IBM's Virtual Worlds Guidelines

Back in 2005, IBM published a set of  blogging guidelines for employees. The introduction said

In 1997, IBM recommended that its employees get out onto the Net -- at a time when many companies were seeking to restrict their employees' Internet access. We continue to advocate IBMers' responsible involvement today in this new, rapidly growing space of relationship, learning and collaboration.

In so many way, nothing has changed with the adoption of virtual worlds. Last month, IBM's virtual worlds guidelines pointed out that

IBM believes that virtual worlds and other 3D Internet environments offer significant opportunity to our company, our clients and the world at large, as they evolve, grow in use and popularity, and become more integrated into many aspects of business and society. ... IBM encourages employees to explore responsibly and to further the development of such new spaces of relationship-building, learning and collaboration.

There has been a lot of press coverage of these guidelines. An Associated Press article was run pretty much everywhere (here's an example at TIME). Since people are often quick to assume that IBM is clamping down on its employees use of virtual worlds, and that's really not the case, I'd like to attempt to clarify a few things here and give even more of an insider's perspective than I previously did on Eightbar. It may be an interesting discussion for anyone thinking about whether companies need virtual worlds guidelines, why we bothered and what implications they have for employees using virtual worlds on their own time.

Question: Who wrote then?

These guidelines were not authored by a lawyer in a bunker in Armonk. In fact, they were written on a wiki over a few weeks by the IBMers already using virtual worlds. A similar process happened in 2005 with the blogging guidelines. This time around, the early adopters got to help set the company's statement on what it means to live and work on virtual worlds.

Question: Why are they needed? Isn't it all just common sense?

Most of it is indeed what any sensible person would expect. F'rinstance

"...virtual worlds are public, software-based, open societies in which having a dialogue is similar to having a discussion or meeting in a public place, such as a hotel lobby or an airport. You should operate on the assumption that all actions, communications and data can be seen, heard and recorded by anyone, including the service provider..."

is a pretty representative sample. And yes, this is pretty much stating the (hopefully) obvious. On the other hand, some parts are wide open to interpretation.

"IBMers should be thoughtful, collaborative and innovative in their participation in virtual world communities – including in deliberations over behavioral/social norms and rules of thumb."

and, on the subject of spanning multiple environments,

"just as we have developed informal systems of etiquette for current forms of multi-tasking – e.g., that guide whether it is acceptable to keep a laptop open and/or to instant-message with someone during a given meeting – we will need to evolve cultural norms about what kinds of “outside” actions are permissible when one is “in world”. These and many situations far more complex will call on IBMers to be both thoughtful and innovative, as we follow and are guided by our values and the Business Conduct Guidelines."

both leave plenty of room for individuals to use their own best judgement based on the existing business guidelines we sign up to.

Question: I can has freedoms?

The guidelines are pretty clear about what is expected from IBMers, but for me, this feels more like protection than restriction. Publishing them clarifies for all employees how our existing business conduct guidelines fit in the context of virtual worlds (exactly as the blogging guidelines already did, in a slightly different context).

They have another benefit too, as a reminder that we're taking this stuff seriously. We're probably long past the stage where anyone in IBM, at any level, could say "hang on, I don't think we should be using virtual worlds". The journey has been interesting, but the first big milestone for corporate adoption was probably when CEO himself appearing in Second Life. That was a big watershed for IBMers adopting virtual worlds (if the CEO can do it...) and publishing guidelines makes something acceptable at all levels. We're no longer a bunch of crazy risk-taking fools on the cutting edge of corporate culture, we're being subsumed into the mainstream. Jo Grant predicts that in the future this layer of guidelines for virtual worlds "will probably be folded into our normal business conduct guidelines" which seems like a pretty safe assumption. Long term, this all becomes business as usual.

Question: So  IBMers will be doing business in virtual worlds? What happens on your own time?

Of course. But exactly what that means depends on your definition of doing business. While it's fine to be open about your IBM affiliation, the guidelines are understandably clear on IBMers' avatars avoiding the impression of representing IBM. Just as with blogging, it's possible for something to work for a company without necessarily representing that company in the sense of expressing the opinions or making commitments on behalf of that company.

When I'm in a virtual world I'm quite open about who I am, including who I work for. Let's not even kid ourselves that the time of day or day of weeks makes a difference here; I'm never really off the clock. As with blogging, I'll do it in office hours, at home and at the weekend, but I'm still me and people still know I'm an IBMer. One key guideline (the one thing that is actually pretty much a rule), repeated frequently, is to be clear about the scope of what you say.

"You should not make commitments or engage in activities on behalf of IBM unless you are explicitly authorized to do so and have management approval and delegations."

Again, this is sensible. On my blog, I remind people that "The postings on this site are my own and don’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions, strategies or opinions" just in case they get confused between me as an IBMer and me being a voice of IBM. In truth, I'm rarely if ever the voice of IBM, but hopefully when I say something interesting or sensible, it reflects well on the company. Of course, if I say something stupid it reflects badly, but the company is safe in the knowledge that it was me saying it.

Question: Does this mean you'll be changing your avatar?

I dress as a short alien (albeit one in a suit) and Ian has a lovely Predator (e.g. Yautja) costume, offset by his real life leather jacket. In the context of meeting people in Second Life, even meeting potential clients, I've never had a problem or a moment's concern. I'll let Ian speak for himself, but I do know he sometimes drops into his "casual" look, which includes green spiky hair and custom eightball eyes. Either of which would potentially freak out an exec in the real world, but look just charming in the context of Second Life. It doesn't seem sensible to limit virtual worlds appearance to what you'd wear in the real world though. In fact, on the subject of appearance, the guidelines are pretty clear.

"Virtual worlds give you the ability to create the way in which you want to represent your digital persona visually.  This can be anything from a reasonable likeness of the actual person to a fictional creature.

It goes on to say that

Avatar customization, clothing and all aspects of appearance and behavior are among the forms of innovation in virtual worlds.  In general, your digital persona’s appearance is up to you.  When you are using your avatar or persona in association with IBM, however, your judgment in these matters should be shaped by the same general guidelines that apply to IBMers in physical environments – i.e., that your appearance be appropriate to the context of your activities.  You need to be especially sensitive to the appropriateness of your avatar or persona’s appearance when you are meeting with IBM clients or conducting IBM business."

I can't let this go without mentioning that Irving Wladawsky-Berger recently sat on a panel with 'El Presidente', Philip Rosedale, when he was asked a question about whether IBMers would be allowed dreadlocks in Second Life. In Irving's words:

"Before I could answer the question Philip Rosedale stepped in and said that one of the coolest avatars he has seen in Second Life is that of epredator, - aka Ian Hughes, -  one of our virtual world pioneers and evangelists."

Sythia Veil, who created the look, will hopefully be delighted. And since Torley once described me as "dapper", it seems we both get the Linden seal of approval. at least. :-)

So...

It's been an interesting couple of weeks, but I sense the discussion has only just begun. Jo Grant hosted a meeting last night in Second Life on this subject, which I sadly missed. Perhaps there will be another one soon though.