried out by MS and ZJ while AN and MU visualized the models. MAK, MUZ and AK did supervision and validation. The original paper draft was prepared by MS, AN and MU. MAK, MUZ, and AK reviewed and edited the manuscript. MAK and MUZ organized the resources. All the authors have read and approved the prepared version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Muhammad Arsalan Khan .

Ethics declarations

Competing interest.

The authors have stated that no competing interests are involved.

Ethical declaration

It is confirmed that the subject study, comprising the research objectives, methodology, impact, and scheduled tasks, does not involve any ethical issues. All traffic data collected during the study were anonymized to protect travelers’ identities. Data storage and handling procedures adhered to confidentiality protocols, and access to the data was limited to authorized personnel only.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Sohaib, M., Najeeb, A., Umair, M. et al. Improving urban road infrastructure analysis and design using an integrated BIM-GIS and traffic microsimulation framework. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 9 , 285 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01609-z

Download citation

Received : 16 January 2024

Accepted : 20 June 2024

Published : 02 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01609-z

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Geographic information systems (GIS)
• Traffic microsimulation
• Building information modeling (BIM)
• Traffic analysis
• Infrastructure planning and design
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

•   Facebook
•   Twitter
•   Linkedin
•   Digg
•   Reddit
•   Pinterest
•   Email

Latest Earthquakes |    Chat Share Social Media  

Digital data for 3-D Geologic Framework and Textural Models for Cuyama Valley Groundwater Basin, California

This digital dataset was created as part of a U.S. Geological Survey study in cooperation with the Santa Barbara County Water Agency to conduct a hydrologic resource assessment and develop an integrated numerical hydrologic model of the hydrologic system of Cuyama Valley, CA. As part of this larger study, the USGS developed this digital dataset of geologic data and three-dimensional hydrogeologic framework models, referred to here as the Cuyama Valley 3-D hydrogeologic framework models (3DHFM), that define the elevation, thickness, extent, and lithology-based texture variations of three hydrogeologic units in the Cuyama Valley, CA, groundwater basin. A USGS report that described the construction of 3-D geologic framework and textural models for Cuyama Valley groundwater basin was published in 2013 (Sweetkind and others, 2013). This data release formalizes the input geologic data and model outputs as a digital dataset. The Cuyama Valley 3DHFM incorporates as input data stratigraphic and lithologic information derived from water, monitoring, and oil and gas wells, as well as data from geologic maps and interpreted structure contour maps. Input surface and subsurface data have been reduced to points that define the top elevation and textural or grain-size characteristics of each hydrogeologic units at x,y locations; these point data sets serve as digital input to the framework models. The location of wells used sources of subsurface stratigraphic and lithologic information are provided as separate point feature classes in a geospatial database. Faults that offset hydrogeologic units are provided as a separate line feature class. Borehole data are also provided in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet that includes separate TABs for well location, stratigraphic information of the depths to top and base of hydrogeologic units intercepted downhole. Two types of geologic frameworks were constructed: (1) a hydrostratigraphic framework where the elevation, thickness, and spatial extent of the three basin-fill hydrogeologic units were defined based on interpolation of the input data, and (2) a textural model for each hydrogeologic unit based on kriging-based interpolation of classed downhole lithologic data. Each of the frameworks is stored within a second geospatial database as an array of polygonal cells or cell centroids: essentially a “flattened”, two-dimensional representation of a digital 3D geologic framework. The elevation and thickness of the hydrogeologic units are contained within a point feature class which contains a mesh of cell centroids that represent model cells that have multiple attributes including x,y location, elevation, and thickness of each hydrogeologic unit. Computed textural information for each of the three basin-fill hydrogeologic units are stored in separate feature classes of polygonal cells where a single textural variable “percent coarse grained” is an attribute at each x,y location. The spatial data are accompanied by non-spatial tables that describe the sources of geologic information, a glossary of terms, a description of model units, and a Data Dictionary that duplicates the Entity and Attribute information contained in the metadata file. Spatial data are also presented as shapefiles and borehole data are provided in Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. The elevation, thickness, and textural model of each hydrogeologic unit are also released as raster files.

Citation Information

Related Content

Donald sweetkind, research geologist.

Modeling & Machine Learning

18 of 63 Completed

Case Study Framework

In tackling the machine learning and modeling case study interview, we should utilize a basic framework to craft our solution in a way that satisfies most of the requirements from an interviewer.

Notice that these steps are very similar to product and business case studies. Notably, the steps that are taken before diving into a problem are consistent across the board when it comes down to breaking down problems and applying solutions. The only difference here is that we have to be cognizant of how we can apply machine learning and dive a bit deeper into the technical details.

1. Clarification

The most common mistake that most people make when facing a modeling case study question is to underestimate the scope of the problem. For example, many inexperienced candidates will dive right into selecting a model.

Let’s take an example question asked by Uber: How would you build a model to give an estimated time of arrival for selecting a ride?

Bad Response

I would build a regression model and use features like time of day, passenger location, and driver distance. I would select a neural network architecture that would work well….

Good Response

• What’s the scope of this model? Is it for a particular city or location, across the entire US, or for the entire world?
• Additionally, how many ride ETAs would we have to serve per minute?
• Lastly, how much does accuracy matter? Do riders have a propensity to cancel their rides if the estimated time is much longer than the actual estimated time after matching?

Notice how all of the initial responses were questions. This is a recurring theme in all case study questions, as asking questions in the beginning is the best signal that shows a candidate can think holistically about a problem beyond a narrow scope.

When you do not ask questions, it’s like you are playing a game of chess blindfolded against the interviewer. The information and expectation disadvantage is tremendous. The ultimate goal is to then extract the most useful information in the least number of questions to gain a foothold into the prioritization of each problem.

We have to understand a few things right off the bat when presented with a case study.

• Why would we want to build this model in the first place?
• What is the model is being used for?
• How would the model be integrated into the product?
• How does the model affect the business?
• How much do we care about model accuracy?

Understanding the original idea behind the question is imperative before jumping into technical details. If we ask questions like these starting out, we can get a greater understanding from the interviewer on what their expectations of this modeling scenario will look like, and can begin to implement some of their vision.

2. Make Assumptions

At some point, we will have to stop asking questions and begin making assumptions for ourselves. We want to strike a delicate balance between pestering an interviewer and coming up with ideas on our own that can help lead the discussion.

Let’s pretend the interviewer has framed the problem after our questions. We can now make some assumptions given that the interviewer has not corrected us.

Candidate Response

The model should be used across the entire United States and should be able to serve any user that wants a ride at any given time. I am assuming that the model would serve a prediction when a rider opens the Uber app and then immediately sees a ride estimated ETA if the rider were to request a ride.

3. Define Priorities

The third step we need to complete before diving into the technical implementation is defining priorities. Our job should be to confirm that the goal of the model is aligned with the goals of the business and to raise any considerations that might need to be expressed.

For example:

There is the consideration that the lower the ETA our model provides, the higher the propensity of a user to request a ride at that very moment. However, I’ll assume that our goal is to address complete accuracy of the ETA and let another ensemble of models address what should be done to increase ride request rates. Lastly, I want to dive into the specifics of how this model could be built. I am going to assume that there is already an existing ETA model that serves predictions currently in production. I’m also assuming we have location data of both the user and drivers at any point in time while they are active on the app, and we are saving the actual time of arrival data, which is computed by end time minus start time. End time is defined by the time that the driver arrives to pick up the user and start time is defined by when the user presses the request button.

In this scenario, our priorities have been pretty well defined from our assumption and clarification points above. Our only added points are that we want to make sure:

• Whether we are building a new model or improving upon an existing one.
• Whether the user behavior based on the effect of ETAs is out of scope or not.
• What exists in our dataset to build this model.

4. Go through the modeling lifecycle

This last step is actually the meat of the solution. Now, it’s time for us to jump into more of the nitty-gritty of what’s required to build this model and analyze it.

You have 45 sections remaining on this learning path.

• Advanced Search

A new bi-level mathematical model for government-farmer interaction regarding food security and environmental damages of pesticides and fertilizers: : Case study of rice supply chain in Iran

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, designing and solving a bi-level model for rice supply chain using the evolutionary algorithms.

• A bi-level mathematical model is firstly formulated for the rice supply chain.

According to the recent gigantic development in the agricultural section, Agricultural Supply Chain (ASC) management has attracted both researchers and agronomic practitioners. In this regard, rice as one of the important agricultural ...

Toward farmer decision profiles to improve food security in Kenya

The decision-making processes of small-scale farmers are frequently ignored in discussions about food security in sub-Saharan Africa. Consequently, policies intended to improve land productivity often fail or produce ambiguous results regarding their ...

Sensitivity and uncertainty propagation in coupled models for assessing smallholder farmer food security in the Olifants River Basin, South Africa

Using family balance (i.e., combined net farm and non-farm incomes less family expenses), an output from an integrated model, which couples water resource, agronomic and socio-economic models, its sensitivity and uncertainty are evaluated for five ...

Information

Published in.

Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Netherlands

Publication History

Author tags.

• Agricultural supply chain
• Multiple cropping
• Bilevel optimization
• Government-Farmer confrontation
• Economic and environmental objectives
• Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

• 0 Total Citations
• 0 Total Downloads
• Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
• Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Login options.

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

• Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
• Download citation
• Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics

The effect of ionic association on the electrochemistry of redox mediators for li-o 2 batteries: developing a theoretical framework.

A theoretical framework to explain how interactions between redox mediators (RMs) and electrolyte components impact electron transfer kinetics, thermodynamics, and catalytic efficiency is presented. Specifically focusing on ionic association, 2,5-di-tert-butyl-1,4-benzoquinone (DBBQ) is used as a case study to demonstrate these effects. Our analytical equations reveal how the observed redox couple potential and electron transfer rate constants evolve with Li + concentration, resulting from different redox activity mechanisms. Experimental validation by cyclic voltammetry measurements shows that DBBQ binds to three Li + ions in its reduced state and one Li + ion in its neutral form, leading to a maximum in the electron transfer kinetic constant at around 0.25M. The framework is extended to account for other phenomena that can play an important role in the redox mechanism of RMs: the effect of Li + ion solvation and its association with the supporting salt counteranion on the redox processes is considered, and the role of “free Li + ” concentration in determining the electrochemical behaviour is emphasized. The impact of Li + concentration on oxygen reduction reaction (ORR) catalysis was then explored, again using DBBQ and modelling the effects of the Li + concentration on electron transfer and catalytic kinetics. We show that even though the observed catalytic rate constant increases with Li + concentration, the overall catalysis can become more sluggish depending on the electron transfer pathway. Cyclic voltammograms are presented as illustrative examples. The strength of the proposed theoretical framework lies in its adaptability to a wider range of redox mediators and their interactions. By understanding these effects, we open up new avenues to tune electron transfer and catalytic kinetics and thus improve the energy efficiency and rate capability of Li-O 2 batteries. Although exact results may not transfer to different solvents, the predictions of our model will provide a starting point for future studies of similar systems, and the model itself is easily extensible to new chemistries.

• This article is part of the themed collection: PCCP 25th Anniversary Issue

Supplementary files

• Supplementary information PDF (479K)

Article information

Download Citation

Permissions.

G. Horwitz, V. Kunz, S. Niblett and C. P. Grey, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. , 2024, Accepted Manuscript , DOI: 10.1039/D4CP01488J

This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence . You can use material from this article in other publications without requesting further permissions from the RSC, provided that the correct acknowledgement is given.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content .

Social activity

Search articles by author.

This article has not yet been cited.

Advertisements