This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2014 Q3. Further details were available on the "Education Program:University College London/MSIN1003 Information World (Autumn 2014)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Organizational life cycle, which you proposed for deletion, because I think that this article should not be deleted from Wikipedia. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Warden (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This needs more sources. There are several reputably published books about this, using different terminology and characterizations of the stages, as well as different descriptions of "remedies", especially for what happens at the end. Presently, this article seems to reflect the views of a single management "school of thought", a particularly corporate one, and there are others that should be covered, including similar models developed for nonprofits in which, e.g., the fifth phase is "renewal" entailing what amounts to a re-founding after an examination and reworking of mission and core values, without any kind of "classes" by organizational efficiency consultants, who seem to have had an undue influence on this article's present text.
PS: I've also encountered something in such a source likening the organizational life cycle to the software development cycle and several other such cycles; i.e., there's an even more general model. I haven't looked into any of this stuff since the late 1990s, so I'm not personally sure where to start with it, just logging here that we need to look for such material to improve the article, as is presently pushes a very narrow point of view. — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 02:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
