1. Introduction

The Architecture, Engineering, and Construction (AEC) industry is experiencing significant transformations in the technologies it employs. There is an increasing adoption and development of innovative tools, such as Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR), and Mixed Reality (MR), which are all part of Extended Reality (XR). These technologies, once viewed as niche and experimental, are now being utilized for practical applications, including real-time safety training, spatial coordination, and stakeholder engagement. Devices like Microsoft’s HoloLens and mobile AR tablets are becoming essential for understanding projects and facilitating effective communication [1] [2].

Despite these innovations, the AEC industry still relies heavily on traditional methods, such as email, 2D drawings, markups, and static rendering. This reliance on outdated tools creates inefficiencies for projects with teams across different time zones. Challenges persist, including a misaligned project vision, slow decision-making, and unclear constraints, despite the growing use of XR technology [3].

This case study examines two architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) projects that used an extended reality (XR) workflow. The projects incorporated mixed reality (MR) headsets and an immersive visualization platform to improve coordination and design. The goal is to assess how adopting an XR ecosystem affects coordination speed, team satisfaction, and decision-making quality when project teams work across different time zones.

2. Rationale and Motivation

Even after the successful implementation of pilot XR programs, few companies have fully integrated multi-device systems using these tools. Multiple barriers appear to hinder the adaptation of these technologies, from high-cost implementation, non-standardized training, and the continued reliance on legacy processes [3]. However, as the industry shifts toward hybrid collaboration models and decarbonization goals, scalable XR workflows could provide substantial benefits in terms of efficiency, accuracy, and stakeholder satisfaction.

This study aims to examine a real-world case of XR-enabled coordination, focusing on how immersive tools impact team performance and decision-making when used across distributed project teams. By doing so, it seeks to identify both the potential and the pitfalls of embedding XR into continuous AEC workflows.

2.1. Research Question

How does an XR workflow impact coordination speed, decision quality, and team satisfaction when project partners are in different time zones?

3. Literature Review

3.1. Applications of XR in the AEC Industry

Technologies and innovations like XR are being used more in the visualization of design, clash detection, safety training, and stakeholder coordination. Devices like HoloLens and AR tablets allow stakeholders to review spatial data interactively, improving design accuracy and project communication [4].

3.2. Barriers to Adoption

Despite successful pilots, many AEC firms struggle to move beyond small-scale XR deployments. High costs, safety concerns with MR headsets, inadequate user training, and weak integration with BIM platforms are the most common and recurring problems and barriers [5].

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Research Approach

This case study employs a quantitative approach to investigate how the utilization of XR tools can enhance team satisfaction, coordination, communication, and decision-making in distributed projects spanning multiple time zones across teams in the AEC industry. It also examines how XR can enhance participation and input from multiple stakeholders, as well as improve cooperation in projects.

Through an in-depth semi-structured interview and analysis of project-specific XR deployments, the goal is to identify both the practical benefits and implementation challenges of XR workflows in real-world settings.

By conducting a semi-structured, in-depth interview with an industry professional and analyzing the project-specific XR techniques that are being used in current and past projects, with the end goal of identifying the advantages and challenges of real-world XR workflow implementation.

4.2. Method and Data Collection

Our primary method of data collection was the semi-structured interview with an industry expert. The main topics of the interview were his background, knowledge, and expertise in significant construction projects that utilized XR tools throughout all phases of the projects, as well as his insight into the overall trajectory of the industry. The interview lasted one hour and covered all the key themes that aligned with our case study topic.

4.3. Units of Analysis

The unit of analysis used for the project is the individual XR projects, with most of the information coming from the interviewees’ roles and work in both projects. The two projects are discussed below, illustrating the implementation of XR tools in both synchronous and asynchronous processes:

Microsoft East Campus

1. • U.S.-based project using Microsoft HoloLens 2, Azure Remote Rendering, and a customized cloud data environment.

Eastern European Project

1. • The European-based project utilizes Meta Quest headsets and the Resolve XR software to facilitate seamless handoffs between U.S. and European teams across different time zones.

4.4. Interview Themes

The interview questions can be categorized across six thematic pillars:

1. Professional Background and XR uses
2. Projects and tool implementation
3. Impact of XR tools and their advantages
4. Evolution of management and learning processes
5. Accuracy and evaluation of techniques and hardware
6. Legal challenges and the future of technology in the industry

Responses were transcribed, and direct quotations were taken to support the case study goals.

Ethics and limitations

• The interviewee’s name and details are hidden to respect their privacy.
• An NDA covered some project information, but the data shared is publicly accessible.
• The quantitative measures are based on self-reporting data and should be used as general indicators, and not statistically definitive.

5. Findings and Analysis

5.1. Project One: Microsoft East Campus (Redmond, WA)

The project highlights the implementation of XR technology in a large-scale, multi-building, high-budget project. The team utilized the Microsoft-developed HoloLens 2 as their primary hardware device, along with a mixed cloud platform that leveraged AutoCAD-provided software models. The project experienced a significant impact from the tool, particularly in stakeholder engagement, facility management training, and construction coordination.

One of the top priorities for the project was clear and transparent community involvement. A digital walkthrough helped the team gather feedback on various aspects of the project, including the placement of trees, pedestrian flow, and the location of amenities. As a result, the project saw an improvement in the time it took to respond to feedback, especially compared to traditional 2D maps and PDF comments. Another major advantage of the XR implementation was the ability to overlay the virtual model on the existing on-site conditions with a one-inch accuracy. Moreover, the tool helped the team identify misalignments in plumbing elements during a tour, allowing them to quickly rectify the issues without having to undertake a major redo later in the construction process.

5.2. Project Two: Eastern Europe-Based Project

The project in Eastern Europe presented some unique challenges, as team members were spread across multiple countries and time zones. To tackle this, a more efficient XR platform built on Meta Quest headsets and Resolve XR, a software-as-a-service tool that integrates with Autodesk Construction Cloud. The setup was used for its fast development capabilities, quick and easy adoption, and multiple time zone compatibility

The project leveraged the difference in time zones to maintain a steady and consistent feedback loop. The U.S. team would start each day by logging in to the shared model, identifying problems such as visual inconsistencies or coordination issues, and assigning tasks to the corresponding responsible party. By the time European teams start their day, these tasks are already part of the workflow. This constant workflow eliminated email, screenshots, and midnight calls, enabling design and coordination to occur continuously without any interruptions.

Utilizing an asynchronous workflow resulted in significant cost savings. By catching coordination errors early on, the project avoided millions in change orders that would have had to be performed. For example, security cameras were relocated to improve sightlines, and utility rooms were modified and reorganized to accommodate future equipment changes over the next 10 years. The embedded task assignment in the model enabled more transparent and easy-to-follow revisions for all stakeholders.

5.3. XR for Time-Zone Collaboration

The second project showcased one of XR’s most crucial advantages: It helped reduce the friction, miscommunication, and inefficiency when teams work together across the globe. A traditional workflow process often encounters delays due to time zone differences, relying on emails, sharing unconnected files, and holding late-night meetings. The XR platform enabled direct input of feedback into the model, making it easier to work around the clock.

When feedback is integrated into the model rather than being merely an attachment or an email, it enhances mutual understanding and reduces ambiguity. Teams can review, modify, and resolve issues in their respective time zones while clearly understanding each other’s intentions. This continuous handoff model not only increases efficiency but also promotes unity.

6. Conclusion

Examining the implementation of the two projects demonstrates the importance and evolution of XR implementation in construction projects, as well as its growing utility as a design coordination tool. In the first project, the XR implementation helped with community engagement and early construction alignment. In the second project, it demonstrated how XR tools can be utilized to transform asynchronous design workflows into an efficient and around-the-clock process, even across different time zones.

Both projects show that XR has the potential to be more than just an immersive tool; it could be used to integrate the roles of each team seamlessly. Tracking issues, project timeline, and stakeholder feedback. Factors for a successful XR implementation rely on realistic expectations, tracking the return on investment, and early stakeholder involvement. However, challenges such as device overheating, motion comfort, and margin of error could be critical. Contract language has not kept pace with innovation, and reliance on specific platforms underscores the need for careful planning and user training.

In conclusion, XR implementation is no longer just a buzzword that is used for pilot projects. When implemented from the ground up, with experience and realistic expectations, and applied to the right project, the result ranges from major cost savings, decreased rework, improved communication, and enhanced collaboration. Ultimately, it alters the approach to a project being worked on by teams in different time zones.

7. References

[1] A. Prabhakaran and R. Gasue, Applications of Immersive Technology in Architecture, Engineering and Construction: A Handbook. Boca Raton, FL, USA: CRC Press (Taylor & Francis), 2025. https://api.taylorfrancis.com/content/books/mono/download?identifierName=doi&identifierValue=10.1201/9781032662909&type=googlepdf

[2] A. G. Mohamed, O. Arabaine, and B. Botchway, “BIM-XR synergy in architectural education,” Architectural Engineering and Design Management, pp. 1–27, 2024. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/17452007.2024.2415391

[3] Y. Izbash and V. Babayev, “Digital evolution in AEC industry: Bridging BIM, building codes, and future technologies,” IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci., vol. 1376, no. 1, Art. no. 012004, 2024. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/1376/1/012004/meta

[4] X. Wang, M. Truijens, L. Hou, Y. Wang, and Y. Zhou, “Integrating augmented reality with building information modeling: Onsite construction process controlling for liquefied natural gas industry,” Automation in Construction, vol. 40, pp. 96–105, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2013.12.003

[5] S. Alizadehsalehi, A. Hadavi, and J. C. Huang, “From BIM to extended reality in AEC industry,” Automation in Construction, vol. 116, Art. no. 103254, 2020. https://www-sciencedirect-com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/science/article/pii/S0926580519315146