The successful completion of every evaluation needs a strategic analysis of the data that will allow the management, the fair treatment and their transformation to senses, conclusions and allegations (Bassey, 1999:83). The direction of the analysis appears that is determined to a great extent by the target of the study, the nature of the questions, the resources and of course the scientific footprint of the evaluator. The kind of the case study plays also an important role. For instance, at the collective case study it is wise to analyze first the data that concern each case separately and then the analysis to focus on the synergies between the cases (Crowe et al., 2011). Especially critical role however plays the uniqueness of every evaluation, which might make extremely difficult if not unfeasible the formulation of commonly accepted analysis processes. When during the evaluation the qualitative approach is adopted, then the analysis is based on the «direct interpretation» (Stake:1995:71-78) or the «analytical memoranda» (Πηγιάκη, 2004:111-127). The analysis begins from day one of the study, when the evaluator is still on the field, having original ideas concerning the case study and its function. At the end of each research day the evaluator needs to perform two basic tasks. The first concerns drafting the first analytical «statements» or «proposals», when having «fresh» the data asks questions and is being led to the first answers. Of course every original idea is being subject to further processing and control. In that way it penetrates the data and formulates the first analytical preconditions. It tries to understand if and to what extend the initial definitions are being supported by the data. To which points there are powerful documentary evidence and which have weaknesses. With basis on the work of each previous day organizes the schedule of the next day by collecting new material. In continuation he proceeds to secondary data statements, which constitute more complete answers. The secondary statements derive from the reflection and the constant co-examination with the data. Some statements will be valid and some other will need adjustment, while there will be some statements that would need to be rejected. Data analysis constitutes a repeat process that continues until the evaluator to feel certain for the credibility of his statements. (Πηγιάκη, 2004, Ιωσηφίδης, 2008). The second important task concerns the categorization and coding of the data. It is a process where the evaluator is called, based usually on the theory, to locate the thematic categories of his data. Two are the main categories, the structural and the functional ones. The structural deal with «what» and describe basic elements the under examination case, like the place, the objects, the people, the facts etc. The functional ones concern «how» exists what it exists, under which circumstances for whom and how it works (Πηγιάκη, 2004). In the qualitative analysis there is the possibility of comparison between the explicit and implicit «objective structure» that frames the case with the subjective life of the actors. In the objective structure are included the natural environment, the organization, the regulating framework, the planned activities, the infrastructure of the case, the role of the actors, the decision makers etc. The objective structure determines the desired function of the case, while the subjective life of the actors reflects the real result of the objective structure. In that sense the objective life of the actors constitutes a basic criteria of evaluation of the objective structure. (Πηγιάκη, 2004:25-26). In the evaluation with qualitative orientation, understanding plays a crucial role. In these studies the search for «correlations», which means, «patterns» that appear with consistency in certain circumstances is an issue of high importance. The repeat of these patterns makes understanding a lot easier. The evaluator, however, in order to compose his claims must on one hand isolate the rumors from the patterns and on the other collect enough data (Stake, 1995:78). When during the evaluation the principals of quantitate research are adopted, then the analysis focuses on classification, coding and tabling of the data. Going forward and with basis on the exploratory questions or the assumptions follows their statistical examination which is descriptive and/or inductive. Crucial role plays on this the identification of causal relationships, as well as highlighting relationships of relevance or correlation between dependent and independent variables. For example, at the training context it is of particular interest the examination of the relationships between framework, desired program, activities and achievements. Additionally the statistical findings are being used in order to formulate explanations of claims. They also contribute to the signification of the phenomena and the relationships that characterize them. The results-findings of the case study are possible to contribute under preconditions either to the extension or the control of the theory (Crowe et al., 2011). The possibility of reflection is not to be excluded. Notes 1 Stake (1995:95-102) claims that the role of the interpreter is the most basic one. The interpreter will take over the clarification, and the in depth penetration of the to the descriptions and the multiple definitions that collects, in order after processing them to deliver them enriched to the audiences. In other words, the interpreter offers to the readers material in order for them to process with their own interpretations. It is obvious that the role of the interpreter draws valuable help from constructivism. The evaluator-interpreter knows that definitions are not equal among themselves. Some are better than the other, while their value depends on their credibility and usefulness.