Category analysis
| Stage | Category/subcategory analysis | Observations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 – Previous knowledge about virtual reality | All interviewees mentioned what kind of knowledge they had about VR |
| 1.1. – Contexts where virtual reality was first heard | The most mentioned context was gaming and/or recreation time (Subcategory 1.1.1. – Gaming and or recreation time). Twenty-five participants stated that it was in this context that they first encountered VR, followed by media (Subcategory 1.1.3. – Media), with nine answers, followed by applications within the construction industry (Subcategory 1.1.4. – Applications within the construction industry), with six answers and finally by the scientific dissemination context (Subcategory 1.1.2. – Scientific dissemination) displaying five answers | |
| 1.2. – Knowledge concerning virtual reality applications to facility management | Twenty-four shared having no knowledge concerning VR applications to maintenance (Subcategory 1.2.2. – Interviewees had no knowledge concerning virtual reality applications to facility management) and seven participants mentioned having knowledge concerning VR applied to the maintenance context (Subcategory 1.2.1. – Interviewees had knowledge concerning virtual reality applications to facility management) | |
| 2. Applicability pre-test | All interviewees shared their vision concerning the proposed solution’s potential as a task facilitator and their perceptions about its impact on their daily professional life | |
| 2.1. – Virtual reality as a task facilitator | Twenty-five participants mentioned that this solution could work as a task facilitator (Subcategory 2.1.1. – Virtual reality applications to facility management as a task facilitator), and six participants indicated that this solution would not work as a task facilitator (Subcategory 2.1.2. – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks) | |
| 2.2. – Impact of virtual reality applications | Twenty-four participants shared the vision of a positive impact of this solution on their professional daily work (Subcategory 2.2.1. – Perceived positive impact of virtual reality applications to facility management tasks), four participants mentioned having no opinion regarding the possible impact of this solution on their professional daily work (Subcategory 2.2.3. – No perceived positive or negative impact of virtual reality applications to facility management tasks) and only two participants shared the vision of a negative impact of this solution on their professional daily work (Subcategory 2.2.2. – Perceived negative impact of virtual reality applications to facility management tasks) | |
| 3. – Applicability post-test | All interviewees shared their opinion regarding the possibility of implementing this solution in their work context, the usefulness and also the perceived easiness of using the proposed system in their work context | |
| 3.1. – Perceived possibility of implementation of the proposed virtual reality solution | Of the 29 interviewees who answered this question (two interviewees chose not to answer this question), 27 mentioned that this solution is possible to implement in their work environment (Subcategory 3.1.1. – It is possible to implement the proposed virtual reality solution) and only two mentioned that this solution is not feasible to implement in their current work context (Subcategory 3.1.2. – It is not possible to implement the proposed virtual reality solution) | |
| 3.2. – Perceived usefulness of the proposed virtual reality solution | Of the 26 interviewees who answered this question (five interviewees chose not to answer this question), 21 responded affirmatively to the usefulness of this solution in their work context (Subcategory 3.2.1. – The proposed virtual reality solution is useful), with one interviewee repeating once how much he/she agrees with this sense of usefulness of the solution in question Conversely, five interviewees responded negatively to the perceived usefulness of the solution if applied to their work environment (Subcategory 3.2.2. – The proposed virtual reality solution is not useful), with two interviewees repeating once in each of their respective interviews how they do not agree with the sense of usefulness of this solution | |
| 3.3. – Perceived easiness of use of the proposed virtual reality solution | Of the 30 respondents who answered this question, 15 mentioned how easy it was for them to use this solution (Subcategory 3.3.1. – The proposed virtual reality solution is easy to use), nine mentioned that this solution would be easy to use after some training (Subcategory 3.3.3. – The proposed virtual reality solution could be easy to use after some training) and five mentioned that they did not consider this solution easy to use (Subcategory 3.3.2. – The proposed virtual reality solution is not easy to use) | |
| 2 | 2. Applicability pre-test and three applicability post-test | Six interviewees responded negatively to the idea that the proposed VR solution could work as an enabler to the performance of their tasks, giving the following reasons to support their response: i. The interviewee considers that there are tasks that must necessarily be done face-to-face ii. The interviewee considers that there are tasks that must necessarily be done face-to-face and that require immediate and more inventive action on the part of the worker iii. The interviewee, as he/she does not know the procedure and real application of this solution to his/her context, argues that he/she cannot perceive VR as a task facilitator iv. The interviewee considers that for the management position he/she now holds in the maintenance sector, this solution does not prove itself useful. However, it may be useful for the teams under his/her supervision working in the field v. The interviewee considers that there are tasks that must unavoidably be done in person and that the entire work process using a digital/computer solution may add unnecessary time to the work he/she already has vi. The interviewee considers that there are tasks that must necessarily be carried out in person and does not understand how VR could facilitate the performance of these tasks |
| 2.1.2. – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks and 3.1.1. – It is possible to implement the proposed virtual reality solution | It may be suggested that from the previous six interviewees’ answers, four changed their opinion after the hands-on test. Indeed, four interviewees answered affirmatively during the second interview when asked if the proposed solution could be implemented in their work environment | |
| 2.1.2. – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks and Subcategory 3.2.1. – The proposed virtual reality solution is useful | Three of the six interviewees changed their opinion responding affirmatively to the sense of usefulness that this application could have in their work context | |
| 2.1.2 – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks, 3.3.1 – The proposed virtual reality solution is easy to use and 3.3.3. – The proposed virtual reality solution could be easy to use after some training | Three of the six interviewees stated that they considered this solution easy to use, and two that it could be easy to use after some training |
| Stage | Category/subcategory analysis | Observations |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 – Previous knowledge about virtual reality | All interviewees mentioned what kind of knowledge they had about VR |
| 1.1. – Contexts where virtual reality was first heard | The most mentioned context was gaming and/or recreation time (Subcategory 1.1.1. – Gaming and or recreation time). Twenty-five participants stated that it was in this context that they first encountered VR, followed by media (Subcategory 1.1.3. – Media), with nine answers, followed by applications within the construction industry (Subcategory 1.1.4. – Applications within the construction industry), with six answers and finally by the scientific dissemination context (Subcategory 1.1.2. – Scientific dissemination) displaying five answers | |
| 1.2. – Knowledge concerning virtual reality applications to facility management | Twenty-four shared having no knowledge concerning VR applications to maintenance (Subcategory 1.2.2. – Interviewees had no knowledge concerning virtual reality applications to facility management) and seven participants mentioned having knowledge concerning VR applied to the maintenance context (Subcategory 1.2.1. – Interviewees had knowledge concerning virtual reality applications to facility management) | |
| 2. Applicability pre-test | All interviewees shared their vision concerning the proposed solution’s potential as a task facilitator and their perceptions about its impact on their daily professional life | |
| 2.1. – Virtual reality as a task facilitator | Twenty-five participants mentioned that this solution could work as a task facilitator (Subcategory 2.1.1. – Virtual reality applications to facility management as a task facilitator), and six participants indicated that this solution would not work as a task facilitator (Subcategory 2.1.2. – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks) | |
| 2.2. – Impact of virtual reality applications | Twenty-four participants shared the vision of a positive impact of this solution on their professional daily work (Subcategory 2.2.1. – Perceived positive impact of virtual reality applications to facility management tasks), four participants mentioned having no opinion regarding the possible impact of this solution on their professional daily work (Subcategory 2.2.3. – No perceived positive or negative impact of virtual reality applications to facility management tasks) and only two participants shared the vision of a negative impact of this solution on their professional daily work (Subcategory 2.2.2. – Perceived negative impact of virtual reality applications to facility management tasks) | |
| 3. – Applicability post-test | All interviewees shared their opinion regarding the possibility of implementing this solution in their work context, the usefulness and also the perceived easiness of using the proposed system in their work context | |
| 3.1. – Perceived possibility of implementation of the proposed virtual reality solution | Of the 29 interviewees who answered this question (two interviewees chose not to answer this question), 27 mentioned that this solution is possible to implement in their work environment (Subcategory 3.1.1. – It is possible to implement the proposed virtual reality solution) and only two mentioned that this solution is not feasible to implement in their current work context (Subcategory 3.1.2. – It is not possible to implement the proposed virtual reality solution) | |
| 3.2. – Perceived usefulness of the proposed virtual reality solution | Of the 26 interviewees who answered this question (five interviewees chose not to answer this question), 21 responded affirmatively to the usefulness of this solution in their work context (Subcategory 3.2.1. – The proposed virtual reality solution is useful), with one interviewee repeating once how much he/she agrees with this sense of usefulness of the solution in question | |
| 3.3. – Perceived easiness of use of the proposed virtual reality solution | Of the 30 respondents who answered this question, 15 mentioned how easy it was for them to use this solution (Subcategory 3.3.1. – The proposed virtual reality solution is easy to use), nine mentioned that this solution would be easy to use after some training (Subcategory 3.3.3. – The proposed virtual reality solution could be easy to use after some training) and five mentioned that they did not consider this solution easy to use (Subcategory 3.3.2. – The proposed virtual reality solution is not easy to use) | |
| 2 | 2. Applicability pre-test and three applicability post-test | Six interviewees responded negatively to the idea that the proposed VR solution could work as an enabler to the performance of their tasks, giving the following reasons to support their response: |
| 2.1.2. – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks and 3.1.1. – It is possible to implement the proposed virtual reality solution | It may be suggested that from the previous six interviewees’ answers, four changed their opinion after the hands-on test. Indeed, four interviewees answered affirmatively during the second interview when asked if the proposed solution could be implemented in their work environment | |
| 2.1.2. – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks and Subcategory 3.2.1. – The proposed virtual reality solution is useful | Three of the six interviewees changed their opinion responding affirmatively to the sense of usefulness that this application could have in their work context | |
| 2.1.2 – Virtual reality application as a non-facilitator of facility management tasks, 3.3.1 – The proposed virtual reality solution is easy to use and 3.3.3. – The proposed virtual reality solution could be easy to use after some training | Three of the six interviewees stated that they considered this solution easy to use, and two that it could be easy to use after some training |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.