4 Questions You Should Ask Before the Next XR Renewal

It’s largely assumed that XR programs always fail at the demo. In fact, they often fail somewhere before the second renewal cycle. The signs are all there – the headsets are left uncharged; students are disinterested in the simulations, and finance starts asking questions about how much this is all worth. Pretty swiftly, the conversation veers from whether it is the future of training or just an item that needs to be justified.

My theory was further 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 it is almost never the technology’s problem. Even with better hardware and simulations, there is a friction, and that is what most workforce and CTE programs need to look into.

This blog is an insight into everything I’ve learned watching XR programs succeed or stall in a workforce setting. And what I think CTE leaders, continuing education teams, and workforce program directors need to flip around in 2026.

How Important Are Educators to Simulation Success?

When XR had just started out, the rollouts struggled because the hardware was difficult to use. Provisions also had to be made for additional hardware to use, such as dedicated PCs. But today, the friction is in the daily routine of the educator or program coordinator. They find themselves at wits’ end trying to fit chores like charging the headsets, updating the simulations, and finding effective Wi-Fi into their already busy schedules. Collectively, it doesn’t seem like a big deal, but educators who are already stretched thin will have reasons to stop using.

I’ve come to learn that the strongest XR programs are the ones designed around the educator’s day, not the learner’s experience. If putting the headset on a learner takes more than a few minutes, the program will be used less often than projected. And usage is what determines whether the program survives its first renewal.

How Important Is an Owner in an XR Program?

Bharani made a point that I think doesn’t get enough attention. There is no dedicated role in most institutions for owning an XR program end-to-end. Math has a department. Science has a department. Career pathways usually have a counselor or a coordinator. But the connected experience that XR is supposed to enable, from exploration to training to interview, has no clear owner.

In my experience, this is the single biggest reason pilots stall. A pilot succeeds because someone champions it. When that person moves on or gets pulled into another priority, the program loses its center.

Before a CTE or workforce program scales an XR investment, someone has to own it. Not as a side responsibility. As a defined part of their role.

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 an academic exercise.

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?

If there is one thing that workforce programs need to internalize in this moment, it is that an XR program is not measured by the number of simulations completed. It is measured by whether learners moved into the careers the program was designed to support.

That shift in measurement changes everything upstream. It changes which simulations are chosen, who owns the program, how the technology is integrated into the day, and which employers are involved from the start. None of that is about the headset. It is about the program design around the headset.

For teams that have moved past the question of whether to invest in simulations and are now thinking carefully about how to make those simulations work in the real conditions of a classroom or a workforce program, we’re happy to give you a demo.

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? The answer to this will convince you enough that your program needs to be designed with that ending in mind.