{"id":1138,"date":"2022-01-24T18:34:00","date_gmt":"2022-01-24T18:34:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cogitateandpercolate.com\/?p=1138"},"modified":"2026-06-29T14:11:30","modified_gmt":"2026-06-29T14:11:30","slug":"analysis-of-the-total-economic-impact-of-mixed-reality-using-microsoft-hololens-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cogitateandpercolate.com\/?p=1138","title":{"rendered":"Analysis of The Total Economic Impact\u2122 Of Mixed Reality Using Microsoft HoloLens 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

 Analysis of The Total Economic  Impact\u2122 Of Mixed Reality Using Microsoft HoloLens 2<\/span><\/h1>\n
<\/a><\/div>\n

(Image: Crowds gathering outside New York Stock Exchange Source: https:\/\/commons.wikimedia.org\/wiki\/File:Crowds_gathering_outside_New_York_Stock_Exchange.jpg<\/a>)
<\/span><\/p>\n


<\/span><\/p>\n

This report, The Total Economic Impact\u2122 Of Mixed RealityUsing Microsoft HoloLens 2<\/a>, dated (November 2021) came through my LinkedIn feed in this post:
<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a>
<\/span><\/p>\n

What most caught my eye was the fourth bullet:<\/span><\/p>\n

Mixed reality increased
\ntraining efficiency by 60%, saving $1,440 per trainee while improving
\nknowledge acquisition and retention. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I posted my response:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

“<\/span><\/span><\/span>With
\n respect, a company that sells a product that then claims the product
\nincreases training efficiency with these kinds of numbers is to be
\ndoubted. <\/p>\n

In the case of the 60% increase, my eyes land on the
\ntable on page 21 and the source of the 60% increase in task efficiency
\ndata is “Interview data”, not quantified data. That means the
\ninterviewees that Microsoft picked provided verbal estimates to the
\ninterviewers. While the report takes great pains to describe how the
\nresults were calculated– and I respect that– this is a “commissioned
\nreport” (page 1)– that was paid for by the very company selling the
\nproduct<\/i>.<\/p>\n

Long term, results like these do not hold up.”<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To which, an Associate Fellow at Lockheed Martin replied:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While the numbers seem outlandish they are very real based on our findings. <\/p>\n

We
\n use mixed reality to build spacecraft and see well over these numbers
\n(~93% reduction) in touch labor. This was analyzed across 10
\nmanufacturing sites and numerous spacecraft manufacturing programs. <\/p>\n

Technicians consistently finish 8 hours worth of traditional work in 45 minutes, and other companies are seeing similar results.<\/p>\n

For
\n training we see an 85% reduction in training time. Mixed reality also
\noffers greater comprehension than traditional methods. <\/p>\n

While the numbers seem incredible, they have been validated with more than four years of shop floor implementation. <\/p>\n

If you would like to chat details, just let me know. I would be happy to provide insight to our findings.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

I did not reply further at the time to this post because I was not actually arguing time-based <\/b>measurements. I was arguing improving knowledge acquisition and retention via task efficiency– admittedly their own squirrely wording. Said another way, claims that users learned more<\/i>. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This blog post is, in part, my response. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

A scan of the report reveals a great deal of “hand wave” language and it is, of course, a report so I’m not going to spend a great deal of time picking it apart. It’s just not worth the time. I’ll just point out a few red flags.<\/span><\/p>\n

1. A report commission by Microsoft about Microsoft technology.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/a><\/div>\n

The report has a Disclosures section on page 5:<\/span><\/p>\n

DISCLOSURES <\/span><\/p>\n

Readers should be aware of the following: <\/span><\/p>\n

This study is commissioned by Microsoft and delivered by
\nForrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a
\ncompetitive analysis. <\/span><\/p>\n

Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI
\nthat other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly
\nadvises that readers use their own estimates within the
\nframework provided in the study to determine the
\nappropriateness of an investment in mixed reality. <\/span><\/p>\n

Microsoft reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester,
\nbut Forrester maintains editorial control over the study
\nand its findings and does not accept changes to the study
\nthat contradict Forrester\u2019s findings or obscure the
\nmeaning of the study.<\/span><\/p>\n

Microsoft provided the customer names for the interviews
\nbut did not participate in the interviews.<\/span><\/p>\n

 I interpret this as I stated above:<\/span><\/p>\n

“the
\ninterviewees that Microsoft picked provided verbal estimates to the
\ninterviewers.”<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Said another way, random Microsoft Hololens users did not provide the data. Users specifically picked by Microsoft did. That’s a non-random sample. Page 5 tells me the <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>23 interviewees are decision-makers at <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>21
\nindependent software vendors (ISV) and SI
\nmixed reality partners. There is more data about them on page 44.<\/span><\/p>\n

Don’t forget that “commissioned” also tends to mean “paid for.”
<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

2.  Their key findings are listed on Page 2:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n