# Engineering the Future: Evaluation of Virtual Reality Across Project Lifecycle Stages
## 5 Discussion
These findings are consistent with broader models of technology acceptance, such as the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) and the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT). According to [PERSON] [74], TAM emphasizes perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use as primary factors influencing user acceptance. In the context of VR, perceived usefulness is directly tied to whether users believe that immersive technology improves their performance in specific tasks such as design visualization or stakeholder engagement. The current study's identification of openness to adoption as a strong predictor resonates with TAM's construct of behavioral intention, which is shaped by user attitudes. Moreover, the negative relationship between education/familiarity and VR utility may reflect a situation where experienced users perceive lower \"ease of use\" or encounter a mismatch between VR capabilities and their professional needs. This aligns with the UTAUT model, which aims to explain information technology acceptance by users, where effort expectancy is one of the influencing factors [76]. Indeed, recent empirical research has confirmed that UTAUT provides a practical framework for investigating individual acceptance and use of VR tools and that factors such as performance expectancy and effort expectancy significantly influence user behavior [77]. Their study further concludes that acceptance is a prerequisite for realizing VR's full educational potential, reinforcing the idea that user openness is a necessary condition for successful implementation. These insights hold important implications for the successful integration of VR in engineering and organizational contexts. Operationally, this means that given that perceived usefulness and openness to innovation are central to acceptance, organizations should prioritize early engagement strategies that foster user curiosity, reduce perceived effort, and highlight task-specific benefits. This is particularly relevant for professionals in mid-career or managerial positions who may approach new technologies with a more analytical or risk-aware mindset. This can be achieved by practical steps such as demonstrating measurable value through small-scale pilot implementations, showcasing success stories from peer institutions, or offering hands-on workshops that may help bridge the gap between technical familiarity and practical endorsement. As [PERSON] et al. [77] emphasized, acceptance is not automatic, even among technically skilled users, but must be \"cultivated through meaningful exposure, usability-oriented design, and alignment with user needs and values\" (p. 1068). Customizing communication and training for specific professional roles such as engineers, decision-makers, and operators can enhance inclusivity and long-term adoption of VR throughout the system's lifecycle. At the same time, the study highlights current limitations in the perceived VR utility, particularly during early project stages. The specification and requirement definition phase was consistently rated low, likely due to the limited availability of VR tools suited to abstract planning tasks. Although some scholars have proposed that VR could support ideation and early-stage modeling [55], most existing tools are optimized for mid- and late-stage activities. This highlights a gap in the application of VR in conceptual and documentation-heavy contexts, presenting clear opportunities for future development. For VR developers and researchers, this signals a practical market need for innovative VR solutions that can effectively support abstract thinking, collaborative document creation, or the visualization of complex requirements in immersive ways, moving beyond current VR strengths in spatial simulation and training. The identified participant profiles (see Section 4.7) offer a practical lens for segmenting potential VR users within an organization.