Theoretical Training: Limited Incremental Value from Immersion
The XRisis Pilot 1 evaluation revealed that immersive virtual reality provides minimal incremental training value for theoretical knowledge transfer compared to conventional digital learning delivery. Participants experienced an arrival briefing conducted by Mentor Maud, an AI-powered avatar built on CEA's Conversational Virtual Agent platform, explaining emergency management concepts including disaster classification, emergency management cycle phases, and organisational coordination mechanisms whilst navigating through themed virtual environments representing different crisis types. Despite technically successful implementation of real-time AI dialogue capabilities and visually appropriate environmental design, participants rated this component at only 3.2 out of 5 for added value to emergency management competency development, the lowest score across all five evaluated components. Debrief conversations with participants and facilitators consistently identified that the virtual environment created unnecessary cognitive load when the primary learning task involved absorbing conceptual information, with several participants noting that removing their VR headsets to take notes or refer to reference materials disrupted learning flow rather than enhancing it. The elaborate 3D spaces designed to illustrate different disaster types (flooding landscapes, drought-affected regions, conflict zones) functioned more as distractions than learning aids, with participants reporting that they paid less attention to AI mentor explanations whilst visually processing complex environmental details, exactly opposite the intended pedagogical effect. Participants with prior experience in Action Contre la Faim's Cross Knowledge e-learning modules specifically compared the VR arrival briefing unfavourably to conventional approaches, noting that text-based modules with embedded videos and interactive quizzes enabled self-paced learning, easy backtracking to review complex concepts, and ability to complete sections during fragmented time periods (perhaps twenty minutes during a commute or lunch break) whereas the VR experience demanded continuous attention blocks and provided no obvious mechanism for reviewing material without restarting entire sequences. The finding emerged consistently across both participant teams despite different demographic profiles and prior VR experience levels, suggesting genuine pedagogical limitation rather than temporary adaptation challenge that would resolve with greater familiarity. Facilitators observed that participants exhibited visible discomfort during extended passive listening in VR environments, with body language indicating fatigue and disengagement that conventional screen-based learning did not trigger even during equivalent duration knowledge transfer sessions. The conclusion proved strategically important for platform development: organisations should deliver theoretical emergency management training through existing proven modalities (e-learning platforms, instructor-led sessions, documentation) rather than investing development resources in immersive alternatives that demonstrate technical sophistication without proportional learning outcome improvements. This lesson challenges common assumptions in XR training advocacy that immersion universally enhances learning: whilst spatial presence and embodiment provide value for certain learning objectives, they introduce friction for others, requiring evidence-based assessment of when immersion helps versus when it hinders rather than blanket adoption of XR for all training requirements. The validation evidence supports separating training delivery into distinct categories: knowledge acquisition (served well by conventional digital modalities), knowledge application in structured contexts (potentially served by desktop-based interactive tools), and situated practice in complex social environments (where XR provides unique value), allocating technology investment proportional to incremental benefit for each category rather than pursuing technological uniformity across diverse pedagogical requirements.
Collaborative Planning: Moderate Value with Implementation Challenges
Pilot 2's collaborative Emergency Preparedness Response Plan design simulation demonstrated moderate training value (3.6 out of 5 rating) whilst revealing important insights about when virtual environments enhance versus complicate collaborative work. Teams of four participants worked together in a virtual coordination office environment, receiving injected information through simulated emails, news reports, and video calls with facilitators appearing as avatars via DFKI's Video Call Alternative Appearance system, analysing the evolving flooding crisis scenario and developing coordinated response strategies. The structured planning tool guiding teams through response strategy elements (affected population needs assessment, resource requirement estimation, coordination with other actors, timeline development) scored 3.4 out of 5 for added value, with participants appreciating the systematic approach whilst noting that similar tools could function equally well in conventional web applications without requiring VR environment navigation. The critical finding concerned collaborative dynamics when participants were physically co-located: sitting in the same physical room whilst attempting to collaborate through virtual avatars created awkward interaction patterns where participants defaulted to face-to-face conversation for actual decision-making whilst largely ignoring the virtual environment features intended to structure their collaboration, suggesting fundamental mismatch between deployment context and system design assumptions. Participants recommended that future collaborative simulation exercises should optimise either for fully remote participation (where virtual presence provides genuine benefit by enabling distributed teams to work together more effectively than videoconferencing alone) or for co-located teams using desktop interfaces that supplement in-person collaboration rather than mediating it through virtual presence. The moderate value ratings reflected this tension: when the virtual environment enabled capabilities impossible in conventional settings (for example, simultaneously visualising scenario maps, coordination plans, and resource allocation whilst maintaining voice communication) participants recognised clear value, but when virtual features simply replicated what teams could accomplish through conventional collaboration, the additional complexity of navigating virtual space diminished rather than enhanced effectiveness. Rainbow CPaaS integration proved technically successful, enabling seamless communication between participants regardless of endpoint device (desktop, VR headset, web browser) and supporting flexible transitions between individual work, small group discussions, and full team coordination, demonstrating that the communication infrastructure performed reliably even though the virtual environment design imperfectly matched deployment realities. Facilitators valued the desktop interface more than participants did, appreciating centralised views of multiple information streams, ability to trigger inject delivery at appropriate moments, and observation windows showing what each participant currently saw, suggesting that system value varies substantially based on user role even within the same exercise. The pilot validated that collaborative planning in virtual environments can work effectively but requires thoughtful design matching deployment context: distributed teams benefit from spatial collaboration affordances whilst co-located teams may achieve better outcomes through conventional face-to-face interaction augmented by digital tools rather than mediated by virtual presence. The lesson informs deployment strategy: organisations must assess their actual operational patterns (do emergency teams typically gather physically or work remotely?) before determining whether immersive collaborative capabilities justify investment compared to simpler alternatives that might serve their specific needs more effectively despite being less technically sophisticated.
Implementation Simulation: Maximum Value for Soft Skills Development
Pilot 3's implementation simulation exercises delivered the highest training value (4.2 out of 5 rating) by focusing immersive technology on situated practice of interpersonal skills in realistic stakeholder interaction scenarios. Individual participants entered role-specific virtual environments at day 14 of emergency response implementation, each confronting distinct challenges: negotiating access permissions with local government officials, coordinating distribution logistics with partner NGOs, addressing community leader concerns about response equity, or managing supply chain complications with procurement vendors. Participants engaged in extended conversations with AI-powered stakeholders created using CEA's Conversational Virtual Agent platform, with dialogue systems exhibiting realistic communication patterns including cultural indirectness, bureaucratic caution, emotional advocacy, and pragmatic problem-solving depending on stakeholder role and personality configuration. The simulation enabled practice of negotiation tactics, active listening, cultural sensitivity, relationship building, and adaptive communication (adjusting approach when initial strategies prove ineffective) in safe environments where mistakes generated learning opportunities rather than operational consequences, addressing a persistent gap in humanitarian training where soft skills receive acknowledgement as critical yet rarely get systematic development opportunities. Participants reported that conversations with AI stakeholders felt authentic enough to generate genuine emotional responses, experiencing frustration with bureaucratic obstacles, satisfaction when finding common ground, anxiety about whether they had damaged important relationships, and uncertainty about whether they had achieved optimal outcomes given the constraints they faced. This emotional engagement proved pedagogically valuable: when learners care about outcomes rather than merely completing assigned tasks, they invest cognitive and emotional resources that deepen learning and improve retention, creating the conditions for transformative rather than transactional educational experiences. The situated nature of scenarios, requiring participants to navigate organisational role expectations (acting as logistics coordinator, programme manager, or security focal point), stakeholder relationship dynamics, and operational constraints (limited budgets, tight timelines, infrastructure limitations), enabled practice of integrated decision-making that reflects actual emergency response complexity rather than artificial simplification that makes problems tractable for classroom discussion but fails to develop the adaptive expertise required for field deployment. Facilitators valued automated transcription and summarisation provided by Linagora's meeting summarisation agent, enabling evidence-based debrief conversations grounded in specific dialogue exchanges rather than relying on participant recollection or facilitator notes, substantially improving feedback quality and learning consolidation during post-exercise reflection. Speech recognition challenges emerged as the primary technical limitation, with AI conversation systems struggling to understand non-native English speakers (particularly those with strong regional accents) and occasionally misinterpreting domain-specific terminology, resulting in dialogue breakdowns that undermined immersion and required facilitator intervention to reset scenarios, highlighting the importance of continued AI capability development for reliable international deployment. Participants using desktop computers reported value nearly equivalent to those using VR headsets, indicating that conversational realism mattered more than stereoscopic immersion for soft skills practice scenarios, a finding with profound deployment implications since desktop compatibility eliminates requirements for expensive hardware investments and reduces logistical complexity of hardware distribution, maintenance, and user technical support. The validation evidence clearly demonstrates that implementation simulation represents the highest-value application area for humanitarian XR training platforms, justifying concentrated development investment in refining AI dialogue quality, expanding scenario libraries, improving facilitator observation tools, and enhancing post-exercise analytics whilst potentially deprioritising resources for other pilot components that delivered more modest value.
Decision Framework for XR Training Application
The differential validation results across three pilots enable construction of a practical decision framework for determining when extended reality technologies deliver sufficient value to justify deployment versus when conventional alternatives better serve training objectives. XR technologies provide maximum value when training objectives require situated practice of complex skills in realistic contexts where environmental dynamics, social interactions, and emotional dimensions fundamentally shape performance, particularly when real-world practice opportunities prove dangerous, expensive, logistically impractical, or ethically problematic. Soft skills development, crisis decision-making under pressure, cultural competency through interaction with diverse stakeholders, and spatial reasoning in complex environments represent strong candidates for XR deployment because these learning objectives inherently require contextual practice that conventional classroom instruction struggles to deliver effectively. Theoretical knowledge transfer, procedural memorisation, abstract concept comprehension, and structured planning processes represent weak candidates for XR deployment because these learning objectives can be achieved through conventional modalities with lower technical complexity, reduced cost, and often superior pedagogical affordances including easy reference review, self-paced progression, and ability to complete learning in fragmented time blocks. Collaborative activities benefit from XR delivery when participants work remotely and virtual presence enables coordination capabilities impossible through videoconferencing alone, but show limited value when participants are physically co-located and conventional face-to-face collaboration already provides rich interaction modalities that virtual mediation cannot improve. The decision framework requires assessing deployment context characteristics including participant geographic distribution (concentrated versus distributed), hardware availability (existing VR equipment versus requiring new procurement), technical support capability (in-house expertise versus requiring external assistance), user technical literacy (comfort with gaming interfaces versus preference for conventional applications), and budget constraints (available funding for training technology investment). Organisations should begin XR deployment with narrow, high-value applications where immersive capabilities provide clear incremental benefits rather than attempting comprehensive platforms addressing all training needs, enabling focused investment that demonstrates value before scaling deployment across additional use cases. The framework emphasises evidence-based decision-making: pilot testing with actual target users in realistic deployment contexts generates far more reliable value assessment than expert predictions or vendor demonstrations, justifying investment in small-scale validation before committing to enterprise-wide deployment. Cost-benefit analysis must incorporate both direct technology costs (hardware procurement, software licensing, content development) and indirect costs (user training, technical support, integration with existing systems, change management) whilst honestly assessing incremental learning outcome improvements compared to conventional alternatives rather than assuming immersion automatically enhances effectiveness. The framework acknowledges that appropriate applications for XR training will expand as technology matures, costs decrease, and user familiarity increases: capabilities that currently represent poor value propositions may become compelling in future years as technical limitations resolve and deployment barriers lower, requiring periodic reassessment rather than permanent decisions. The XRisis validation evidence demonstrates that thoughtful, selective application of XR to specific high-value training requirements delivers better outcomes than attempting to build comprehensive immersive platforms addressing all learning objectives, a lesson with substantial implications for organisations evaluating training technology investments and developers designing XR educational solutions.
Related
Related Portfolio Projects
