Bias: PPSR’s have been criticised for being too appreciative, or for being incapable of telling a bad story. While this is certainly a risk, the approach does attempt to address this in a number of ways. Firstly all informants are asked to describe the strengths and the weaknesses of the investment. These weaknesses or issues are documented. Secondly, the outcomes panel is encouraged to report on negative as well as positive trends in terms of the state of the asset. So the “negatives” are not avoided in this process.

However, the choice of topic for a performance story is purposeful rather than randomly selected. Topics for performance story reports are selected on the basis that they are likely to show some significant outcomes. This needs to be understood and acknowledged. For this reason, performance story reporting should not be seen as the only reporting tool. The idea is that it should complement other reporting processes such as report cards and output reporting that cover the whole range of investment strategies.

Limited in terms of scope: PPSR’s only address one type of key evaluation question. That is the question concerning the extent to which an investment contributes to outcomes, or the “impact” question. It is an extremely important question, but it is not the only type of key evaluation question that is important. Other key evaluation questions include:

• The appropriateness of the investment or intervention
• The cost effectiveness of the investment or intervention

PPSR is not designed to address these questions. They may be added into this methodology in the future, but are not covered by this approach as it currently stands.