Talk:Organizational chart

message: Is it actually true that "there are three types of organization (sic) charts"? The items listed seem to be links to types of organizations, not charts (and I corrected the links assuming this)... and perhaps it was intended to mean that "each of these three types of organizations would have its own type of chart", but if so this needs to be rephrased. And I'm not sure if it would be relevant - sure the charts would look different for each of these three types of organizations, but aren't there also other organizational models for which this would be true? Pawl Kennedy 16:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Types of organizational chart 

message: #Limitations of an organizational chart mentions problems 
which sound stereotypical of centrally-maintained data:
*It only shows 'formal relationships' and tells nothing of the pattern of human (social) relationships which develop. 
*It shows nothing about the managerial style adopted (eg autocratic or democratic)
*It very quickly becomes out-of-date, especially in large organizations who change their staff regularly.
Would it violate WP:NOR to point out the staggeringly obvious, namely that
each of the above problems could potentially go away in a wiki implementation
of an organizational chart? For example, in a large organization which changes
staff regularly, it's difficult for a central 
human resources manager to keep
track of all the staff turnover in every department, let alone to chart the
non-centrally-planned work relationships which form spontaneously in a bottom-up
style. It would make more sense for the people who directly generate and use the 
information (the workers themselves, and their immediate managers) to 
maintain their own portions of the organizational chart.
Most likely, in a pre-wiki organization, only a handful of specialists will
have editing authority over the organizational chart, and they won't personally
know most of the people on the chart. Thus the chart will
only be as good as their personal knowledge of what everyone else is doing,
and their motivation to maintain the chart as the workforce turns over.
My first Google search finds no obvious examples of wikified
organizational charts, but if I find something suitable to cite, I will cite it.
Teratornis 22:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cogmap (http://www.cogmap.com) is an organization chart wiki.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.116.162 (talk) 17:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Org Chart Wiki Proves Very Popular but it's gone.  this one is alive and it seems well  But it blacklisted?http://techcrunch.com/2009/03/09/theofficialboard-launches-with-wiki-org-charts-for-20000-companies/--Elvey(t•c) 18:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki implementation? 

message: I removed all the external links to charting software per WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT#LINK.  There was one set of internal links that could be incorporated into the article: OpenOffice.org  Draw, but I don't see how to fit them in. --Ronz (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "new tool" was appropriately removed as spam. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Linkfarm cleanup

message: Looks like a nest of advertising to me. All internal links, though. I'm leaving it alone for now.   Dlohcierekim  15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawing organizational charts 

message: In the Overview section, under the Functional Relationships discussion, it says:
board of directors : managing director chief executive officer: various departments... In many large companies the organization chart can be large and incredibly complicated and is therefore sometimes dissected into smaller charts for each individual department within the organization.
This fragment does not appear to be in context and it does not appear to provide complete sentences or a complete thought.
In the Limitations of an organization chart section, under the last bullet beginning "The best structure..." there is this fragment:
nships in an organization.
It seems to come from a phrase with the phrase "relationships in an organization".
For both of these instances, it is not clear what the authors' intended meaning is, so I am reluctant to attempt a repair.
JDAddelston (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been fixed. All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 02:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Fragments?