# Engineering the Future: Evaluation of Virtual Reality Across Project Lifecycle Stages
## 5 Discussion
Practically, this means that introducing VR in these stages can significantly enhance user satisfaction and perceived value beyond basic expectations. For the specification phase, where VR may fail to meet basic expectations, attempting to force-fit current VR solutions could be counterproductive. Instead, efforts could focus on developing VR tools specifically designed to augment abstract conceptualization or accepting that VR's primary strengths lie elsewhere in the lifecycle. Conversely, according to the current study results, in the specification phase, VR may fail to meet even the basic expectations of clarity and usability, resulting in negative perceptions, especially among experienced or highly educated participants. In the design, development, and testing stages, where VR is expected to support tasks such as visualization, prototyping, and interaction, its perceived practicality behaves like a performance attribute: the more it delivers, the more satisfaction it generates, particularly among technically trained or hands-on users. These patterns were reinforced by a confirmatory factor analysis, which revealed a coherent, unidimensional structure of perceived VR practicality across stages--excluding the specification phase, which showed a weak statistical contribution. This suggests that VR utility is conceptualized as a consistent factor, particularly salient in the design, development, and testing stages, where immersive visualization, prototyping, and simulation are most applicable. At the individual level, psychological and experiential factors were found to be key drivers of perception. Openness to adopting VR emerged as the strongest positive predictor of perceived utility. The practical implication for organizations is profound: fostering a culture that encourages and supports innovation adoption may be more critical for successful VR integration than focusing solely on technical training or the inherent features of the VR technology itself. Strategies could include creating internal champions for VR, showcasing successful pilot projects, and providing safe spaces for experimentation without fear of failure. This proactive approach to managing adoption is likely to yield higher perceived practicality and, ultimately, better utilization of VR resources. These findings support established theories by [PERSON] (2015) on innovation diffusion, in which \"innovativeness\" was outlined as a critical trait influencing the rate of adoption of new technologies. He posits that individuals who are more open to changes and willing to adopt innovations earlier perceive greater benefits, especially when the relative advantage of the technology is not yet universally recognized. This theoretical framework directly aligns with the current finding that openness to adopting VR significantly predicts higher ratings of its practicality across project stages. Conversely, higher education levels and greater familiarity with VR were associated with more critical evaluations of the technology. Practically, this suggests that implementation strategies should not assume that more educated or technically familiar individuals will automatically be strong advocates for VR. Instead, organizations might need to engage these groups with more sophisticated use cases, demonstrate clear, evidence-based benefits that address their potentially higher expectations or concerns, and ensure that the VR tools are genuinely user-friendly and solve specific, complex problems relevant to their expertise. Simply providing access to VR may not suffice; a targeted value proposition is needed for these discerning users. These critical perceptions among highly educated or VR-experienced participants may stem not from resistance to innovation but rather from a more informed and discerning perspective grounded in deeper engagement with the technology in practical settings.