cross-posted from my Second Life blog
Virtual Insanity: Why replicating real-life business practices in a virtual world is doomed to failure.
The virtual 3D web has received significant amounts of coverage in the mainstream media recently (Carr, 2007; Morrissey, 2006; Steins, 2007; inter alia.)
Some businesses have already started to experiment with virtual 3D environments, such as Australia’s national broadcaster the ABC, IBM, American Apparel and Toyota amongst many. These companies, and others, have invested considerable resource into Second Life, currently the most popular and media-friendly 3D virtual environment.
However, there are other alternatives to Second Life, such as There.com, Active World, Multiverse and Open Croquet. An Australian startup company is launching ‘Outback’ within a few months, to much interest within the 3D virtual community.
Where ‘Outback’ will be different from Second Life and other 3D virtual peers is in its use of technology – instead of replicating the business model of running thousands of expensive servers that currently power Second Life, it will be using peer-to-peer technology. Peer-to-peer technology was made (in)famous by Kazaa and other file-sharing applications.
However, no matter what technology is used to power a 3D virtual world, some ‘rules of engagement’ will remain the same. That is, how users interact with both the virtual world and each other, plus how businesses might or might not be able to find uses for such technology.
Already there are a number of tertiary institutions running courses within Second Life; libraries are starting to expand onto it (perhaps excited by the prospect of allowing primary and secondary school students to actually ‘meet’ and ‘interact’ with Henry VIII when they search the library for him, or actually participate in a Wild West duel or Shakespearian play).
But when it comes to ‘Business’ interacting with 3D virtual worlds, the rules are less clear.
This could be due to any number of factors, including those of traditional business conservatism when faced with new technology, lack of clear ROIs, lack of clear KPIs for employees engaged in the use of new technology, and a lack of ability to ‘manage’ the interface between company and those ‘outside’ of it.
My own experience was that ‘Business’ was typically skeptical of the internet technologies when they first arrived, failing to grasp either the long-term implications of the new tools, or else unwilling to dedicate any resource to something that looked to them like a ‘money sink’.
Eventually ‘Business’ learned to understand and navigate these new tools, to their benefit. So too will ‘Business’ learn to navigate the 3D virtual environments that will proliferate around them. But like the internet before, ‘Business’ will need to discover new ways of conducting business and jettison old habits that no longer fit the new online communication environment. Companies such as the aforementioned IBM et al are experimenting and ‘playing’ in order that they themselves might understand these new environments and so gain some competitive advantage.
This research will look at the ‘new rules’ of Business conduct and communication within 3D virtual environments. It will consider ‘why’ these new rules exist, what rules they replace and what differences there are between conducting business in the traditional, ‘real’ world and the new, virtual world.
It will seek to map out, via ethnographic methodology, the new ‘virtual’ culture that business must understand if it wishes to engage with it successfully. It will seek to understand that new culture from various perspectives: psychological (including game theory, identity theory and social cognition), sociological (particularly for informing the enthomethodological approach used), organizational theory and communications theory. Along the way it will draw into itself recent findings from the field of Virtuality.
Carr, D. F. (2007). Is Business Ready for Second Life, www.baselinemag.com.
Morrissey, B. (2006). “Brands Gingerly Step Into Their Second Lives. (Cover story).” Adweek 47(4): 10.
Steins, C. (2007). “A Parallel Universe.” Planning 73: 16.
Powered by Zoundry
