﻿<rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><channel><title>Real Thinking: Recent Comments</title><link>http://realthinking.phewittconsulting.com</link><description /><generator>Quick Blogcast</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:22:50 GMT</lastBuildDate><item><title>Comment on The Next Big Brand</title><link>http://realthinking.phewittconsulting.com/2008/04/18/the-next-big-brand.aspx#comment-980614</link><dc:creator>Thad Peterson</dc:creator><description>Excellent insights, I think that reputation can trump brand almost everytime (look at Jet Blue). I agree with the concept of developing a community of supportive customers to promote the brand. In financial services USAA is the best example. But think what it takes to get there; it takes a sustained period of cultural consistency, with a clear understanding that the customer, not the shareholder, comes first. Without that, you end up with a thin veneer that customers quickly see through. &lt;BR&gt; &lt;BR&gt;It's a huge amount of work.</description><guid isPermaLink="true">http://realthinking.phewittconsulting.com/2008/04/18/the-next-big-brand.aspx#comment-980614</guid><pubDate>Fri, 18 Apr 2008 17:18:13 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Comment on The Matrix as an Organization</title><link>http://realthinking.phewittconsulting.com/2008/03/31/the-matrix-as-an-organization.aspx#comment-936518</link><dc:creator>PHewitt</dc:creator><description>Point well taken and I will agree that networked organization is a more accurate term for my new model.&amp;nbsp; Regarding the structure needed to oversee this type of organization, I'm not sure I would give up authority to its citizenship (in this case, the independents), however they would have to be represented.&amp;nbsp; Traditionally, this takes the form of some type of product management office, but that won't work in this model.&amp;nbsp; It has to be much more than that.&amp;nbsp; Perhaps the right form is more akin to a collective?&lt;BR&gt;&lt;BR&gt;Your comment also brings to mind the type of leadership skills required to drive an organization like this.&amp;nbsp; There would be some unique requirements to be successful&amp;nbsp;in an environment where one has to maintain authority in a structured collaborative, yet independent,&amp;nbsp;environment.&amp;nbsp; </description><guid isPermaLink="true">http://realthinking.phewittconsulting.com/2008/03/31/the-matrix-as-an-organization.aspx#comment-936518</guid><pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 19:40:48 GMT</pubDate></item><item><title>Comment on The Matrix as an Organization</title><link>http://realthinking.phewittconsulting.com/2008/03/31/the-matrix-as-an-organization.aspx#comment-933716</link><dc:creator>Thad Peterson</dc:creator><description>I agree with your concept, although I suggest the term "networked organization" over "matrix" because matrix is currently used to define a structure that at best is difficult and at worst, impossible to manage through. Doesn't there need to be some new form of organizational structure to manage this as well? It's almost like you're moving from an autocracy (traditional business structure) to a republic.</description><guid isPermaLink="true">http://realthinking.phewittconsulting.com/2008/03/31/the-matrix-as-an-organization.aspx#comment-933716</guid><pubDate>Mon, 31 Mar 2008 19:30:00 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>