What about B2G as in business-to-groups?
You probably know the terms B2C and B2B. Both are mainly used in the context of marketing, focussing either on consumers or business customers and markets.
B2G, business-to-government, is less well-known and I would propose to use b2ps (business-to-public-sector) instead from now on. Because we need the G for informal and unstructured groups :-)
B2G should stand for business-to-groups. Treating 'groups' as entities and customers analogous to organisations (B2C) opens untapped markets with very interesting business opportunities. Informal or 'unstructured' groups are everywhere, in our family life, sports and hobbies, friends, assocations and our professional life.
And 'groups' are special, they are a different type of customer: an informal group is not an individual, nor is it a formal organisation or legal entity. Groups don't have money or budgets. A group can't buy, only each individual member can. Groups usually lack official roles and hierarchies, delegations and leaders. Informal groups don't have designated decision making processes.
And groups are everywhere around us. We are part of hundreds of groups and even in formal organisations, it's the informal groups which matter. So it's actually quite bizarre, that groups are economically and socially important, that they are the fabric of human societies, but that there are very few tools and services designated to informal groups and designed to meet our group needs, isn't it?
Why email, voice, SMS, forums, blogs, IM, wikis and social networks are not enough to support us in the way we behave and act in groups, is subject of a few follow-up posts.
And if we find and promote solutions and principles for needs and requirements of informal groups, they will have a positive effect on societies and our economies. They will make our lifes so much easier, they will help us to communicate, interact and collaborate. We will wonder, why we left those tools and that knowledge untabbed for so long and which in hindsight then will seem obvious and natural. Why have we left it to chance and coincidence to use technology and services for us as group animals?
A quote from a 2008 paper I wrote about groupDNA:
B2G, business-to-government, is less well-known and I would propose to use b2ps (business-to-public-sector) instead from now on. Because we need the G for informal and unstructured groups :-)
B2G should stand for business-to-groups. Treating 'groups' as entities and customers analogous to organisations (B2C) opens untapped markets with very interesting business opportunities. Informal or 'unstructured' groups are everywhere, in our family life, sports and hobbies, friends, assocations and our professional life.
And 'groups' are special, they are a different type of customer: an informal group is not an individual, nor is it a formal organisation or legal entity. Groups don't have money or budgets. A group can't buy, only each individual member can. Groups usually lack official roles and hierarchies, delegations and leaders. Informal groups don't have designated decision making processes.
And groups are everywhere around us. We are part of hundreds of groups and even in formal organisations, it's the informal groups which matter. So it's actually quite bizarre, that groups are economically and socially important, that they are the fabric of human societies, but that there are very few tools and services designated to informal groups and designed to meet our group needs, isn't it?
Why email, voice, SMS, forums, blogs, IM, wikis and social networks are not enough to support us in the way we behave and act in groups, is subject of a few follow-up posts.
And if we find and promote solutions and principles for needs and requirements of informal groups, they will have a positive effect on societies and our economies. They will make our lifes so much easier, they will help us to communicate, interact and collaborate. We will wonder, why we left those tools and that knowledge untabbed for so long and which in hindsight then will seem obvious and natural. Why have we left it to chance and coincidence to use technology and services for us as group animals?
A quote from a 2008 paper I wrote about groupDNA:
'we are sequencing the DNA of groups to develop better tools. [The groupDNA includes] the reference for group activities [which supports]anchoring group actions'
Comments