Five case study examples have been discussed in Kirkpatrick's book Part 4 from

chapter 17 to 21. Please read them all and use the case study rubric listed below
to evaluate three out of five examples that you have read to determine the
effectiveness of evaluation at your choice, and write a kind of assessment
reflection to each example of those three.

Textbook: Kirkpatrick, J. & Kayser, W. (2016) Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training

Evaluation. ATD Press

Case Study Rubric

Evaluation
Competent Accomplished
Dimensions
With a few exceptions, identifies and Presents accurate and detailed
outlines the principal problems and issues descriptions of the problems
in the case; demonstrates an acceptable and issues central to the case;
understanding of the company’s issues, provides a well-focused
current situation, and strategic challenges; diagnosis of strategic issues
executive summary provides an adequate and key problems that
overview of the case issues and problems; demonstrates an excellent
Identification of
summary is missing a few minor points, grasp of the company’s present
Issues
but meets expectations situation and strategic
challenges; descriptions are
compelling and insightful;
provides a thorough and
effective executive summary

With a few minor exceptions, adequately Clearly and accurately

identifies and summarizes the perspectives describes the unique
of the principal stakeholders involved in the perspectives of multiple key
case; outlines some conflicts of interest stakeholders in the case;
Stakeholder
between company stakeholders demonstrates insightful analysis
Perspectives
of strategic tensions or conflicts
of interest between the
stakeholders

Identifies and outlines connections Makes appropriate, insightful,

between some of the issues and problems and powerful connections
in the case and relevant theoretical and between the issues and
Connections to
empirical research; the connections problems in the case and
Theoretical
identified are adequately elucidated relevant theory and empirical
and Empirical
data; effectively integrates
Research
multiple sources of knowledge
with case information
 Provides an acceptable analysis of most of Presents a balanced, in-depth,
the issues and problems in the case; in and critical assessment of the
most instances, analysis is adequately facts of the case in light of
supported by theory and empirical data; relevant empirical and
Analysis and
appropriate conclusions are outlined and theoretical research; develops
Evaluation summarized insightful and well-supported
conclusions using reasoned,
sound, and informed judgments

Outlines and summarizes some alternative Effectively weighs and assesses

courses of action to deal with most of the a variety of alternative actions
issues and problems in the case; in most that address the multiple issues
instances, proposed action plans are central to the case; proposes
Action Plans outlined, are feasible, and based on detailed plans of action; action
relatively sound theory and evidence plans are realistic and contain
thorough and well-reasoned
justifications

Demonstrates acceptable analysis of the Objectively and critically reflects

results of proposed action plans; upon alternative plans of action;
adequately outlines and summarizes the effectively identifies, thoroughly
implications and consequences resulting discusses, and insightfully
from alternative courses of action; with a evaluates the implications and
Evaluation of few minor exceptions, identified consequences resulting from
Consequences consequences of action plans are related the proposed action plans;
to key issues in the case identified consequences are
tied to the key issues central to
the case
 Chapter 17
Common Practice in Leadership Program: Greencore Northampton

At first, this case seemed well-written and informative, but after using the rubric, it
clearly fell short. The executive summary is weak and brief, so the issues are not
fully explored and analyzed. While the stakeholder expectations are listed on page
157, individual constituencies are not identified and unique perspectives are not
explored. The modules of the program structure are based in empirically sound
models and practices (e.g. SDI, Action Learning Model, cross functional problem
solving, 360 communication), but discussions of these models and connections to
research are glossed over. Later, the design, analysis, and evaluation closely follow
New World Kirkpatrick Model, but the author does not specifically name it. The
only stated problem is the desire to grow, and the case is not made that the targeted
objectives will meet those needs (p. 158). Alternative courses of action are not
given. The majority of paperwork deals with evaluation Kirkpatrick of Levels 1
and 2. Level 3 Behaviors are described but evaluation methods are not clear (pp.
159-160). Level 4 Outcomes, the “positive results” or measures of leading
indicators, are listed on page 64, but methods of evaluation for most of these are
not given. Much of the data gathered is subjective in nature (surveys,
questionnaires) so it would have strengthened the case study if the criteria for
judging these behaviors were included with the paper work.
 Chapter 18
Service Over and Above the Rest (SOAR) Program:
Emirates Airline

This case started strong with a well-written executive summary and identification
of the issue (explained further in the policy statement (pp. 167-168). Several
stakeholders are mentioned, and their roles and relationships in the case study are
discussed but unfortunately, neither their unique perspectives, nor their conflicts of
interest are thoroughly explored. The case specifies that it is grounded in the
ADDIE training model and Kirkpatrick business partnership principles (primarily
Kirkpatrick) and proceeds to explain four arms for their strategy, based on these
models: Pre-SOAR preparation, Coach for Performance, Formalized on-the-Job
Support, and the Evaluation and Reward Strategy (pp. 169-170). Each section of
the case study is analyzed and explained in detail and connected back to the
theoretical model. Action plans are realistic, well reasoned and supported, and
carefully laid out, but various alternate actions/plans are not explored in detail. In
the results sections, stated outcomes were primarily qualitative (subjective
responses by participants). A brief mention of sales figures occurs on page 170
(not in the results or summary sections), and decrease in customer complaints is
discussed as a favorable outcome. A portion of this case study does an excellent
job using Kirkland’s business partnership model, but the poor discussion of Level
3 Behaviors and poorer discussion of Level 4 Outcomes causes the case to end
weakly.
 Chapter 20
Accident Reduction Program:
Maryland Transit Administration

This case was the strongest one that I studied, with an excellent executive
summary describing issues in great detail, exploring various possible causes, and
giving a 5-Goal targeted strategy for the program (p. 191-192). The author narrates
the story of the stakeholders, introducing them and explaining the perspectives of
the principle players while describing the history of the case through compelling
details. (p. 191-192). The case makes connections to theoretical and empirical
research by utilizing the Kirkpatrick Business Partnership Model as the foundation
for planning, and designing the program, using all 4 Kirkpatrick Levels for
evaluation, and adding a sort of LMS (dynamic training dashboard) to monitor and
aid in the accumulation of evidence to answer important questions and give
credence to conclusions. Thoughtful analysis begins in the executive summary and
continues throughout the case, particularly in the Key Findings and Results section,
which substantiates decisions and conclusions with facts and explanations. The
team developed a variety of initiatives (from the Goals to the Project Methodology
to the Required Drivers to the Evaluation Methodology) to address various levels
of the issue, providing descriptive discussions of the decision-making process.
Finally, the entire project was approached as a discovery process, setting the stage
for evaluation and feedback beginning with the executive statement and continuing
throughout the case. The team analyzed data (both quantitative and qualitative) to
produce evidence of program success, discuss barriers, and give an effective
summary, demonstrating the value of the training.