I'm not trying to say all process is bad and I'm not sure where you got that from my comment. So to clarify: instituting process only makes sense when you have consensus across teams that need to collaborate with each other on what that collaboration is supposed to look like. In other words, process only makes sense when people agree on what needs to be done and what to do. In a hospital setting, processes can be tremendously helpful in ensuring that supplies are restocked, that someone is always on-shift, that patients can be transferred from one department to the next without needing to know who exactly is on-shift. There is consensus on which supplies are needed and that departments need to have people on-shift. Mission clarity is almost built-in: patients need to be treated, and that treatment needs to happen as quickly as possible after it is determined that the treatment is necessary.
Performance evaluation, a lot of the time in corporate environments, but especially in engineering, has no such consensus. It is not even possible to achieve such consensus when people are not clear on what they are supposed to do, which is because the business is not clear on what it is supposed to do, which is actually a good thing because we learned, decades ago, that making year-long plans in an attempt to achieve that clarity ended up ossifying businesses instead of letting them be responsive to market conditions.
So no, most businesses are not like hospitals, where the notion of "responsive to market conditions" is completely ludicrous when demand is inelastic, prices outpace inflation year-over-year, most customers are dissatisfied with value-for-cost, and there is almost no accountability to the customer with the rare exception of malpractice suits.