After describing the historical development of performance indicators in higher education and the illustrations that they provide for Goodhart's law, the paper discusses the difference between outcome and process indicators. It is suggested that, as long as the latter refer to underlying processes, and not to those immediately accessible, they can be used with less risk of abuse. This suggestion is exemplified in terms of standards of academic professionalism, and a set of appropriate processes is suggested for formal audit. The "underlying processes" are anchored in the concepts of "organised anarchy" or "complex adaptive systems". It is hypothesised that they can be influenced by common professional principles of those engaged in them, so as to favour a creatively organised anarchy which develops excellence through true professionalism "bottom up", in contrast to less successful managerial attempts to create excellence "top down". Finally, attention is drawn to the fact that traditional examinations also constitute an abuse of performance indicators.