Augmented reality,virtual reality,and mixed reality: A pragmatic view from diffusion of innovation

Abstract

This research offers a pragmatic view on the adoption of Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR) in designing the built environment. Participants from 20 U.S. states and beyond formed a non-probability sample representing small to mid-sized Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) firms. The author engaged 59 professional participants through a 26-question online questionnaire, informed by existing literature and reviewed by two industry experts. Three additional expert participants provided comprehensive insights via semi-structured interviews. Results highlight design visualization and client presentations as top AR, VR, and MR applications. Key benefits include improved design assessment, early error detection, and heightened client satisfaction. Design collaboration was less prominent than suggested by the literature. Notable challenges persist in first-time user adoption and cost factors of equipment and training. Thus, the cost-benefit balance drives the dominance of older, lower-end devices found in this study despite the availability of advanced, high-fidelity infrastructure.

Keywords

Augmented reality virtual reality mixed reality mixed methods DOI

Introduction

“Architecture is no longer tied to specific geographical places but can instead be present in multiple environments and in multiple ways that extend beyond real-world experience”.¹ Augmented Reality (AR), Virtual Reality (VR), and Mixed Reality (MR) offer architects and designers of the built environment an efficient way to experience designs in the virtual realm before any physical construction occurs.² Many studies have explored the immense potential of these technologies in assessing public behaviors via the optical illusion of viewpoints,³ soliciting design feedback from impaired occupants,⁴ evaluating indoor risks for children and special-needs occupants,⁵ and reconstructing historic sites.⁶ Despite such promises, the adoption of AR, VR, and MR in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry still faces multiple challenges and has yet to keep pace with imminent technological advancements.^7–9

In the United States, a study revealed a 26% increase in AR and VR adoption in the AEC industry from 2017 to 2018, accompanied by an 18% growth in skilled employee hiring and a 12% rise in client satisfaction. Nevertheless, budget constraints, management uncertainty, and skill gaps impeded further progress.¹⁰ Another study in the United Kingdom showed that AEC experts expressed reservations about AR and VR, primarily due to costs and the learning curve.¹¹ In the European Union, a survey among small to mid-sized AEC firms indicated a preference for AR (64%) over VR (36%) for tasks like design review and error detection.¹² MR has seen the lowest adoption, with limited awareness and implementation among smaller AEC businesses, while larger firms are more receptive to this technology.^1,9,12 These findings call for a more pragmatic view of how AR, VR, and MR technologies manifest in designing the built environment. To mend this gap, the author investigated the practical adoption of AR, VR, and MR in the AEC industry through the lens of Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI).¹³

Literature review

DOI: A summary

Everett Rogers’ DOI Theory¹³ is a pivotal framework for understanding technology adoption in the AEC industry.^9,14–16 DOI analyzes how members of a specific domain use and spread an “innovation,” a “technology,” “idea,” or “product” over time under the influences of relative advantage, compatibility, complexity, trialability, and observability .¹³ Complexity, however, negatively impacts the diffusion (or adoption) of an innovation (or technology).^17,18 Overall, a technology diffuses in one domain via a five-stage process: (I) knowledge, (II) persuasion, (III) decision, (IV) implementation, and (V) confirmation. In (I) knowledge, potential adopters learn about the technology and determine whether it is superior to existing options (i.e., relative advantage) and easy to comprehend (i.e., complexity). For (II) persuasion, these adopters form either positive or negative attitudes toward the technology given its alignment with their priorities (i.e., compatibility) and perceived benefits (i.e., observability). During (III) decision, if the adopters deem the technology as testable with minimal risks (i.e., trialability), they will move to (IV) implementation stage—adopting it into practice. The ease of adoption, dictated by complexity, leads to (V) confirmation stage where adopters revisit their decisions given (continual) perceived benefits or limitations.^19,20

Furthermore, “hardware” and “software” or the physical and informational infrastructure of technology are two technical aspects that shape the drivers and barriers for adopting AR, VR, and MR in the AEC industry.^13,19 Apparent drivers refer to the benefits of increased efficiency, reduced costs, improved safety, and enhanced collaboration and visualization. General barriers are expensive hardware and limited resources for training, which amplify complexity in the (IV) implementation stage, hindering the full potential of these technologies in the AEC industry.^8,16

AR, VR, and MR: An overview

AR, VR, and MR span across the Milgram Reality–Virtuality Continuum that links the physical and virtual worlds.²¹ At one end is the real world, observed via our senses or real-time recordings, and at the other is its simulation, represented in computer-generated content. Figure 1 illustrates AR, VR, and MR technologies on the Milgram Reality–Virtuality Continuum.

Figure 1.

Distribution of AR, VR, and MR on the Milgram Reality-Virtuality Continuum. Device images are licensed from: Gorodenkoff, agencies, Artem Zarubin - stock.adobe.com; Bram Van Oost - shutterstock.com; and retrieved from varjo.com (Virtual and Mixed Reality for Industrial Design eBook).

Augmented reality (AR)

In 1990, Boeing scientists introduced AR to improve aircraft wiring by projecting diagrams onto surfaces using see-through displays.²² This technology, aligning two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) content with the physical world,²³ operates through two main systems: see-through optics and see-through videos (see Figure 1). These systems overlay digital content onto real-world views or merge them with camera-captured imagery, respectively, using head-mounted devices (HMDs) tethered to computers.²² By 1996, Sony’s TransVision project introduced AR technology on handheld devices.²⁴ Following this evolution, Columbia University’s Mobile Augmented Reality Systems (MARS)²⁵ and Vienna University of Technology’s personal digital assistant (PDA)²⁶ laid the foundation for today’s AR applications on smartphones and tablets, with popular mobile games like Jurassic World: Alive²⁷ and Pokémon Go.²⁸ Regardless, the core features of virtual-physical interaction, real-time placement, and finite 3D capability have remained consistent throughout AR’s development.^29,30

Early AR applications in designing the built environment included design communication and collaboration,^23,29 with architects and designers sketching out 3D spatial forms and structural elements in situ. Chen and Xue³⁰ analyzed AR research literature and summarized three trends for adoption in the AEC industry: design assessment, construction monitoring, and maintenance management. Examples range from matching different color and material choices to existing spaces³¹ to augmenting robotic constructions,^32,33 and retrofitting historical sites.^34,35 Among those, design assessment has prominent industry examples like IKEA Place,³⁶ an AR application that allows customers to visualize furniture pieces in their homes before purchasing. Overall, while research literature highlights the significance of AR to the AEC industry, a nuanced understanding of whether experimental applications align with real-world demands and contexts is pivotal.

Virtual reality (VR)

VR is a digital simulation of the physical world that entails three pillars: immersion, presence, and interaction.^37,38 As a distinctive pillar of VR, immersion varies depending on the simulation’s detachment (from the physical world), sensory range, view range, and fidelity, resulting in a diverse system of desktop, fish tank, and immersive VR.^39–41 Desktop and fish tank VR are monoscopic and stereoscopic displays; neither offer sensory inputs. Immersive VR depicts a high-fidelity, sensory-rich experience detached from the physical world. The other two pillars, presence and interaction, are also prominent in immersive VR, especially when using HMDs.^37,38,40 While VR is a saturated technology for industry applications,^3,41 the contingency of immersion in VR system complexity determines the extent of its potential in real-life scenarios.

Technological progress has led to a diverse complexity of VR systems, from tethered HMDs like the University of Utah’s Sword of Damocles (1968) and FakeSpace Labs’ BOOM (1989) that require desktop connections, to stand-alone HMDs like HTC Vive and Oculus Quest with embedded processors.^42,43 Stand-alone devices balance performance with convenience. For instance, Meta Quest 2 can achieve a rate of 90 frames-per-second (FPS) when tethered to a computer but drops to 72 FPS in stand-alone mode.⁴⁴ Tethered devices like HTC Vive Pro 2 offer 120 FPS but, at the cost of mobility and setup intricacy, require a 6′ 6″ x 5′ clear space and two additional movement-tracking devices.⁴⁵ In designing the built environment, VR research literature indicates applications such as safety training in hazardous scenarios,⁴³ design visualization and collaboration between project teams and stakeholders.^46,47 In terms of VR’s industry applications, virtual real estate tours, while popular, do not directly align with the core design-construction-management aspects of the AEC industry.⁴⁸ After all, a comprehensive examination of real-world VR implementations in designing the built environment remains a relevant and necessary area of inquiry.

Mixed reality (MR)

MR blends interactive digital environments with real-time contexts and is particularly promising for adoption in the AEC industry.^21,49 Early adopters deemed this technology the gateway to real-time navigations in dynamic environments that allow concurrent evaluation, interactivity, and simulative lighting for architects and designers.⁴⁹ Nevertheless, perceptions of MR among AEC experts still varied, from confusing this technology with AR to associating MR with the use of see-through HMDs.⁵⁰ Instead, MR combines AR’s see-through with VR’s interactive capacities^51–53 via systems like Microsoft HoloLens, Magic Leap, and Varjo—the latest HMDs with minimal latency and human-eye resolution at 90 FPS.⁵⁴

MR began to gain traction after 2012,⁵⁵ with early developments like 3D Helping Hands⁵⁶ and BeThere⁵⁷ showcasing the see-through-interaction nature of this technology. Many studies^47,58,59 indicated that MR adoption in the AEC industry occur across stages, from design to construction and maintenance, featuring collaboration between architects, designers, and stakeholders over cloud-based Building Information Modeling (BIM) models. Via high-end HMDs like HTC Vive and Microsoft HoloLens, MR can serve real-time modifications of virtual designs in a physical space⁵⁵ and off-site construction supervision by comparing BIM models with drone-captured site footage.⁶⁰ Adopters from the University of Liechtenstein and construction manufacturing firm Hilti AG also developed a mobile MR system for on-site supervision, enhancing error detection by mapping BIM models onto physical sites.⁵⁹ Such literature demonstrates the immense potential of MR yet underscores the need for a practical view of its utilization by AEC professionals in designing the built environment.

Methodology

While experiment-based implementations of AR, VR, and MR give valuable insights, the voices of architects, designers, and other stakeholders in the AEC industry are also vital as the primary adopters of these technologies. This study, with a mixed-method approach,⁶¹ answered the following questions on the status quo and progression of AR, VR, and MR adoption in the AEC industry:

RQ 1: What is the state of AR, VR, and MR adoption in designing the built environment?

RQ 2: What are the prerequisites for AR, VR, and MR adoption in designing the built environment?

RQ 3: What are the perceived benefits and limitations of AR, VR, and MR adoption in designing the built environment?

Participants and study design

The author conducted this study with the approval numbered H22485 from an internal Institutional Review Board (IRB). Data collection took place from April 2022 to June 2023 with two consecutive parts: a comprehensive online questionnaire administered via Qualtrics completed by 59 AEC professionals and three semi-structured interviews with experts in AR, VR, and MR technologies for the built environment. This sequence solicited first broad insights and then nuanced perspectives into the status quo and progression of AR, VR, and MR adoption. Via a non-probability sampling,⁶² the author identified potential participants from AEC firms specializing in architecture and interior design through channels such as the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID), LinkedIn, firm websites, and professional groups. Using emails and LinkedIn messages, the author sent potential participants a brief overview of the study (i.e., its rationale and purposes). Those who agreed to participate received the online questionnaire link or an interview invite on a virtual conference platform. Consent forms were either embedded in the online questionnaire or signed before the interviews.

Current constraint and future direction

The study’s current constraint is the non-probability sample size of 62 AEC professionals (59 questionnaire participants and three in-depth interviewees). Nevertheless, the diverse participant profiles from 20 U.S. states and 15 nations abroad reflect various clientele, project types, workflows, and resources, thereby offering a holistic perspective of AR, VR, and MR adoption in the AEC industry. Although the subsequent findings are indicative rather than definitive, the use of follow-up in-depth interviews to elucidate the questionnaire responses provides an exciting cross-section analysis. Such findings also lay the foundation for future research with a larger sample to increase the study’s power in providing a generalizable understanding of AR, VR, and MR practices.

Procedure and data analysis

The author conducted a comprehensive review of the existing literature on AR, VR, and MR adoption in the AEC industry^{7,10,12,51,63–65} and formulated 26 questions aligned with the five-stage DOI process (Figure 2). A research data specialist and two AEC experts evaluated and refined the questionnaire, covering non-identifiable demographics (e.g., gender, age) and AR, VR, and MR adoption (e.g., familiarity, hardware, software, and applications). Eight questions were closed-ended, two were fill-in-the-blank, 13 were multiple-choice, two were 5-point Likert-scale, and one was open-ended. Participation was voluntary; only those who gave consent and passed the screening (whether they worked with AR, VR, and MR) proceeded to later questions. Of 70 responses, 59 were valid for data analysis due to their completeness. The author reported descriptive statistics (e.g., counts, means, and percentages) and graphs to illustrate response trends using Qualtrics and NVivo 12.⁶⁶

Figure 2.

Items in the online questionnaire explore AR, VR, and MR diffusion and resonate with the five stages of DOI. For details under each item, please refer to Figures 4–6 and Tables 1–4.

As design workflows vary across AEC firms with sizes and resources, real-life implementations of AR, VR, and MR also depend on practical nuances which are underdiscussed in experimental literature.⁶⁷ Hence, three semi-structured in-depth interviews, containing 18 questions modeled after Pratama and Dossick’s study,⁶⁸ provided insights into how architects and designers integrate AR, VR, and MR into their daily practices. The author structured the interview questions around the five-stage DOI process (Figure 3) to link the granular insights from the interviews to the broader trends identified in the questionnaire responses.

Figure 3.

Items in the in-depth interviews assess AR, VR, and MR diffusion and resonate with the five stages of DOI.

Findings

RQ 1: What is the state of AR, VR, and MR adoption in designing the built environment?

Qualtrics questionnaire

As shown in the questionnaire sample (

n = 59

), AR, VR, and MR technologies have reached the (IV) implementation stage across AEC firm sizes, sectors, and project scales. Responses came from AEC professionals in the United States (60%) and abroad (40%) with the majority identifying as adult males (78%) between 25 and 34 (34%) and 35 to 44 (34%) years old. Many were Caucasian (52%), Asian (28%), and Hispanic or Latino (11%), with the highest degrees being Bachelor’s (49%) or Advanced (46%). The sample included primarily architects and interior designers but also involved project managers, visualization specialists, principals, and owners. Most came from small to mid-sized AEC firms, with about one-fifth working in enterprises. Design projects adopting AR, VR, and MR were in commercial, residential, and mixed-use sectors, with averaged budgets between $100,000 and $100 million. Tables 1 and 2 provide a detailed breakdown of the sample characteristics.

Table 1.

Geographical distributions and firm sizes of the sample.

United States ( $n = 35$ )	Count	Abroad ( $n = 24$ )	Count	Firm size ( $n = 59$ )	Count
California	1	Australia	1	1 to 9 employees	15
Colorado	1	Denmark	1	10 to 49 employees	17
District of Columbia	2	Ecuador	1	50 to 250 employees	9
Florida	2	France	1	251 to 500 employees	7
Georgia	6	Germany	1	501 to 1000 employees	4
Illinois	3	India	2	More than 1000 employees	7
Iowa	1	Iran	1
Kentucky	1	Italy	1
Michigan	1	Lebanon	3
Minnesota	5	Mexico	2
Missouri	1	Poland	1
New Mexico	1	Saudi Arabia	2
New York	1	Singapore	2
North Carolina	1	Turkey	1
Ohio	2	Vietnam	4
Pennsylvania	2
Tennessee	1
Texas	1
Virginia	1
Washington	1

Table 2.

Industry sectors and project sizes of the sample.

Industry sector	Percentage (%)	Project size	Percentage (%)
Commercial	25	Less than $100,000	7
Government	6	$100,000 to $1 million	19
Healthcare	7	$1 to $5 million	17
Hospitality	10	$5 to $10 million	14
Institutional/Education	12	$10 to $50 million	13
Mixed-use	16	$50 to $100 million	13
Residential	18	More than $100 million	9
Transportation	4	Other	2
Other	2	Not sure	6

AEC professionals in the sample had extensive knowledge of AR, VR, and MR (59% knew the technologies “very well” and “extremely well”), with 50% having over a decade of experience designing the built environment (Figure 4). Most were fluent in using BIM tools, with the popular ones being Revit, SketchUp, and 3Dsmax. Although the latter two are not specifically BIM tools, professionals use them to create detailed and complex models of buildings and exteriors. Integrations like Trimble FieldLink for SketchUp—bringing topography data to building models⁶⁹ and Exposure modules for 3Dsmax—simulating daylight with physical-based accuracy,⁷⁰ arguably making them the extended BIM family.

Figure 4.

The distribution by responses of BIM software for AR, VR, and MR.

In-depth interviews

The three AEC experts in AR, VR, and MR came from the United Kingdom, the European Union, and the United States, being a computational architect at a large enterprise (P1) and two owners of independent firms (P2, P3), respectively. All interviewees are well-versed in AR, VR, and MR and actively use these technologies in their work, though with different applications. Reported implementations included explaining complex spatial designs to clients (P1), designing interactive exhibitions blending digital and physical spaces (P2), and offering digital twin and virtual production services for urban planning and real estate developments (P3). Unlike the questionnaire results, AR, VR, and MR adoption in the interviewees’ firms has reached the (V) confirmation stage, with divergent decisions. P1 and P3 uphold AR, VR, and MR adoption due to ongoing demand and positive experiences with the technologies. However, P2 has pivoted towards adopting Artificial Intelligence (AI), seeking to maintain a cutting-edge position in the AEC industry. Insights from the interviews and the questionnaire responses showed that while AR, VR, and MR are integral parts of the AEC industry, their adoption rates and stages vary among firms, indicating an ongoing process.

RQ 2: What are the prerequisites for AR, VR, and MR adoption in designing the built environment?

Qualtrics questionnaire

AR, VR, and MR adoption in the AEC industry requires hardware and software infrastructure, which vary in compatibility with existing workflow at each firm. Hardware means new acquisitions of HMDs, while software involves transitions from familiar BIM tools to virtual applications. Prominent software bridging BIM to AR, VR, and MR included Enscape, Twinmotion, Unreal Engine, and Unity, ranging from 28% to 11% (as in Figure 5). Responses emphasized VR and MR software such as Enscape and Twinmotion over AR software like Spark AR and Adobe Aero. Fuzor, a software noted in existing literature,⁴ only scored 1%. While such software aligns with existing BIM tools (e.g., Revit, 3Ds max), further training is vital for those working directly with AR, VR, and MR.¹⁶ Dedicated staff for AR, VR, and MR adoption also varied across firms, with the majority having 1 to 3 employees (40%) and 3 to 6 employees (13.3%). Fewer responses indicated larger teams with 10 to 25 employees (9%) and more (9%). As increased usage and familiarity with these technologies typically lead to a favorable (III) decision stage, firms with more employees working on AR, VR, and MR are generally more adept at integrating these technologies into their existing workflow.

Figure 5.

The distribution by responses of software for translating BIM to AR, VR, and MR.

Regarding hardware, questionnaire responses showcased a full spectrum of HDMs from early developments (e.g., Google Cardboard) to sophisticated advancements (e.g., Microsoft HoloLens 2). Besides frequently-cited devices in existing literature⁴² like HTC Vive and Meta/Oculus Quest 2, the questionnaire indicated a prevalence of older and less known systems, for example, Oculus Rift/Rift S, Magic Leap, Valve Index, Acer VR, Samsung Gear VR, and Google Glass (as seen in Figure 6). While the author included the state-of-the-art Varjo in the questionnaire, no AEC professionals reported having this device at their firms. On such infrastructure, responses identified 14 main AR, VR, and MR implementations: 3D modeling and visualization were most prevalent (23%), followed by design presentations to stakeholders (18%), communication and trade coordination (12%), and utility evaluation and error detection in BIM models (10%). Table 3 outlined other implementations found in the questionnaire. Although existing literature underscored collaboration as a prospective AR, VR, and MR implementation,^46,47,58,59 no AEC professionals in the sample reported this adoption at their firms. As found in this study, AR, VR, and MR mostly facilitated design visualization and communication.

Figure 6.

The distribution by responses of hardware for AR, VR, and MR.

Table 3.

AR, VR, and MR implementations by questionnaire responses (chose all that apply).

AR, VR, and MR implementations	Percentage (%)
3D models and visualization	23
Presenting designs to stakeholders for a better understanding	18
Communication/visualization and trade coordination	12
Visualize BIM designs to evaluate their utility and detect assembly issues	10
Remote design review/problem-solving	7
Design and construction education	7
BIM-based cost estimation	6
Energy simulations and lighting analysis	4
Site survey	3
Restoration	3
Energy management	2
Construction monitor	3
Facility management purposes	1
Safety training	1
Other	1
Collaboration (e.g., multi-users, different stakeholders)	0
None of these	0

In-depth interviews

Findings emphasized five key nuances in adopting AR, VR, and MR into existing workflow at AEC firms⁶⁸: infrastructure, alignment with existing goals, team specialty, optimization, and stakeholder engagement. All interviewees agreed that a solid infrastructure of both hardware and software is fundamental to AR, VR, and MR adoption. However, they noted that this foundational aspect varies from one firm to another and from project to project. For instance:

P1 deemed robust hardware (for tethered HDMs) indispensable, “hardware will be a quite powerful computer, right? So, like a very good Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), very good.” Their firm acquired multiple devices for different projects but predominantly high-end HDMs like Microsoft HoloLens and HTC Vive (as questionnaire responses reflected in Figure 6). The interviewee also named Grasshopper for Rhino and Iris VR as software to support these technologies (besides what noted in the questionnaire responses in Figure 5). Such infrastructure befitted their projects, primarily large BIM models of parametric building designs.

In contrast, P2 held a flexible view of infrastructure, “I think infrastructure is overrated… actually you know, be nimble enough… these kinds of things are very difficult to maintain...” This interviewee said specific projects worked well with stand-alone HMDs, such as Oculus Quest, whereas others required more complex, tethered devices. Further, the rapid development of HMDs and the substantial overhead costs for such infrastructure raised notable concerns from a business standpoint. Hence, P2 prioritized flexibility over the challenges of maintaining a permanent infrastructure (e.g., storing and setting up devices). P3 reported a similar approach by offloading the hardware infrastructure to clients or business partners. Instead, the interviewee deemed software such as the Environmental Systems Research Institute’s (ESRI) mapping platform and Unreal Engine (as shown in Figure 5) fundamental to their projects, varying from virtual productions to urban designs. Overall, decisions on AR, VR, and MR infrastructure align with firms’ existing goals.

Virtual technologies introduce a learning curve to AEC firms, so having a specialty team is vital. Like the questionnaire results, the interviewees noted a team of two to five people frequently working with AR, VR, and MR. Nevertheless, their team structures varied, from having a team tackle the whole project to assigning each member a specialized role. P2 and P3 also commented that, instead of maintaining a dedicated team, hiring external specialists to meet specific project needs reduces overhead costs. Regardless, all interviewees conveyed positive perceptions about these technologies. As P1 noted, AR, VR, and MR offer designers an unparalleled immersion into their designs with real-world simulations (e.g., lighting changes throughout the day). Such capacity is quintessential to their large-scale and high-cost projects. According to P2, “Without it [virtual technologies], my business would not exist,” emphasizing the firm’s focus on transient experiences between physical and digital spaces. P3 confirmed these technologies’ revolutionary efficiency: “It allows you to have complete control over your environment. Whereas traditionally, you would have to go through a bunch of different logistics,” thus leading to “more creative expressions.”

All interviewees shared a pattern of using AR, VR, and MR to engage stakeholders. As P1 accentuated, since the COVID-19 pandemic, their firm hosted virtual design review meetings to foster collaboration in an MR environment. P2 and P3 highlighted that getting feedback from “the clients and anyone they bring in on the experience” for the designs with virtual technologies is “extremely critical.” Lastly, the interviewees concluded three critical optimizations of integrating AR, VR, and MR into the design workflow: model, lighting, and interaction. As P2 summarized, these optimizations affect “a smooth (virtual) experience… latency means that people get sick.” While detailed models, real-time lighting, and physical interactions are vital for realistic and immersive environments, such heavy-loaded digital content means low FPS or delayed experiences resulting in nausea. Depending on the existing expertise and workflow in their firms, each interviewee tackles the three aspects differently. P1 utilizes software like Grasshopper and Nvidia Omniverse to streamline models and optimize lighting. P2 works with Unity, and P3 conducts the process in Unreal Engine. Whether the firms obtain digital content from third parties or create from scratch also affects the time and resources for streamlining and optimization. Likewise, interactions like switching design options, controlling lighting choices, and simulating physical activities lengthen the process. In short, additional resources, such as time and expertise, are inevitable when integrating AR, VR, and MR into the design workflow at their firms.

RQ3: What are the perceived benefits and limitations of AR, VR, and MR adoption in designing the built environment?

Qualtrics questionnaire

Responses explained the complexity and observability of AR, VR, and MR across the (IV) implementation and (V) confirmation stages of the DOI process. Participants who observed benefits of these technologies validated their choices, whereas those noting limitations reconsidered their adoption. For AR, advantages ranged from design visualization (14%), error detection (13%) to project marketing improvement (11%) and customer engagement (10%). However, limitations included cloud storage size constraints (25%), misalignments between the digital models and real contexts (24%), inadequacies in tracking 2-D drawings (11%), along with issues in texture display, field of view (FOV), and limited mobile computing power.

For VR, key advantages were showing accurate scales and sizes, offering multiple design options, and increasing client satisfaction (15% to 12% of responses). Additional values involved accelerating design decisions, testing feasibility, visualizing architectural drawings, and reducing design changes (12% to 6% of responses). However, limitations stemmed from hardware logistics, including time-consuming setup and mobility constraints (31%), movement restrictions with tethered devices (25%), and complex setup procedures (15%). For MR, benefits highlighted design walkthroughs, dynamic virtual object displays in physical spaces, and free-range activities (14% to 9% of responses). Hardware advancements reduced motion sickness and introduced wireless HDMs (7% to 5% of responses). Challenges of MR remained with limited FOV, poor device fit for specific users (e.g., hard hat wearers), and rapidly evolving hardware leading to high infrastructure costs (19% to 10% of responses).

Despite limitations outweighing the benefits in the responses (see Table 4 for breakdown percentages), the evolving nature of AR, VR, and MR suggests a potential future shift in this balance. Most of the questionnaire sample (87%) predicted that AR, VR, and MR adoption in their firms would accelerate within a decade. They cited the advantages of these technologies in support of such statements, such as enhanced marketing, client engagement, design optimization, and faster decision-making. A note that summarized this trend is, “I strongly believe it [virtual technology] will become more useful and integrated within the design community. […] VR alone could allow the industry to make better connections between the design and the client with a realistic sense of the space(s).” Precautions for adopting these technologies were prolonged workflow (i.e., extensive time to make revisions), complex setup procedures, training and infrastructure costs. The pandemic also posed a negative impact on AR, VR, and MR adoption. As one response pointed out, “COVID has really set us back, though. […] We still aren’t back to where we were before the pandemic in terms of immersive technology.” As the AEC industry continues to adopt these technologies, having a pragmatic understanding of their challenges is crucial to harnessing their full potential and guiding future applications.

Table 4.

AR, VR, and MR benefits and limitations by questionnaire responses (highest percentages only).

Technology	Benefits	Percentage (%)	Limitations	Percentage (%)
AR	Enables knowledgeable stakeholders to assess design ideas virtually and analyze data in a new format	14	File size limitation when uploading the AR model to the cloud	25
	Allows earlier detection of design flaws	12	Accuracy of digital model (proposed design) overlapping with reality (as-built condition)	24
	Facilitates better marketing of the construction projects	11	Aligns the virtual 3D model and the tracker image/drawing	11
VR	Shows scale and size accurately	15	Requires additional time for the setup of sensors and lacks mobility	31
	Allows the client to experience multiple options before making final selections	14	Constrains movement in the VR environment because of connection wires	25
	Creates higher client satisfaction	12	Requires users to do complex procedures	15
MR	Provides walkthrough of designs	14	There is a limited field of view (FOV) from most MR headsets	19
	Displays virtual objects everywhere in physical spaces	12	Most of the MR headsets do not fit well when users wear a construction hardhat	14
	Allows users unlimited physical activities	9	The hardware landscape is changing rapidly	10

In-depth interviews

AR, VR, and MR benefits and limitations found in the interviews are synonymous with the questionnaire results, with further insights on future adoption of these technologies in the AEC industry. Overall, interviewees cited immersive design experience and client satisfaction as benefits of these technologies. Reported positive feedback from clients regarding AR, VR, and MR implementations were “everyone enjoys [it],” “always very positive,” and “It’s great, it’s awesome. We love it.” P1 even noted:

“A complex geometry… it's a little bit hard to convey the ideas because architects do most of the communication just based on static images… [clients] want to know more about the invocation of that design in terms of the returned value. So, you know, when you introduce something slightly more complicated, more complex, then obviously, the budget will be higher. [Clients] They want, they need to understand what that really means in terms of the value to buy these different processes.”

Likewise, the interviewees held the fast-changing hardware landscape, setup time, and complex procedures as limitations as P2 clearly stated:

“If you have a high-end [virtual] experience, with a lot of detail, with a lot lighting and effects [that] you need, most of the time VR headset is tethered to a computer… that somebody needs to be there and set it up. And that’s already getting kind of difficult because most of the time, you need the entire company to support it. There are a lot of potential things going wrong, [clients] they put on the headset, and they don't know what to do because there's a controller with a lot of buttons, and they have no idea what to do. And then after they do get it working, then the problem is like, that’s great for some and not for others, like, oh, I get nauseous…”

Afterall, P3 commented that the interactions within the virtual environments make AR, VR, and MR not just exciting but meaningful technologies for the AEC industry, “what is it that you're wanting the people to do in this [virtual] space?... The audience is always the most crucial component for what you're trying to do.” Thus, AR, VR, and MR implementations in designing the built environment are ongoing “and it's going to become much more commonplace as the years go on.”

Discussion

The findings of this study yield two practical considerations for AR, VR, and MR adoption, particularly in small and mid-sized AEC firms (as summarized in Figure 7). The first one denotes the rapidly changing landscape of hardware. While technological advancements such as high-resolution HDMs^45,54 and real-time interactive applications^51,59 enhance realism and immersion, they come with significant trade-offs. These include costly investments in device maintenance and upgrades, as well as extensive training for employees to execute AR, VR, and MR implementations. Consequently, questionnaire responses (particularly from small and mid-sized AEC firms) in this study revealed trials of these technologies using lower-end HMDs with cited challenges in accessing the latest, more advanced devices. Questionnaire participants were familiar with both foundational (e.g., Oculus Rift, Meta/Oculus Quest) and advanced HMDs (e.g., HTC Vive, Microsoft HoloLens, Magic Leap), favoring tethered devices (52%) over stand-alone options (32%) for better virtual experience. Nevertheless, most reported using Meta/Oculus Quest 2 and its previous version, Oculus Rift/Rift S (48%).

Figure 7.

Two practical considerations for AR, VR, and MR adoption, particularly in small and mid-sized AEC firms.

Notably, Oculus Rift/Rift S, launched in 2016, has since been discontinued. Compared to its tethered counterparts, this device featured a lower pixel density pixels per inch of 386 ppi and a narrower FOV at 79°. In contrast, HTC Vive boasts a resolution of 448 ppi and a FOV at 85.6°.⁷¹ Yet Oculus Rift/Rift S triumphs in cost versus efficiency.⁷² Oculus Rift S, Valve Index, and HTC Vive Pro come at $399.00, $999.00, and $1,399.00, respectively. However, Oculus Rift S has built-in tracking technology necessary for positioning user movements into the virtual environment, whereas Valve Index and HTC Vive Pro require external tracking devices, increasing cost and space to operate.⁷² Further, the built-in tracking of Oculus Rift/Rift S is comparable to the high-end OptiTrack motion capture system for room-scale virtual environments. Moreover, Oculus Rift/Rift S is compatible with numerous virtual software applications like Unity and Steam VR.⁷³ Hence, this device is a practical choice for small and mid-sized AEC firms in adopting AR, VR, and MR. The problem of latency⁷⁴ persisting from early developments to recent advancements of HMDs also raises questions on the value of investing in newer devices.

Nonetheless, the second pragmatic consideration indicates that low-end devices are less likely to catch up when software applications evolve. For instance, software for VR and MR collaborations with multi-user interactions needs high-end systems and devices to operate.^46,55,60 Likewise, the in-depth interviews underscored this point, with P1 emphasizing that robust GPUs and HMDs are crucial hardware for advanced software capabilities, such as mixed-reality design reviews with clients. P2 highlighted that even for standard applications like 3D visualization and single-user interaction, challenges like extended setup times, limited mobility, and intricate software protocols are common, particularly with lower-end and tethered HMDs. Above all, MR incurs additional expenses and demands intensive training for employees due to the swift advancement of its technology. As echoed by the questionnaire responses, the initial investment in equipment and employee training for such “novelty” was “too high for smaller businesses,” the majority in the AEC industry.

Conclusion

This study’s pragmatic exploration of AR, VR, and MR adoption in the AEC industry aligns with the existing research literature on professionals’ proficiency with the technologies. Even so, its findings questioned the literature’s extrapolated suggestions for real-world applications, raising awareness of pragmatic considerations in software and hardware capacities of individual AEC firms (as summarized in Figure 8). The questionnaire responses reflect such observations, first in parts that showcased sufficient (I) knowledge, positive (II) persuasion, and favorable (III) decision on AR, VR, and MR adoption. Then, in the mixed opinions on these technologies’ (IV) implementation and (V) confirmation, implying the saturated adoption in some AEC firms and the lagged status in others. The in-depth interviews shed light on AR, VR, and MR’s complexity that impeded their adoption with demanding hardware infrastructure and specialty teams that execute software implementations within the existing workflow.

Figure 8.

The key takeaways for the practical adoption of AR, VR, and MR in the AEC industry through the lens of Diffusion of Innovations Theory (DOI).

Since this study primarily consisted of small to mid-sized AEC firms (i.e., one to 250 employees), constrained resources regarding hardware infrastructure and software specialty for AR, VR, and MR are plausible. P2 and P3, as proprietors of their firms, even underlined the necessity of outsourcing hardware infrastructure and engaging external specialists for diverse project requirements. This strategic approach mitigates overhead costs and optimizes efficiency. Hence, there is no one-size-fit-all adoption of AR, VR, and MR for different AEC firms. Instead, the DOI rate differs depending on the nature of the firm’s scale, project type, and available budget for such technologies. Thus, the key takeaways from this study for an effective adoption of AR, VR, and MR include developing flexible infrastructures through outsourcing or specialist collaboration, optimizing equipment for project needs, and reducing new device expenses. It is crucial to balance performance and mobility in systems selection, with an awareness regarding the limitations of cost-effective tethered devices. Utilizing streamlined software such as Omniverse, a universal platform compatible with standard BIM applications, is crucial to simplify digital content creation and interactive lighting in virtual experiences. This approach not only optimizes the workload but also ensures high-quality outcomes. After all, the complexity of a technology determines its adoption, as outlined in DOI.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The author thanks Daniel Stine, Director of Design Technology at Lake|Flato Architects, Erin Schambureck, Partner, Senior Interior Designer at CRW architecture + design group, Inc, Ping-Hsiang Chen, Lead Creative Design Architect at Dar Al-Handasah, Rudolf Romero, Founder of Metaverse 01X, Rob Sloan, Co-Founder of Orbis Tabula for their advice and all the professionals who participated in this study.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Khanh Hoa Thi Vo

References

Eloy

Kreutzberg

Symeonidou

. Virtual aesthetics in architecture: designing in mixed realities. London, UK: Routledge, 2021.

Fukuda

Novak

Fujii

, et al. Virtual reality rendering methods for training deep learning, analysing landscapes, and preventing virtual reality sickness. Int J Architect Comput 2021; 19: 190–207.

Hosseini

Alim

Oehlberg

, et al. Optically illusive architecture (OIA): introduction and evaluation using virtual reality. Int J Architect Comput 2021; 19: 291–314.

McIntosh

Marques

Harkness

. Simulating impairment through virtual reality. Int J Architect Comput 2020; 18: 284–295.

Zhang

Piumsomboon

Dong

, et al. Exploring spatial scale perception in immersive virtual reality for risk assessment in interior design. Extended abstracts of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York: Verlagsort, 2020, pp. 1–8.

Rihani

. Interactive immersive experience: digital technologies for reconstruction and experiencing temple of Bel using crowdsourced images and 3D photogrammetric processes. Int J Architect Comput. 2023; 21(4): 147807712311682.

Noghabaei

Heydarian

Balali

, et al. Trend analysis on adoption of virtual and augmented reality in the architecture, engineering, and construction industry. Data 2020; 5: 26.

Jalo

Pirkkalainen

Torro

, et al. Enabling factors of social virtual reality diffusion in organizations. Atlanta, GA: Association for Information Systems, 2020.

Jalo

Pirkkalainen

Torro

, et al. Extended reality technologies in small and medium-sized European industrial companies: level of awareness, diffusion and enablers of adoption. Virtual Real 2022; 26: 1745–1761.

10.

Noghabaei

Heydarian

Balali

, et al. A survey study to understand industry vision for virtual and augmented reality applications in design and construction. arXiv preprint arXiv:200502795 2020.

11.

Davila Delgado

Oyedele

Beach

, et al. Augmented and virtual reality in construction: drivers and limitations for industry adoption. J Construct Eng Manag 2020; 146: 04020079.

12.

Jalo

Pirkkalainen

Torro

. The state of augmented reality, mixed reality and virtual reality adoption and use in European small and medium-sized manufacturing companies in 2020. In: VAM realities survey report, 2021. https://vam-realities.eu/wp-content/uploads/VAM-Realities_Survey-Report.pdf

13.

Rogers

. Diffusion of innovations. 5 ed. New York: Free Press, 2003.

14.

Maali

Kepple

Lines

. Strategies to achieve high adoption of organizational change initiatives within the AEC industry. J Manag Eng 2022; 38: 04022021.

15.

Merschbrock

Munkvold

. Effective digital collaboration in the construction industry–A case study of BIM deployment in a hospital construction project. Comput Ind 2015; 73: 1–7.

16.

Davila Delgado

Oyedele

Demian

, et al. A research agenda for augmented and virtual reality in architecture, engineering and construction. Adv Eng Inf 2020; 45: 101122.

17.

Vagnani

Volpe

. Innovation attributes and managers' decisions about the adoption of innovations in organizations: a meta-analytical review. International Journal of Innovation Studies 2017; 1: 107–133.

18.

Maroufkhani

Iranmanesh

Ghobakhloo

. Determinants of big data analytics adoption in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Ind Manag Data Syst 2023; 123: 278–301.

19.

Sahin

. Detailed review of Rogers' diffusion of innovations theory and educational technology-related studies based on Rogers' theory. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology-TOJET 2006; 5: 14–23.

20.

Acikgoz

Elwalda

De Oliveira

. Curiosity on cutting-edge technology via theory of planned behavior and diffusion of innovation theory. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights 2023; 3: 100152.

21.

Milgram

Kishino

. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IEICE Trans Info Syst 1994; 77: 1321–1329.

22.

Curtis

Mizell

Gruenbaum

, et al. Several devils in the details: making an AR application work in the airplane factory. In: Behringer

Klinker

Mizell

(eds). Augmented reality: placing artificial objects in real scenes. 1 ed. London: Routledge, 1999, pp. 47–60.

23.

Seichter

. Augmented reality aided design. Int J Architect Comput 2003; 1: 449–460.

24.

Broll

Meier

Schardt

. The virtual round table-a collaborative augmented multi-user environment. Proceedings of the third international conference on Collaborative virtual environments, Lecce, Italy, 7 September 2020.

25.

Höllerer

Feiner

Terauchi

, et al. Exploring MARS: developing indoor and outdoor user interfaces to a mobile augmented reality system. Comput Graph 1999; 23: 779–785.

26.

Wagner

Schmalstieg

. First steps towards handheld augmented reality. Seventh IEEE international symposium on wearable computers, 2003 proceedings. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE Computer Society, 2003, p. 127.

27.

Nincarean

Alia

Halim

NDA

, et al. Mobile augmented reality: the potential for education. Procedia-social and behavioral sciences 2013; 103: 657–664.

28.

Laato

Pietarinen

Rauti

, et al. Analysis of the quality of points of interest in the most popular location-based games. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies, Ruse Bulgaria, 21 June 2019.

29.

Wang

. Augmented reality in architecture and design: potentials and challenges for application. Int J Architect Comput 2009; 7: 309–326.

30.

Chen

Xue

. The renaissance of augmented reality in construction: history, present status and future directions. Smart and sustainable built environment. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, 2020.

31.

Tonn

Petzold

Bimber

, et al. Spatial augmented reality for architecture—designing and planning with and within existing buildings. Int J Architect Comput 2008; 6: 41–58.

32.

Pedersen

Neythalath

Hesslink

, et al. Augmented drawn construction symbols: a method for ad hoc robotic fabrication. Int J Architect Comput 2020; 18: 254–269.

33.

Rasmussen

Merritt

. ProjecTables: augmented CNC tools for sustainable creative practices. Int J Architect Comput 2018; 16: 227–242.

34.

Izkara

Basogain

Borro

. Wearable personal assistants for the management of historical centers. Int J Architect Comput 2009; 7: 139–156.

35.

Salim

Burry

Peers

, et al. Augmented spatiality. Int J Architect Comput 2012; 10: 275–299.

36.

Alves

Luís Reis

. The intention to use E-commerce using augmented reality-the case of IKEA place. International conference on information technology & systems. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2020, pp. 114–123.

37.

Slater

Wilbur

. A framework for immersive virtual environments (FIVE): speculations on the role of presence in virtual environments. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ 1997; 6: 603–616.

38.

Mazuryk

Gervautz

. Virtual reality-history. In: Applications, technology and future. Oakdale, Pennsylvania: PTC, 1996.

39.

Otto

Kalisperis

Gundrum

, et al. The VR-desktop: an accessible approach to VR environments in teaching and research. Int J Architect Comput 2003; 1: 233–246.

40.

Miltiadis

. Project anywhere: an interface for virtual architecture. Int J Architect Comput 2016; 14: 386–397.

41.

Walczak

. Modelling behaviour of configurable VR applications. Int J Architect Comput 2009; 7: 77–103.

42.

Boas

. Overview of virtual reality technologies. Interactive multimedia Conference, New York, NY, 19 July 2013.

43.

Radianti

Majchrzak

Fromm

, et al. A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Comput Educ 2020; 147: 103778.

44.

Quintana

Rodríguez

Boada

. Authoring tools for procedural modeling of virtual reality-based rehabilitation exercises. IEEE Access 2022; 10: 131567–131578.

45.

Zhao

Kim

Beams

, et al. Spatiotemporal image quality of virtual reality head mounted displays. Sci Rep 2022; 12: 20235.

46.

Syamimi

Gong

Liew

. VR industrial applications―A singapore perspective. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware 2020; 2: 409–420.

47.

Bueno

Pereira

Fabricio

. Early design BIM-based Target Value Design for public facilities: an application to a healthcare facility case. Int J Architect Comput. 2023; 14780771231205001.

48.

Sihi

. Home sweet virtual home: the use of virtual and augmented reality technologies in high involvement purchase decisions. J Res Indian Med 2018; 12(4).

49.

Moloney

Dave

. From abstraction to being there: mixed reality at the early stages of design. Int J Architect Comput 2011; 9: 1–16.

50.

Speicher

Hall

Nebeling

. What is mixed reality? Proceedings of the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Glasgow, UK, 4 May 2019.

51.

Alizadehsalehi

Hadavi

Huang

. From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry. Autom ConStruct 2020; 116: 103254.

52.

Poustinchi

. Subtractive digital fabrication with actual robot and virtual material using a MARI platform. Int J Architect Comput 2018; 16: 281–294.

53.

White

Petridis

Liarokapis

, et al. Multimodal mixed reality interfaces for visualizing digital heritage. Int J Architect Comput 2007; 5: 321–337.

54.

Peuhkurinen

Mikkonen

. Real-time human eye resolution ray tracing in mixed reality. Proceedings of the 16th international joint conference on computer vision, imaging and computer graphics theory and applications-GRAPP 2021. Setúbal, Portugal: SCITEPRESS Science And Technology Publications, 2021.

55.

Ladwig

Geiger

. A literature review on collaboration in mixed reality. International conference on remote engineering and virtual instrumentation. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2018, pp. 591–600.

56.

Tecchia

Alem

Huang

. 3D helping hands: a gesture based MR system for remote collaboration. Proceedings of the 11th ACM SIGGRAPH international conference on virtual-reality continuum and its applications in industry. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery, 2012, pp. 323–328.

57.

Sodhi

Jones

Forsyth

, et al. BeThere: 3D mobile collaboration with spatial input. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. New York, NY: ACM, 2013: 179–188.

58.

Dunston

Wang

. A hierarchical taxonomy of AEC operations for mixed reality applications. J Inf Technol Construct 2011; 16: 433–444.

59.

Holzwarth

Steiner

Schneider

, et al. Bim-enabled issue and progress tracking services using mixed reality. In: Smart services summit. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2021, pp. 49–58.

60.

Raimbaud

Merienne

Figueroa

, et al. BIM-based mixed reality environments to improve AEC task performance. 2nd workshop CATAÏ smartdata for citizen wellness, Bogota, 23 October 2019.

61.

Creswell

Clark

VLP

. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. London, UK: Sage publications, 2017.

62.

Frankfort-Nachmias

Nachmias

DeWaard

. Research methods in the social sciences. Eighth edi ed. New York, NY: Worth Publishers, 2015. a Macmillan Education Company.

63.

Manzoor

Othman

Pomares

. Digital technologies in the architecture, engineering and construction (Aec) industry—a bibliometric—qualitative literature review of research activities. Int J Environ Res Publ Health 2021; 18: 6135.

64.

Rocha

Mateus

. A survey of scan-to-BIM practices in the AEC industry—a quantitative analysis. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 2021; 10: 564.

65.

Wang

Zhang

Billinghurst

, et al. A comprehensive survey of AR/MR-based co-design in manufacturing. Eng Comput 2020; 36: 1715–1738.

66.

Ltd QSRIP. NVivo (Version 12). Australia: Doncaster, 2018.

67.

Sacks

Radosavljevic

Barak

. Requirements for building information modeling based lean production management systems for construction. Autom ConStruct 2010; 19: 641–655.

68.

Pratama

Dossick

. Workflow in virtual reality tool development for AEC industry. advances in informatics and computing in civil and construction engineering: proceedings of the 35th CIB W78 2018 conference: IT in design, construction, and management. Berlin, Germany: Springer, 2019, pp. 297–306.

69.

Park

. Application of building information modeling solution in the construction management. Proceedings of international workshop architecture and civil engineering, Guangzhou, China, 28-29 November 2015.

70.

Kota

Haberl

Clayton

, et al. Building Information Modeling (BIM)-based daylighting simulation and analysis. Energy Build 2014; 81: 391–403.

71.

Lynn

Luo

Tomasi

, et al. Measuring virtual reality headset resolution and field of view: implications for vision care applications. Optom Vis Sci 2020; 97: 573–582.

72.

Sams

Leither

. Toward new creative services: a case study in building a virtual reality classroom in an academic library. Coll Undergrad Libr 2021; 27: 227–244.

73.

Monica

Aleotti

. Evaluation of the Oculus Rift S tracking system in room scale virtual reality. Virtual Real 2022; 26: 1335–1345.

74.

Malkawi

Srinivasan

. Interfacing with the real space and its performance. Int J Architect Comput 2005; 3: 43–56.