Growth
A company wants to grow X% — where does it come from? Growth cases reward the candidate who turns a vague "find ways to grow" into a sized gap and a portfolio of sources to fill it. This page gives you the full tree, the Ansoff matrix, and the gap method the casebooks leave out.
Most candidates treat a growth case as a brainstorm: list every way a company could grow and hope one sticks. But a growth prompt almost always hides a number — grow 20% a year, double revenue by FY30 — and the real task is to size the gap to that number and decide which sources will fill it. Brainstorming names the levers; sizing the gap and allocating across them is what wins the case.
TL;DR · Key Takeaways
Key Takeaways
- You will turn a growth prompt into a sized gap — target minus current trajectory — before proposing anything, instead of brainstorming ways to grow.
- You will decompose growth into three sources — organic (more users, more per user), inorganic (buy or partner), and non-core (adjacent revenue) — and draw the whole tree, not just the obvious arm.
- You will use the Ansoff matrix to structure where new users come from, climbing from penetration outward and treating diversification as the riskiest last resort.
- You will compare the gap to category growth: if the target sits far above trajectory, the core alone cannot close it, which forces adjacencies or inorganic — and you can say so with conviction.
- You will close with an allocated portfolio — rough percentages from core, adjacencies, and inorganic — tied to the client's real assets, rather than a list of tactics.
Growth shows up whenever a client wants to get bigger — more revenue, more users, more markets — and asks how. Like profitability, it is one connected decomposition rather than a sequence of gates: you break growth into its sources, go deep on the ones that fit the business, and recombine them into a plan that hits the target.
A target, not a brainstorm
The single biggest differentiator on growth cases is refusing to brainstorm in a vacuum. Pin down the number and the timeline first, then everything you say is in service of closing a specific gap. "Here are ten ways to grow" is a B answer; "the gap is ₹900cr, and here is how I would source it" is an A.
The growth tree
Growth comes from three sources. Organic growth uses what the company already has; inorganic growth buys or partners for it; and non-core growth taps adjacent revenue most candidates forget. Draw this first to show you see the whole opportunity, not just the obvious arm.
Organic growth — the two engines
Organic growth runs on two engines: win more users, or extract more value from each user. The first is market size × share; the second is revenue per user minus cost per user. Notice the second engine is just the profitability tree applied to a single customer — growth and profitability share the same DNA.
When the engine is "more users," the next question is where those users come from — and that is exactly what the Ansoff matrix structures: existing or new product, against existing or new market, ranked by risk.
Inorganic and non-core
When organic growth cannot close the gap in time, the company can buy or partner its way there — or tap revenue sources outside its core. These two arms are where most candidates fall short, so naming them well is an easy way to stand out.
Always name non-core
It costs one sentence and almost no candidate does it. "There may also be non-core revenue here — monetising idle assets, advertising to their traffic, or value-added services" signals you see the whole opportunity. For asset-heavy or high-traffic businesses, this can be the highest-margin growth on the table. (Inorganic moves connect to the M&A framework, covered separately.)
The growth-gap method
This is the part the casebooks skip — and the heart of a strong growth answer. A target minus the current trajectory equals the gap that new initiatives must deliver. Size that gap, then allocate it across the sources above. This turns the tree from a list into a plan.
The trajectory trap
Candidates compare the target to zero and feel any growth idea counts. Compare it instead to the current trajectory — where the business lands if nothing changes, roughly category growth. If the target sits far above that line, the core alone cannot close it, which mathematically forces adjacencies or inorganic. Skipping this step makes recommendations feel arbitrary instead of forced by the numbers.
Navigating it live
Put it together as a live path: clarify the target, size the gap, exhaust the cheap core levers first, then climb outward only as far as the gap requires, and close with an allocated portfolio.
Worked mini-case
Watch the gap method in action. Note how the candidate refuses to brainstorm until the target is pinned, sizes the gap against the current trajectory, exhausts the core before reaching outward, and lands on an allocated portfolio rather than a wish-list.
A packaged-foods growth case
Our client is an Indian packaged-foods company, around ₹600cr revenue today. The board wants to reach ₹1,500cr in five years. How would they get there?
Before I suggest anything, let me size the gap. They want to go from ₹600cr to ₹1,500cr in five years — that is roughly 20% a year, against a packaged-foods category growing maybe 10-12%. So if they just ride the category, they land around ₹1,000-1,050cr. The gap that new initiatives must fill is therefore roughly ₹450-500cr on top of trajectory. Does that framing match how the board thinks about it?
That is exactly right, and a good catch — they are currently growing with the category. So where does the extra ₹450cr come from?
I would source it in order of risk. First the core: can they grow users and value per user faster than the category? More users through deeper distribution — packaged foods in India is a distribution game, so expanding into more towns and more outlets per town is the obvious near-term lever. And more per user through premiumisation and cross-sell across their range. My hypothesis is the core can deliver a meaningful chunk — say half the gap — but probably not all of it at 20%.
Why not all of it?
Because distribution expansion has a ceiling each year, and premiumisation is gradual. To close the rest I would climb the Ansoff ladder one step: new products to their existing market — adjacent categories they can sell through the same distribution and brand, like moving from snacks into breakfast or condiments. That reuses their biggest asset, the distribution network. If even that leaves a gap, a bolt-on acquisition of a regional brand could buy both share and distribution faster than building. So my rough allocation: about half the gap from the core, a third from adjacent products, and the balance from a possible bolt-on — and I would pressure-test each before committing.
The candidate sized the gap against trajectory before proposing anything, exhausted the cheap core levers first, climbed Ansoff only one step (existing market, new product — reusing distribution), and ended with an allocated portfolio plus a stated intent to validate. That is the gap method, not a brainstorm.
Size against trajectory, exhaust the core, climb one step at a time, end with an allocated portfolio.
What made that an A-grade answer
The candidate converted "grow to ₹1,500cr" into a ₹450-500cr gap above trajectory, then sourced it deliberately: core first, one Ansoff step out, inorganic as the balancing item — each tied to the client's real asset (distribution). No brainstorm, no jump to diversification, and a portfolio with rough proportions instead of a list. That is exactly what the gap method and the Ansoff ladder are for.