The Success Case Method (SCM) is a training evaluation approach that investigates why some participants succeed after training while others do not, rather than measuring average outcomes across the whole group.
Why it matters#
Most evaluation treats participants as a homogeneous group and looks for average results. The SCM starts from a different observation: after almost any training program, some participants improve significantly and others do not. The method uses this variation as data. By investigating what the high performers did differently — and what obstacles the low performers faced — you get actionable insight into both the training and the work environment.
How it works#
- Define the impact model. Working backwards from the organisational goal: Goal → Results → Behaviours → Training. This clarifies exactly what success looks like before any data is collected.
- Survey the group. Use a short survey to identify participants who report strong results and those who report poor results.
- Interview each group. Conduct in-depth interviews with the best and worst cases. Investigate what they did, what supported them, and what got in the way.
- Analyse and report. Document what the success cases did, what conditions enabled them, and what the non-success cases faced. Run a cost-benefit analysis on the successful cases to demonstrate value.
- Make recommendations. Use the findings to improve the training and, if needed, the work environment.
Key facts#
- It addresses two problems the Kirkpatrick levels do not. First, participants do not always implement everything they learned. Second, factors outside the learner’s control — management support, tools, workload — can prevent application regardless of how good the training was.
- The method produces stories, not statistics. The output is rich qualitative evidence about what works and why, not an average score. This makes findings more compelling to sponsors but less comparable across programs.
- It deliberately ignores the middle. The SCM focuses on the extremes — best and worst cases — to maximise the contrast and the learning. Average cases are not interviewed.
- It identifies environmental barriers, not just training gaps. If the success cases succeeded partly because of supportive managers or better tools, that finding points to an organisational intervention rather than a training fix.
When to use it#
- When performance after training varies significantly across participants
- When you want to understand why training transfer is failing, not just whether it is
- When sponsors need compelling evidence of training value and statistics alone are not persuasive