4 Questions You Should Ask Before the Next XR Renewal

Most XR programs survive the pilot. Where they fail, and usage drops, is in the next phase before the second renewal.  My guess – the champion moves on, and no one takes real ownership to keep the momentum going. Headsets are then left uncharged, and instructors don’t have the time or weren’t set up to actually run them. Pretty swiftly, the conversation shifts from amazing potential to justification.

That theory got tested during a recent conversation on Tech in EdTech with Bharani Rajakumar, the founder of Transfr. It is a VR-based workforce development platform that helps workforce boards guide job seekers from career exploration to hands-on skills training and job readiness using immersive simulations for in-demand careers.

What came up in our conversation was the discovery that the headset is actually one of the least important parts of any XR program. Of course, ease of use is still a huge component, but what good is the technology if it’s not being tied to actual outcomes and skills a learner needs to be successful? That’s where the value of ownership comes in. There needs to be accountability for the outcome and not just the rollout.

This blog will go through key areas of focus for XR programs to succeed based on what I’ve seen be successful.

How Important Are Educators to Simulation Success?

When XR had just started out, the rollouts struggled because the hardware was difficult to use. Adjustments had to be made for additional hardware to use, such as dedicated PCs. But today, most of the friction is in the daily routine of the educator or program coordinator. They find themselves struggling to make time for charging the headsets, updating the simulations, and finding effective Wi-Fi in their already busy schedules. What was once their passion project is now just a second job.

I’ve come to learn that the strongest XR programs are the ones designed around the educator’s day, not the learner’s experience. It needs to be clear how the headset fits into the actual curriculum they are teaching. And educators’ day is already stretched thin; adding on one more thing that they’re not sure about will not get usage.  And we know usage is what determines whether the program will survive the first year.

How Important Is an Owner in an XR Program?

Bharani made a point that I don’t think gets enough attention. There is no dedicated role in most institutions for owning an XR program. Every standard subject, like Math and Science, has its own department, but career pathways may just have a counselor or a coordinator. There’s big pressure for the XR experience to get a learner from exploration to training to an interview. If you’re a school tracked on conversion rates from training to job placement, that’s your argument for funding a dedicated person.

When you think about how high-stakes programs already work, this is a similar model. Take a nursing program, for example, there is so much prep before students are placed in front of a live patient. Treat XR the same way. When it becomes the key for confidence building, as Bharani describes, it’s now the gateway to success. Without ownership, the program won’t get the attention it needs. And that means someone who owns the XR implementation is part of their role, not just a side responsibility.

Does It Make a Difference to Have Employers Present?

The third pattern is the one I think matters the most for workforce and CTE leaders. When it comes to selecting the right simulation, an employer should be present. When employers are involved, it automatically gives learners an insight into where the training leads. The educators have a clearer picture of what needs to be taught, and institutions have a story to tell when funding is reviewed. When employers are not involved, the program turns into just an academic exercise. It’s so important for the learner to feel this connection – that’s where excitement and capability click.

For CTE and workforce program leaders, the question I would ask before scaling any immersive program is simple. Which employers helped shape this, and which employers are committed to interviewing learners who complete it? If the answer is none, the program is not ready to scale.

Should You Equate Course Completion with Career Readiness?

What’s so powerful about a simulation is how quickly it can change a user’s perspective on a career they want to explore. Learning is not about how many sims are completed, but what’s going to get someone closer to a career they can really envision themselves in.

This shift in defining the outcomes changes everything, starting with the initial design phase. It changes which simulations are chosen, employer partners who run the program internally, and how the learners are engaging with the technology. None of that is about the headset. It is about what can be achieved.

Once you have the headsets in hand, ask yourself, what is it that you are preparing learners for? To complete a course or to be ready to face real-time challenges with confidence in their careers? Answering this will give you a clear vision of how your program needs to be designed with that ending in mind.