# Engineering the Future: Evaluation of Virtual Reality Across Project Lifecycle Stages
###### Abstract  
Management in the current era is strongly supported by a range of advanced technologies that enhance organizational efficiency and effectiveness. One particularly promising technology is Virtual Reality (VR). This exploratory study investigates the perceived practicality of VR across the systems engineering project lifecycle, providing quantitative insights into how VR is valued at different stages and by various user profiles. Drawing on data from \(n=56\) professionals, the study employs advanced analytical methods like GLM, CFA, SEM, CATPCA, and CHAID classification trees to extract insights from the dataset. Results reveal that the perceived utility of VR varies significantly across project stages, with the training and proposal phases receiving the highest ratings, and early planning stages such as specification and requirement definition rated the lowest. A unidimensional structure of VR practicality was validated, with strong factor loadings for stages involving prototyping and testing. Key predictors of perceived practicality included willingness to adopt VR (positive effect), familiarity with VR (mixed effects), and education level (negative effect). While traditional demographic variables had limited explanatory power, experiential and psychological factors--such as hands-on VR exposure and openness to innovation--emerged as critical determinants of perceived value. These findings offer an empirically grounded framework for the strategic implementation of VR in systems engineering. Practically, this research guides decisions on resource allocation by identifying the specific project stages (e.g., training, proposal development) and user profiles (e.g., those open to adoption, those with specific experiential backgrounds) where VR is likely to provide the most significant benefit and return on investment. virtual reality (VR); immersive learning; automation; project lifecycle; organizational process; simulation 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2020 IEEE/RSJ  
datasets to identify patterns and improve performance over time. These capabilities--once considered the exclusive domain of human cognition--position AI as a tool capable of performing tasks traditionally carried out by people. Given that management is inherently a human-centric function, the integration of AI has profound implications. Manual managerial activities are progressively being automated, and in the foreseeable future, entire managerial roles may be transformed or even replaced by intelligent systems [1]. AI is the only technology that makes centralized processes more efficient and effective [2]. This phenomenon may be demonstrated by several other notable technological developments or specific implementations: (a) Workflow management provides structured tools to oversee and coordinate sequences of actions necessary to complete specific tasks. By automating these sequences, workflow systems reduce reliance on manual processes, enhance control and transparency, and bolster the security and efficiency of organizational operations. Therefore, workflow management represents a foundational element in the broader shift toward AI-driven management systems. (b) Cloud computing, a pivotal advancement in information technology, delivers computing resources as on-demand services over the internet. This approach enables remote access to organizational data and applications from any internet-connected device, effectively removing geographical constraints. Furthermore, cloud computing promotes more efficient utilization of computational resources, leading to significant reductions in information systems (IS) costs [3]. (c) Business Intelligence (BI) is a methodology that transforms raw organizational data into insights to support informed decision-making. When combined with data visualization--often regarded as a key component of BI--these tools play a critical role in enhancing strategic decision-making at the executive level [4].