Talk:Key Performance Parameters

Removing tags
The article has tags for single sourcing, too much from primary sources, and insufficient context.


 * The single sourcing seems fixable - could point to JCIDS, Defense Acquisition Guide, the DAU 12th Glossary, and a Technical Measurement Guide ...


 * Primary sources of too much .mil is perhaps fixable by .com content at acqnotes.com, or book and .edu commentary.  As something specific, doubt it can be compared to alternatives in books as they are similar but different topics. (e.g. OTT&Wood Product Design... but non-DoD talks to other things and that talks House of Quality (QFD) which is a 3-way table customer interest vs engineering measures, with X for which apply to what -- and then side columns for comparing how alternatives rate at each row of customer interests... so different item in different process in different direction. )


 * Context seems more appropriate to point at the JCIDS it is within rather than comparison to further jargon (e.g. Critical Operational Issue, Critical Technical Parameter, and Key System Attribute).

Markbassett (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added a couple more cites, so am removing the single source tag. Though KPP originated with a single CJCSI so the others are just outgrowths of that ... Markbassett (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I added a couple commentary about KPPs, so removed the primary sources tag. It's hard to find general remarks reflecting on how well it's going that is also useful for the article.  By far a search for KPP shows mostly the MANY educational on what they are and how to make them (saying the intent not the experience), or the many programs stating theirs (unsuitable engineering details or unsuitable PR spiels) and sometimes news articles about a program met / failed to meet performance (just fact of it, not analysis). The kind of general theorizing and studies across several is a small and not so publicized niche, and I did not think the one about KPP vs business rules (financial systems), or the many Naval Postgraduate School thesis examples (e.g. ideally 3 to 7 KPPs; or Analysis of Fuel Efficiency as KPP for aircraft, etcetera) to be very useful for the article.  Markbassett (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the last issue (context). I really didn't see it as the idea of 'a performance measure the program has to meet or be considered a failure' is pretty clear, but I did some wording tweaks and a couple wikilinks to make it a bit simpler and link to context of related items. As that is all I can see to do, time to remove this. Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)