Talk:Performance indicator/Archives/2015

Article Needs Serious Improvement

Whole thing reads rather dreadfully, and would not be surprised if large portions are simply copy/paste from the two books that seem to be the sole, and repeated, references. I mean, there's a personal pronoun in one of the sections, for crying out loud. The lack of diversity in references and lack of specifically cited examples really seems to speak to this article either needing significant improvement, or perhaps being merged into another article on performance measurements and metrics. The existence of a buzzword or consultant catchphrase does not mean that buzzword or catchphrase is actually original or distinct from an existing concept (and, on here, an article). --Dave (talk) 23:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Disagree with above comment. Article lays out the general concepts of performance indicators in a relatively clear manner, readable by both technical and less-technical readers. Practically any technical or other document has room for improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.248.235.34 (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

is all lost?

Dear colleagues,

I've read this article ALOT in 2010-2012 and it was very high quality then, is there a way to recover the changes to improve this Key Importance Page?

BRGDS, Xobbitua (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)