Customer Need and Value Proposition
Emergency response coordination requires distributed humanitarian teams positioned across country offices, regional hubs, and headquarters locations to rapidly analyse evolving crisis information, evaluate response options, and formulate coordinated action plans whilst maintaining situational awareness and role-based decision-making protocols aligned with organisational emergency preparedness frameworks. Conventional videoconferencing platforms enable remote communication but fail to support simultaneous document collaboration, spatial team awareness, or integrated information feeds replicating operational coordination environments where teams must synthesise diverse information sources whilst maintaining shared understanding of crisis dynamics and response strategy evolution. The XRisis Pilot 2 investigation explored whether shared virtual coordination office environments with integrated communication tools and collaborative strategy interfaces could minimise coordination overhead and communication barriers inherent in distributed emergency planning processes.
Operational Challenge Context
Action Contre la Faim's emergency response procedures require rapid establishment of Emergency Cells coordinating Country Directors, Programme Heads of Department, Support Heads of Department, and Programme Managers when crises emerge requiring organisational response activation. These teams must analyse impending shocks based on media reports, partner communications, and government assessments, determining whether to launch Multi-Sectorial Assessments, activate Rapid Emergency Action Teams, and develop initial response strategies addressing water, sanitation, food security, and shelter requirements whilst coordinating with government authorities and humanitarian cluster systems. Current coordination relies on videoconference meetings supplemented by email document sharing and separate collaborative editing tools, creating workflow friction where participants must switch between communication, information analysis, and strategy formulation interfaces whilst maintaining shared awareness of evolving team decisions and role-based contributions.
Technical Solution Architecture
Pilot 2 implemented four-person team collaboration within Unity-based Alaris headquarters coordination office, integrating Alcatel Lucent Enterprise Rainbow CPaaS for multi-modal communication, DFKI Video Call Alternative Appearance for avatar representation, CEA Conversational Virtual Agent for AI role-player interactions, and custom collaborative strategy tools for team-based response planning. Teams entered the virtual environment simultaneously assuming specific organisational roles (Country Director, Programme Head of Department, Support Head of Department, Programme Manager) aligned with actual emergency cell structures. The flooding emergency scenario in fictional Soffeta province provided simulated emails from local partners, news articles reporting casualty figures, and video calls from AI role-players representing remote Country Director and Emergency Response Unit personnel appearing through DFKI avatar system. Teams manipulated shared response strategy documents, activated emergency protocols through collaborative interfaces, and conducted team discussions through Rainbow CPaaS voice channels whilst maintaining spatial presence awareness within virtual coordination room.
Validation Methodology
Paris validation workshop (14 May 2025) organised 8 participants into two four-person teams, each completing the collaborative planning scenario with facilitator observation and post-session evaluation. Teams experienced approximately 35 minutes collaborative work analysing emergency information, establishing Emergency Cell protocols, and developing initial response strategies. Evaluation combined added value ratings for collaborative VR environment and interactive strategy tools (1-5 scale), System Usability Scale assessment, team coordination effectiveness observation, and qualitative debrief capturing participant perspectives on collaboration dynamics, tool usability, and comparative value versus conventional coordination approaches. Facilitators documented communication patterns, decision-making workflows, and technical challenges whilst Linagora summarisation generated automatic transcripts enabling post-workshop analysis of coordination effectiveness and interface friction points.
Quantified Outcomes and Metrics
Pilot 2 validation produced moderate added value ratings indicating qualified benefit dependent on team distribution context. Collaborative work in VR coordination office averaged 3.6 out of 5 (72% value perception) whilst interactive response strategy tool scored 3.4 out of 5 (68% value perception), both falling in moderate value range suggesting worthwhile capability without compelling advantage over enhanced conventional alternatives (XRisis Validation Report May 2025). Task completion metrics showed 78% successful coordination outcomes with teams establishing Emergency Cells and formulating initial response strategies, though requiring facilitator guidance during certain scenario phases indicating interface clarity needs improvement. System Usability Scale maintained 59% average consistent with Pilot 1, reinforcing usability refinement priorities whilst demonstrating acceptable operation for motivated professional users.
Strategic Insights and Lessons
Pilot 2 generated critical insight about collaboration modality optimization: virtual coordination environments provide maximum value for distributed teams requiring remote collaboration where spatial presence and integrated communication enhance coordination effectiveness, whilst co-located teams benefit more from conventional face-to-face interaction supplemented by desktop collaborative tools eliminating VR hardware overhead without sacrificing essential coordination capabilities. Participant feedback revealed co-located workshop setting created awkward dynamics where physical proximity enabled natural sidebar conversations conflicting with virtual environment social conventions, suggesting future implementations should optimize explicitly for either fully remote or enhanced co-located collaboration rather than attempting to bridge both modes simultaneously. The finding that desktop interfaces proved adequate for team coordination without VR headsets reinforced architectural decisions about multi-modal platform support, enabling organizations to deploy based on budget constraints and team distribution patterns rather than requiring universal VR investment.
Platform Evolution and Commercial Pathway
Pilot 2 validation evidence informed SimExBuilder Platform deployment guidance emphasising strategic fit assessment, explicitly communicating that collaborative virtual environments deliver maximum value when teams operate from distributed locations requiring remote coordination rather than attempting to replace effective co-located collaboration with virtual alternatives. Commercial positioning acknowledges moderate value proposition whilst highlighting specific usage contexts where distributed team coordination challenges justify immersive platform investment, enabling evidence-based client conversations about appropriate deployment scenarios rather than universal XR adoption regardless of team distribution patterns.
Partnership Model and Attribution
Rainbow CPaaS integration successfully demonstrated multi-modal communication capabilities supporting seamless transitions between individual conversations, small group discussions, and full team coordination meetings, validating platform reliability for professional training deployment. DFKI Video Call Alternative Appearance enabled privacy-aware team presence maintaining social dynamics without exposing personal video feeds. CEA Conversational Virtual Agent powered AI role-players providing realistic stakeholder interactions requiring team adaptation and coordination responses. Action Contre la Faim contributed emergency scenario design, team role definitions, and emergency roster participant recruitment ensuring operational validation authenticity whilst providing strategic feedback about coordination tool requirements informing ongoing development priorities.