## 4 Results
### Digitally-Hybrid Collaboration  
The asymmetric COVE-VR use between VR-participants and Teams-participants was reviewed as a more promising alternative to traditional communication channels (such as emails and video calls, or chatting over Teams) for industrial collaboration needs. The results of the survey showed (Figure 9) that although the asymmetric collaboration was perceived less positively than the COVE-VR system itself, the medians are still on the positive or neutral side. Only one Teams-participant, who is highly experienced with VR technologies, left negative or extremely negative responses to all the statements on collaboration. Otherwise, 95% of experts agreed that the system could help the team to establish agreements on future action points and 80% agreed that the system made it possible to create a cooperative atmosphere among the team members. The experts, who participated through Teams, highlighted the usefulness of a multi-user VR environment, where _\"one can do things in the same location even if not in the same place\"_ (**T5**). Moreover, such hybrid collaboration was found to save time during the collaborative task by 60% of the experts and may further save time by advancing the Lean and Agile philosophy, since _\"the iterations can be reduced because some clarifications can be done there with other team members.\"_ (**T7**). Another expert commented that with collaborative VR. _\"we can avoid ping-pong email-you can directly ask and discuss\"_ (**VR2**). Further, some VR- and Teams-participants alike reported positive effects of the VR system on co-presence, commenting: _\"Even though *name\" was there virtually, it felt like he was really there\"_ (**VR3**) and _\"it looked like that we were in the same environment. I thought people  
Figure 9: The results of the collaboration-related questionnaire. were standing besides me\"_ (**VR4**) and _\"I was asking the VR participants to change views or do things and I was seeing directly their view, so I felt we were in the same place\"_ (**T2**). However, the quality of communication between experts and the efficiency of asymmetric collaboration could be significantly increased; even though 75% of experts agreed that the COVE-VR system design positively affected the collaboration process, only 55% found that the virtual tools were useful for collaboration and would like \"to have better tools for interaction\" (VR6). In general, hybrid collaboration would benefit from having more visual elements to support the communication, which were lacking in the current system design. Additionally, it was not easy to see and understand participants in VR, and also 40% of the VR-participants found it somewhat difficult to understand the participants who joined via Teams. Experts commented that they wish to have _\"more transparency on what the other participants are doing\"_ (**VR5**) and _\"would like to have pointers from the other participants\"_ (**VR1** and **VR7**, or the _\"possibility to highlight objects\"_ (**VR8**), which would support the collaboration process visually. During the interview, experts further discussed the issues of asymmetric settings and provided suggestions to enhance it. One of them commented that _\"the communication with all the participants was quite natural, the only issue was that I didn't know who was talking\"_ (**VR1**). Another participant commented: _\"I don't think there was many differences between the communication among participants. Ultimately, we all were in different places\"_ (**VR9**). Interestingly, the experts' communication greatly benefited from the \"think-aloud\" approach, used for research purposes. Although the lack of visual elements hindered the overall experience, some experts commented that _\"the voice helped us communicate with others\"_ (**VR9**). The verbal communication happened mostly between Team- and VR-participants; by the end of the sessions, Team-participants gained more confidence to guide the VR-participants to overcome the lack of visual cues.