3.1. Activities

This section summarizes four activities in (Table 1), supported by evidence and references that demonstrate their relevance to VR.

Table 1.

Product development activities influenced by VR

The idea generation phase is essential for identifying new product concepts or developing improvements to existing products (Reference MandalMandal, 2022). This phase often takes place during brainstorming sessions, which are conducted either in person or digitally among the development team. During this stage, initial concepts are typically sketched in 2D or 3D with hand sketching on paper or digital pens with tablets. It is crucial that these visual representations are clearly understood by all team members.

(Reference Sim and JungSim & Jung, 2025) suggest that VR promotes active engagement and deeper exploration of design ideas through spatial interaction. Additionally, (Reference Fleury, Blanchard and RichirFleury et al., 2021) report that VR enhances creativity by increasing the number of developed ideas compared with hand sketching. (Reference Cavas Martínez, Peris-Fajarnes, Morer Camo, Lengua Lengua and Defez GarcíaCavas Martínez et al., 2022) further demonstrate that advances in VR enable users to modify design concepts more quickly and efficiently during brainstorming activities.

Following idea generation, design review becomes one of the most critical phases in the product development process (Reference Cheng, Wang, Chen, Hu and CaoCheng et al., 2025). It takes place among team or with clients to gain approval and implement any necessary modifications and repeated almost for every phase of conception process to evaluate the progress and identify inefficiencies or areas for improvement. These reviews serve as key checkpoints to ensure that the product aligns with technical requirements, project goals, and stakeholder expectations. Conducting the design reviews with VR help to detect more issues in design than in CAD tools (Reference Horvat, Martinec, Perišić and ŠkecHorvat et al., 2022). (Reference WolfartsbergerWolfartsberger, 2019) illustrate that VR providing a more interactive experience that improves communication, and speeds up the review process.

After the design has been reviewed, the next phase involves building a physical prototype. This stage is typically iterative (Reference Elverum, Welo and TronvollElverum et al., 2016), aiming to develop a validated and approved design that meets customer requirements (Reference Tahera, Wynn, Earl and EckertTahera et al., 2019). Throughout this process, further modifications are often necessary. In some cases, errors identified during physical prototyping lead to late-stage changes in the requirements list, which can disrupt the development timeline (Reference Tan, Otto and WoodTan et al., 2017). These late-stage changes activities introduce inefficiencies that lead to extended project timelines and increased costs. The VR is implemented in this context as a replacement for physical prototypes at least in the early stages, which can be associated with high costs in terms of both time and resources, while simultaneously enhancing the visualization of the prototype (Reference Stadler, Cornet, Mazeas, Chardonnet and FrenklerStadler et al., 2020). The time and cost expenditures are primarily influenced by the number of physical prototypes required and their level of complexity.

In product development, engineers are responsible for ensuring that the final product is both safe and comfortable to use (Reference Zhu, Zedtwitz and AssimakopoulosZhu et al., 2018). As a result, human factors become a central focus during the design phase. This is because users have physical limitations, such as specific body dimensions, strength capabilities, and ranges of motion, which must be taken into account. User-product interaction should be carefully considered throughout the development process, as it directly impacts safety, comfort, and overall user satisfaction (Reference Blaga, Cășeriu, Bucur and VeresBlaga et al., 2025). This evaluation typically takes place during ergonomic testing, where the design is assessed for its usability and its alignment with human physical and cognitive capabilities (Reference Harte, Glynn, Rodríguez-Molinero, Baker, Scharf, Quinlan and ÓLaighinHarte et al., 2017). The use of VR in ergonomic evaluations is more effective for assessing visibility and accessibility (Reference Aromaa and VäänänenAromaa & Väänänen, 2016). Moreover, VR enhances worker safety by enabling the evaluation of risky environments or machinery without exposing users to potential hazards (Reference Ottogalli, Rosquete, Rojo, Amundarain, María Rodríguez and BorroOttogalli et al., 2021).

3.2. Wastes

This section outlines the categories of waste that can be minimized or eliminated by implementation of VR, as detailed in (Table 2).

Table 2.

Waste Categories Influenced by VR Integration

Ensuring effective collaboration and teamwork among all members and relevant departments is a critical determinant of process efficiency. A lack of effective collaboration often results in poor communication and a lack of clarity, which in turn lead to misunderstandings regarding tasks, objectives, and expectations (Reference Musheke and PhiriMukelabai M. Musheke, Jackson Phiri, 2021).

Ineffective communication among team members often results in misunderstandings, which in turn hinder collaboration and reduce overall team performance (Reference Marlow, Lacerenza, Paoletti, Burke and SalasMarlow et al., 2018). Furthermore, the tools employed for communication play a crucial role in reducing misunderstandings and ensuring that essential details are effectively conveyed (Reference Bedwell, Wildman, DiazGranados, Salazar, Kramer and SalasBedwell et al., 2012). In this case, the VR enhances visualization and evaluation while enabling intuitive interaction (Reference Stadler, Cornet, Mazeas, Chardonnet and FrenklerStadler et al., 2020).

Closely related to collaboration, an important factor -particularly for new employees or stakeholders not directly involved in design- is their understanding of the information they receive and share (Reference ZhangZhang, 2022). The product development process typically involves multiple departments within a company, such as mechanical, electrical, control, finance, and production, depending on the characteristics of the product being developed. (Reference Bender and GerickeBender & Gericke, 2021). The flow and quality of information across these teams and departments are essential (Reference Bester and KrähmerBester, 2008). Furthermore, according to (Reference Bender and GerickeBender & Gericke, 2021), many products are highly complex, comprising numerous interconnected components that function collectively as an integrated system. The functionality and efficiency of this system are governed by predefined requirements. The systematic process of defining, analysing, structuring, and specifying these requirements is referred to as requirements engineering. This process relies on the elicitation and management of extensive information to ensure that the product can be developed in a consistent and goal-oriented manner. The accuracy, completeness, speed, availability, and level of detail of this information are critical to achieve the task.

Additionally, effective information flow and transfer within product development depend on the use of product lifecycle management (PLM) systems, which provide all teams with continuous access to updated and accurate information (Reference Bender and GerickeBender & Gericke, 2021). Building on this principle, the integration of PLM systems within VR system can further enhance information exchange and collaboration among stakeholders (Reference Duda, Oleszek, Lalic, Majstorovic, Marjanovic, von Cieminski and RomeroDuda & Oleszek, 2020), provided that the system is accessible to all relevant departments and partners. It is important to note that VR does not manage information flow in the structured manner of PLM systems; rather, it enhances the visualization, communication, and understanding of complex product information, such as CAD models, among all stakeholders.

Workload is another factor that significantly influences the employees. And it is results from various factors such as task complexity (Sandra G. Hart Lowell E. Staveland). The presence of personnel who are not yet sufficiently skilled, such as newly employed or inexperienced staff, together with the use of inadequate tools, often leads to uneven task distribution and the overburdening of key contributors (Reference Abughalia and StechertAbughalia & Stechert, 2025b). VR enables the presentation of complex products in a simplified and intuitive manner, thereby improving design clarity for participating teams across different departments and experience levels, such as those involved in mechanical design (Reference Berg and VanceBerg & Vance, 2017). This enhanced clarity reduces the likelihood of design errors and makes VR particularly valuable for supporting less experienced employees in understanding complex design concepts compared with other tools (Reference Wang, Miller, Han, DeVeaux and BailensonWang et al., 2024).

Another important factor is waiting time. Delays may arise from various sources, including ineffective or untimely information transfer between teams which can lead to prolonged approval processes (Reference Williams, Eden, Ackermann and TaitWilliams et al., 1995) such as attending an excessive number of unnecessary meetings (Reference Romney, Allen and HeydarifardRomney et al., 2025), including redundant design reviews. These factors may ultimately result in slow decision-making processes. In addition, time losses can occur due to process-related issues, such as waiting for the outcomes of previous development phases, or as a consequence of using unsuitable tools. As illustrated in the first group, VR can serve as an effective tool for presenting design information, thereby reducing the duration of design reviews and ergonomic evaluations and accelerating the overall decision-making process. An additional factor closely related to waiting time is unnecessary motion, including non-essential business trips, which could potentially be replaced through the use of VR-based collaboration.

3.3. Additional aspects

This section summarizes additional key aspects that should be considered when analysing the implementation of VR in product development. Although these aspects cannot be replaced by VR, it is recommended that they be examined to support process visualization.

An important factor is the dependency between employees and their departments, which helps to represent all departments and the relationships between them in order to better understand their interdependencies.

Finally, lead time and actual process time are fundamental factors when analysing the value stream within a process. It is essential to examine how much time each team member spends on value-adding activities compared to non-value-adding activities, such as waiting or idle periods. In this context, the analysis should focus on the employee’s role in the process, specifically the time each employee is actively engaged in the workflow. Understanding the impact of time reduction helps to identify inefficiencies and opportunities to enhance overall team productivity (Reference Alora and AmayaAlora & Amaya, 2025).

4.1. Activities

This section summarizes the assessment criteria developed to evaluate the activities discussed in Chapter 3. (Table 3) identifies four specific activities, along with their corresponding assessment criteria and the objective of each criterion.

Table 3.

Developed assessment criteria for the first group activities

In the design review phase, the literature suggests that the use of VR can support the identification of a greater number of design issues by enhancing interactive experiences and improving communication among team members. Accordingly, relevant factors for analysis include the proportion of this phase within the participants’ overall tasks, the frequency of design reviews conducted per month, the duration of each session, the types of tools utilized, and the specific purpose of the review, whether it is aimed at resolving a design issue or serves as a general collaborative activity.

In the ergonomic testing phase, VR is described in the literature as a promising tool for improving worker safety and reducing costs by enabling the evaluation of ergonomic factors without the need for physical prototypes. Therefore, key factors to be analysed include the number of prototypes required per product for ergonomic testing, the duration of each evaluation session, and the number of participants involved.

In the prototyping phase, VR is assumed to function as a substitute for physical prototypes, which may lead to reductions in both time and cost. Consequently, it is essential to assess factors related to prototype production, including the associated effort, costs, and the rate of rework required.

4.2. Wastes

This section outlines the categories of waste analysed using assessment criteria. (Table 4) presents a summary of these categories together with the suggested assessment criteria.

Table 4.

Developed assessment criteria for the waste-related activities

Although the concept of teamwork is broad and cannot be fully analysed within the scope of this study, a key indicator in the context of VR implementation is the proportion of tasks completed collaboratively versus individually. This distinction is relevant, as VR tends to add greater value in collaborative activities, such as ideation or design reviews, compared to tasks performed individually. however, these aspects are examined across multiple activities within the first group of factors.

To ensure effective information flow, the literature proposes the integration of VR with Product Lifecycle Management (PLM) systems. In this context, indicators related to the core objectives of PLM systems are examined, including missing or delayed textual information, delayed physical components, and missing or delayed CAD files, as these factors are essential for understanding information-related inefficiencies.

With regard to workload, VR is considered a supportive tool that presents designs in a more intuitive and comprehensible manner, thereby facilitating discussion and reducing cognitive workload. This factor primarily concerns employees with limited practical experience or newly employed staff, who may experience increased effort or stress when interpreting designs during ergonomic evaluations, design reviews, or early-stage ideation activities. Accordingly, indicators such as delays in task completion, increased overtime, and the underlying causes of elevated workload are assessed.

To analyse VR’s contribution to reducing time losses, the underlying causes of such inefficiencies are examined. These inefficiencies may arise from process- or method-related factors, such as complex design reviews or ergonomic tests, as well as from tool-related factors, including the use of conventional tools for design reviews (e.g., CAD software) or ideation (e.g., hand sketching). In addition, cost- and time-related factors resulting from business travel are investigated, as these may potentially be reduced through the use of VR-based collaboration (Reference Balzerkiewitz and StechertBalzerkiewitz & Stechert, 2022).

4.3. Additional aspects

This section summarizes the additional aspects that require consideration, as presented in (Table 5).

Table 5.

Developed assessment criteria for the additional aspects

The departmental structure is represented by mapping all relevant departments in relation to one another. This is achieved by collecting data from all participating users across the involved departments. The relationships between departments are visualized using a node–link diagram, which provides a clear and immediate overview of interdepartmental connections and interactions.

Lead time provides an initial indicator of the efficiency of the current process and helps identify whether process reengineering or modification is necessary. While it does not capture all influencing factors, it offers a useful first insight into overall process performance.