There are so many new perspectives on complexity that the information can be overwhelming and difficult to put into context much less practical use. I’ve heard many similar discussions around natural and business systems gravitating toward complexity. Studies on Biomimicry have also produced interesting models for manufacturing and self organizing systems.

In my best efforts to apply theory into reality I’ve found Dynamic Disequilibrium appropriate for many product and marketing lifecycles. Dynamic Disequilibrium Modeling: Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium in Economic Theory and Econometrics is a great primer, though the text is a bit expensive.

I look forward to reading more on this post and similar posts.

I think you make a good point about the mortality of the firm. I wonder if this will change with more agile enterprises and continuous strategy processes, where one type of business doesn’t so much end as morph into another line of business. I keep hearing about this notion of the “miscellaneous company”–where resources are all on-demand and strategy is defined by opportunity–which might lend itself better to a lifecycle way of thinking about business.

May I also point out that historically, the design of a company was never intended to last forever. People would invest in a venture, then the venture would run its course and be dissolved and split up again (hopefully at a profit). These days we seem to have given up on the idea of an orderly wind up for a company when there is still profit to be had for the shareholders. Instead we run with this concept that somehow the company will go on forever, and must be kept alive at all costs.