Virtual Reality as a multidisciplinary communication tool

L. Houck, R. Hassan, T.K. Thiis, K. Solheim

Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Department of Mathematical Sciences and Technology, Ås,
Norway

ABSTRACT
This paper addresses Virtual Reality (VR) as a project management tool for communication in
the early phase of construction projects. Building projects involve many participants who are
not trained, or who do not have the motivation or time necessary to understand a project suffi-
ciently. Engineers, project leaders, project owners and future end users are mostly dependent on
a complete 3D understanding of the building. This will enable them to do correct planning, to
take right decisions, or to give adequate and correct feedback. In this case study, project partici-
pants and non-participants were gathered in a VR-laboratory and shown the chosen project in
2D and 3D. The benefit of using Virtual Reality as a tool for communication was measured.
The results show that the participants not only had an improved 3D understanding of the project
but also a greater motivation for the project after having experienced the project in the VR la-
boratory.

1 INTRODUCTION

In this paper we will present and discuss a survey on the use of an immersive 3D Virtual Reality
laboratory as a communication tool in an early phase of a project. The participants in the survey
were all professionals and familiar to the planning and building process and understanding of
technical drawings. If one could assume that even professionals would benefit from the use of
virtual reality through the use of a relatively simple 3D model, then one could expect better
communication and less planning errors throughout the project development.
This study will address the aspect of communication between internal stakeholders; the client
and the users on the demand side, and the architect and engineers on the supply side. As an ex-
ample, the clients and users often have to deal with choices of different technical solutions, give
response to plans, and finally give their acceptance to given solutions, often only presented and
communicated as two-dimensional drawings. Experienced architects are challenged in planning
complex spaces where only the end user has the knowledge of how a space should work. Essen-
tial also is the communication of a given concept from the architect to the engineers.
Theory within uncertainty management defines uncertainty as the difference between the in-
formation required for a decision and the information available. We want to emphasize that
even when the required information is available within a project, still the challenge remains to
communicate the information sufficiently to all the project members and stack holders.
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Communication in project management
Let us look at some definitions used in project management. In his book Managing Construction
Projects, Winch (2010) describes a project as a flow of information and therefore project man-
agement as the task to manage information. Kolltveit et.al. (2009) describe the characteristics of
a project as a task with low frequency, to be executed within a certain time frame, with a given
limit of resources. Additionally is pointed out, that a project is an innovation process, and the
project has a goal of what to achieve. Project organizations are set up to execute the project. In
other words, a group of people are put together to solve a task, never solved before. They need
to communicate, often about unfamiliar subjects. It is important for managers to understand the
various methods and barriers that come along with good communication since 90% of the pro-
ject manager’s time will be spent on communicating with either the team or the cli-
ents/stakeholders (Terrell 1999). The team building process is an instrument to speed up the
process of building relations within a group, where one of more goals are to improve the ability
to communicate well among the projects participants and to increase the motivation for the pro-
ject (Salas 1999).
Another important aspect is the relation between time and the cost of change of design. At an
early stage of the project, even large changes will have low cost, compared to any change in the
execution stage (Samset 2008, Eikeland 1999). When we look at how BIM (Building Infor-
mation Modelling) is being used to improve project quality, the most promoted tool seems to be
the performing of collision tests, control of area, mass, fire escape etc, so called model checkers.
Software like Solibri and Naviswork are designed to this type of model checking. In an early
conceptual stage, this checking is irrelevant.
Jay Galbraith (1977) defines uncertainty as the difference between the information required
for a decision and the information available. If we look at a given project, the team will often
consist of a group of people with different mandates to choose solutions within their field, or
with a strong influence on the decisions required to be determined within a project. Lack of in-
formation can be related to two sources; predictability and complexity (Winch 2010). In this
study we will concentrate on the complexity source: According to Winch, this can be described
as the condition where the information is, in principle, available, but it is too costly or time con-
suming to collect or analyze (Winch 2010). Samset points out that there will always be some
degree of a lack of information, and secondly, the collection of information will have its cost
(Samset 2008). However, Samset writes, the earlier in the project the available information is
gathered, the more the project will benefit of it. The architects BIM model represents a bank of
information that should be communicated as early, and as clearly as possible to the other stake-
holders.

2.2 VR as a tool for communication in design and planning

Visualizations are playing important role in the formulation and communication of design con-
cepts. Considerable studies highlighted the importance of visualizations in order to improve the
understanding of projects in architectural design, urban planning and landscape planning (Ap-
pleyard, 1977; Bergen et al, 1995; Daniel and Boster, 1976; Hanzl, 2007; Oh, 1994; Pitt and
Nassauer, 1992; Sheppard, 1989; 2001; Tress and Tress, 2003; Wood, 1972). 3D illustrations
and visualizations were found to be more powerful to convey experiential qualities than two-
dimensional methods for presentations (Lewis and Sheppard, 2006). Advanced 3D immersive
visualizations and Virtual Reality were also used for architectural design and project presenta-
tions. It provided the additional features e.g. real-time navigation, increased level of realism,
lifelike experience, and better interaction. Several studies emphasized the added value of Virtu-
al Reality 3D immersive visualizations for planning, design and decision making process.
Danahy (2001) presented a study showing that immersive visualization has the capacity to
communicate complex spatial proposals to a broader range of participants in the design and
evaluation process than media conventionally employed by designers. Immersive visualization
approaches have proven by Bishop (2005) and Kwartler (2005) to be especially beneficial for
collaboration involving those untrained in spatial design disciplines. Immersive visualization is
beneficial to the design process as participants are in a better position to interact with and evalu-
ate a proposal than when compared to conventional design techniques such as drawing (Lind-
quist 2010).
One important aspect of using a Virtual Reality environment is the ability to see more details
through the immersion effect. 3D immersive visualizations provide the experience of living a
digital created 3D space. Immersive environments are available in different forms and shapes
e.g. desktop monitor, CAVE (viewer is immersed through 6 screens surrounded wall cube),
large screens facilities (cinema like), and head-mounted displays. For multiple users, projection
based facilities are more appropriate (Bishop, Ye, & Karadaglis 2001). Projection based facili-
ties can offer visualizations that are closer to a realistic scale for the observer, facilitating com-
munication to, and engagement of, more people at once, closer to realistic experience (Lindquist
2010).

3 PROBLEM

Using BIM in the design process allows for new possibilities in the way of designing and com-
municating projects. One important focus in project management is to establish a process which
reduces design errors. At the same time, the most difficult aspects to communicate within a giv-
en design is the three dimensionality and perception of space. It needs a trained mind to truly
understand three dimensionality through written language, two dimensional drawings, or even
perspective drawings. The idea was to investigate the potential of the VR lab in helping a pro-
ject team (professionals and non-professionals) to communicate and understand a project sce-
nario in three-dimensions in an early stage of a design process. The assumption is that improved
communication between the stakeholders in an early stage could lead to an improved and more
equal understanding of the project, and therefore to less design errors and also to a better pro-
ject.

4 METHOD

To investigate the above assumption, the following method was developed:

1) Choose a case project in an early phase

2) Invite the project members to an event in the VR-lab
4) Let the group answer a set of predefined questions related to background and expectations:
Questionnaire part A
5) Visualize the project in 2D, with drawings, and also perspective drawings
4) Let the group answer a set of predefined questions: Questionnaire part B
5) Visualize and experience the project in 3D at the VR-lab
6) Let the group answer the same set of predefined questions, now related to the 3D-experience:
Questionnaire part C.

Statsbygg (the Norwegian government's key advisor in construction and property affairs, build-
ing commissioner, property manager and property developer), was found interested in the sub-
ject. Statsbygg offered us the project “Saemien Sijte” to use as study case. Saemien Sijte is a
new building for the South Sami museum and cultural centre in Snåsa, Norway. This project
was considered more or less perfect as a case study: It had an unusual three-dimensional geo-
metrical design, the architect was Spanish (SQ-Arquitectos, Valencia), the client and engineers
from Oslo, and the end users were situated in Snåsa, mid-Norway, partly speaking sami. The
project had both a challenging communications situation and design. Additionally, and essen-
tially; the delivery requirements required use of BIM and delivery in IFC formats from the ar-
chitect and technical consultants.
The participants: Within the time limits of the research project, we were not able to gather the
all the project members. The research therefore was executed with a mixed group of profession-
als from Statsbygg working with the project (half of the total group), professionals from Stats-
bygg not working with the project and professionals from the Universities Building department
(architects, engineers), a total of 15 persons.
 The 3D model was extracted from already available data. SketchUp was used to create a
three-dimensional representation of the geometrical data and then exported into 3D studio Max
for further processing and optimization.
Since our focus was placed on testing the level of understanding of the geometrical configura-
tion of the building at early stage, we decided to apply a level of abstraction to the model by not
showing all interior partition walls. Instead, we pasted floor-plans on the flooring service for
each level. Participants could then experience the total space while using the floor-plan as refer-
ence.
The VR-Lab at the Norwegian University of Life sciences (UMB) has been used as the main
environment for this study, which provides 3D immersive visualizations, see Figure 3. The
component used for this study at the VR-Lab consist of a 3D visualization system of three
Christie Digital Mirage S+2K front projectors with 1400x1050 native resolution and 3000 ANSI
lumens brightness per projector. Warping and blending module for projection on cylindrical sur-
face which is integrated inside each projector and is optimized for 3D projection. The projectors
are projecting a stereoscopic image to a screen curving 160 degrees (7m width x 3m height)
around an audience of maximum 24 people. The 3D visualization systems is been powered by a
cluster of three workstations (3.8 GHZ with 4GB RAM) with Nvidia FX 4500G PCI graphic
card with 512 MB graphic memory per workstation. VR4Max has been used as an operating
system to run the VR experiment for this study. The display technology used is based on active
stereo technology combined with LCD shutter glasses. Active stereo display technology fits in
here since it represents a bright and homogeneous picture in full pixel dissolving.

Figure 1 (left): The Architects Perspective presented in 2D. Figure 2 (right): Modell with floor plans as
presented in the 3D VR-laboratory

Figure 3: Participants answering questionaries in the VR-laboratory

5 RESULTS

The results of the experiments in this study support the assumption that the use of a virtual reali-
ty laboratory as a multidisciplinary communication tool improves the spatial understanding and
motivation of a given project in an early stage of the project.
The introductory questions reveal that the group has a tendency to believe that the interdisci-
plinary communication between stakeholders can be improved and that this communication is
important in the early phase of a building project.
Figure 5 and figure 6 show the answers to questions 1 and 2, the mean vote for question 1 and
2 were 3.9 and 2.4 respectively.
On questions relating to the specific building project, the respondents were asked several
times about their familiarity of the building geometry.
Figure 7 shows the development of the familiarity from a mean vote of 2.2 before the presen-
tation to 2.7 after the 2D presentation and to 2.9 after the 3D VR presentation. Both the profes-
sionals with connection to the project and the professionals without specific connection to the
project showed the same trend.
Figure 8 shows that the motivation for the project increased clearly. The mean vote score for the
motivation went from 2.6 to 3.1.

Response given
Mean vote 1-4. 1=bad/unimportant 4=good/important
A: Before B: After C: After 3D
presenta- 2D presen- VR presen-
tion tation tation
On information Q1. To what extent do you believe that
flow in building the transfer of information between 3.9
projects in general stakeholders in a building project is
important in the early phase of the pro-
ject?
Q2. How good does the interdiscipli-
nary communication between actors in 2.4
building projects work in general?
On the specific Q3. To what extent do you know the 2.2 2.7 2.9
building project building geometry?
Q6 To what extend to you feel moti- 2.6 3.1
vated for the project?
On the use of VR in Q8. What expectations do you have for
communication VR as a tool to improve communica-
tion at an early stage, in order to en- 3.4 3.5
sure a better understanding of the
building and its functions?
Q11. To what extent can VR prove
beneficial for projects in early phase 3.2 3.7
for communication between stake-
holders?
Figure 4: The figure summarizes the most essential questions from the questionnaire and their mean vote.

The results on the expectations of the use of VR are shown in figure 9. This question was
asked twice; before any presentations and after the 3D VR presentation. The expectations were
high already before the presentation, with a mean vote of 3.4, but the expectations to this tech-
nology was raised to a mean vote of 3.5 after the 3D VR presentation.
On the question of the use of VR as a tool for communication in early phase of a building
project, the mean vote was raised from 3.2 before the presentations to 3.7 after the 3D VR
presentation. Figure 10 shows the response to question 11.
 Number of responses
Number of responses 12 Question 1 12 Question 2

8 8

4 4

0 0

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Bad/unimportant Good/important Bad/unimportant Good/important

Figure 5: Results on Q1: “To what extent do Figure 6: Results on Q2: “How good does the
you believe that the transfer of information be- interdisciplinary communication between ac-
tween stakeholders in a building project is im- tors in building projects work in general?”
portant in the early phase of the project?”

Number of responses
Number of responses

12
12 Question 6
Question 3

8 8

4 4

0 0

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Bad/unimportant Good/important Bad/unimportant Good/important

Before presentation after 2D presentation

After 2D presentation after 3D VR presentation
after 3D VR presentation

Figure 7: Results on Q3: “To what extent do Figure 8: Results on Q6: “To what extend to
you know the building geometry?” you feel motivated for the project?”
Number of responses
Number of responses

12 Question 8 12 Question 11

8 8

4 4

0 0
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Bad/unimportant Good/important Bad/unimportant Good/important

Before presentation
Before presentation
After 3D VR presentation
after 3D VR presentation

Figure 9: Results on Q8: “What expectations Figure 10: Results on Q11: “What expectations
do you have for VR as a tool to improve com- do you have for VR as a tool to improve com-
munication at an early stage, in order to ensure munication at an early stage, in order to ensure
a better understanding of the building and its a better understanding of the building and its
functions?” functions?”
6 DISCUSSION

On the question about the knowledge of the building geometry, there is a tendency toward in-
creased knowledge after the 2D and 3D presentations. However, the participants have different
degree of familiarity of the project prior to the survey. Thus, the meaning of “knowledge of the
building geometry” might have variable meaning for the different respondents. This is also only
an indicative question relating to the respondents personal opinion of their understanding,
whereas their actual understanding has not been measured. The aspect that the group spent time
together, researching the project geometry may in itself increase the level of understanding
among the participants independently of the presentation method.
Since the group consisted of both professionals related to the project and professionals with-
out any previous connection to the project, it is expected that the level of understanding in-
creased more after the 2D presentation than after the 3D presentation. It is interesting to see that
also the professionals related to the project showed increased understanding after the 3D VR
presentation.
Despite the difference in initial knowledge of the building geometry, the survey shows an in-
crease in the geometrical understanding of the building, caused by the 3D VR presentation. This
was confirmed by the spontaneous discussions in the group of professionals related to the pro-
ject. The relatively low score on the geometric understanding shows that the group was self-
critical to their perception of the building.
The motivation for the project was measured to increase after the 3D VR presentation. The
term “motivation” was not defined for the respondents, thus the response can be interpreted as
an interest or enjoyment in the task itself.
The expectations to VR were high before the presentations, and were slightly increased after
the 3D VR presentation. One interpretation of this could be that the respondents were technolo-
gy optimists and in this case, it is worth that they were not disappointed by the 3D VR technol-
ogy. The combination of self-critical attitude on the perception of the building and the optimis-
tic view of the VR technology confirms that the group has a balanced view on the technology.
Even if the group was very positive to the use of VR as a communication tool from the be-
ginning, the group was even more convinced after the VR session. If we look at the result of Q8
and Q11 together, we see that the “expectation to VR as a tool to improve communication at an
early stage, in order to ensure a better understanding of the building and its functions”, only
slightly rises from 3.4 to 3.5, whereas the question to what extent “VR can prove beneficial for
projects in an early phase for communication between stakeholders” raises from 3.2 to 3.7. In
other words, the participants have a respectively high personal expectation on beforehand,
which is more or less is confirmed through the VR-experience. At the same time the participants
are clearly more convinced of the VR as a powerful tool to communicate between the stake-
holders after the VR-session.

7 CONCLUSION

Three-dimensional visualizations demonstrate to be useful for showing many aspects of a pro-

ject, more specifically, showing hidden qualities which are difficult to trace by using traditional
two-dimensional methods. If we view project management as an information management role,
it is obvious that any tool that provides a greater understanding among the stakeholders for the
task and goal of the project will be important to consider when planning project activities. This
paper has shown that the participants, all professionals, believe they had a greater understanding
of the project after viewing the given project in three dimensions at the VR-lab. The assumption
that a three dimensional viewing of a given project in a VR-laboratory will increase the under-
standing of a given project beyond the understanding received through traditional 2D perception
is supported by the survey. The VR tool should therefore be considered as a useful, multidisci-
plinary communication tool, not only for non-professionals, but also for professionals.
The experiment through this study focused on testing the communication and understanding
of project scenario at early stage of a design process using 3D digital model for a building in a
VR environment. However, there is a need for further studies focusing on investigating aspects
connected to the perception of 3D models in VR environments against level of abstraction, real-
ism, and details at an early stage of design process. Also should be tested whether participants
actually have a greater understanding of a given project, or if this is just a felt condition.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Statsbygg and Diderik Haug at the department of research and development in Statsbygg.

REFERENCES

3D Studio Max (12.11.2012): http://usa.autodesk.com/3ds-max/

Appleyard D. 1977. Understanding professional media. Human behavior and Environment volume 1,
Eds I Altman, J Wohlwill (Plenum Press, New York) pp 43–88
Bergen S., Ulbricht C., Fridley J., Ganter, M. 1995. The validity of computer generated graphic images of
forest landscapes. Journal of Environmental Psychology 15:135–146
Bishop, I. D. 2005. Visualization for participation: the advantages of real-time?. In Buhmann, E., Paar,
P., Bishop, I. D. & E. Lange (Eds.): Trends in Real-Time Landscape Visualization and Participation.
Heidelberg, Wichmann.
Bishop, I., D, Ye, W. S. & C. Karadaglis. 2001. Experiential approaches to perception response in virtu-
al worlds. Landscape and Urban Planning, 54(1-4): 117-125
Danahy, J. W. 2001. Technology for dynamic viewing and peripherical vision in landscape visualization.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 54: 125–137.
Daniel T., Boster R. 1976. Measuring landscape esthetics: the scenic beauty estimation method. Research
Paper RM-167, USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort
Collins, CO
Eikeland, P. 1999. Teoretisk analyse av byggeprosesser. Trondheim, NTNU
Galbraith, J.R. 1977. Organization Design. Reading, Addison-Wesley
Hanzl, M. 2007. Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of
experiments and potentials. Design Studies 28:289–307
Kolltveit, B. J., Lerem, J., Reve, T. 2009. Prosjekt. Oslo, Universitetsforlaget
Kwartler, M. 2005. Visualization in Support of Public Participation. In Bishop, I. D. & E.Lange (Eds.):
Visualization in Landscape and Environmental Planning: Technology and applications. London:
Taylor & Francis
Lindquist, M. 2010. Affordable Immersion Revisited: A Proposal for a Simple Immersive Visualization
Environment to Increase Uptake. In proceeding of Digital Design in Landscape Architecture 2010,
Heidelberg.
Lewis J., Sheppard S. 2006. Culture and communication: can landscape visualization improve forest
management consultation with indigenous communities. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:291–313
Navisworks (06.11.2012): http://usa.autodesk.com/navisworks/
Oh K. 1994. A perceptual evaluation of computer-based landscape simulations. Landscape and Urban
Planning 28:201–216
Pitt, D., Nassauer, J. 1992. Virtual reality systems and research on the perception, simulation and presen-
tation of environmental change. Landscape and Urban planning 21:269–271
Salas, E., Rozell, D., Mullen, B. & Driskell, J. E. (1999). The effect of team building on performance –
An integration. Small Group Research, 30(3), 309–329
Samien Sijte (06.11.2012): http://www.statsbygg.no/Byggeprosjekter/Saemien-Sijte/
Samset, K. 2008. Prosjekt i tidligfasen – valg av konsept. Trondheim, Tapir Akademisk forlag
Sheppard, S. 1989. 9iVXDO 6iPXODtiRn: A user’s Guide for Architects, Engineers and Planners (Van Nos-
trand Reinhold, New York)
SketchUp (12.11.2012): http://www.sketchup.com/
Solibri (06.11.2012): http://www.solibri.com/
Terrell, M. S. 1999. Project communication management: five steps. PM Network, Vol. 13, No 10: 71-77
Tress B., Tress G. 2003. Scenario visualization for participatory landscape planning: a study from Den-
mark. Landscape and Urban Planning 64:161–178
VR4MAX (13.11.2012): http://www.tree-c.nl/vr4max
Winch, G.M. 2010. Managing Construction Projects.West Sussex, John Wiley & Sons Ltd
Wood, W. 1972. An analysis of simulation media. Master thesis, Faculty of Forestry, University of British
Columbia, Vancouver