Augmented Reality for Operator Training on Industrial Workplaces – Comparing the Microsoft HoloLens vs. Small and Big Screen Tactile Devices

  • Andreas Pusch
  • Frédéric NoëlEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 565)


The digital revolution towards the industry standard 4.0 offers many ways to improve established methods and processes. In this paper, we report on the lessons learned about the pros and cons of Augmented-Reality-based operator training using the Microsoft HoloLens as compared to small and big screen tactile devices. Together with our industrial partner, we have chosen an encapsulation assembly task as use case. We have enriched the original training material with digital twins of the workplace, animations, videos, and contemporary forms of interaction, all of which made available in an optimised fashion on three different support technologies. Feedback from our testers, and those in charge of designing training courses, is suggesting that notably the HoloLens version of our prototype has the potential not only to replace current training methods, but to go beyond them up to the point where even novices can pass the training autonomously. It thus seems promising to integrate Augmented Reality into training programmes and so to complete the digital chain within the industry life management.


Industry 4.0 Digital twins Augmented Reality MS HoloLens Tactile displays Operator training Assembly tasks Ergonomics Usability 



We would like to thank Vincent Guizouarn, Pascal Lenormand, and Anthony Compassi from Cooper Standard Vitré for their highly valuable comments and suggestions. We are further grateful for the time our testers have spent evaluating the current prototypes.

This work has been funded by a BPI-France partnership project. The G-SCOP laboratory is member of the Persyval Laboratory of Excellence (French LabEx) and contributes to the Authoring Augmented Reality (AAR) research action.


  1. 1.
    van Krevelen, D.W.F., Poelman, R.: A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications, and limitations. Int. J. Virtual Real. 9(2), 1–20 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wang, P., Wu, P., Wang, J., Chi, H., Wang, X.: A critical review of the use of virtual reality in construction engineering, education, and training. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 15(6), 1204 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Edwards, E.K., Rolland, J.P., Keller, K.P.: Video see-through design for merging of real and virtual environments. In: Proceedings of VRAIS (1993)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kiyokawa, K., Kurata, Y., Ohno, H.: An optical see-through display for mutual occlusion of real and virtual environments. In: Proceedings of IEEE & ACM ISAR (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bimber, O., Raskar, R.: Spatial Augmented Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds. A K Peters/CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Microsoft HoloLens (2008).
  7. 7.
    Lee, K.: Augmented reality in education and training. TechTrends 56(2), 13–21 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nilsson, S., Johansson, B.: Fun and usable: augmented reality instructions in a hospital setting. In: Proceedings of 19th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction, pp. 123–130 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Zauner, J., Haller, M., Brandl, A., Hartman, W.: Authoring of a mixed reality assembly instructor for hierarchical structures. In: Proceedings of ISMAR, pp. 237–246 (2003)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Henderson, S., Feiner, S.: Exploring the benefits of augmented reality documentation for maintenance and repair. IEEE TVCG 17(10), 1355–1368 (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tiefenbacher, P., Lehment, N.H., Rigoll, G.: Augmented reality evaluation: a concept utilizing virtual reality. In: Shumaker, R., Lackey, S. (eds.) VAMR 2014. LNCS, vol. 8525, pp. 226–236. Springer, Cham (2014). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Radkowski, R., Herremaa, J., Olivera, J.: Augmented reality-based manual assembly support with visual features for different degrees of difficulty. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 31, 337–349 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Syberfeldt, A., Danielsson, O., Holm, M., Wang, L.: Dynamic operator instructions based on augmented reality and expert systems. In: Proceedings CIRP Conference on Manufacturing Systems.(CMS) (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sääski, J., Salonen, T., Hakkarainen, M., Siltanen, S., Woodward, C., Lempiäinen, J.: Integration of design and assembly using augmented reality. In: Ratchev, S., Koelemeijer, S. (eds.) IPAS 2008. IIFIP, vol. 260, pp. 395–404. Springer, Boston (2008). Scholar
  15. 15.
    EN ISO 9241 - The ergonomics of human-system interaction (2018).
  16. 16.
    Travis, D.: Bluffers’ Guide to ISO 9241, 9th edn. Userfocus Ltd., London (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Univ. Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, Grenoble INP, G-SCOPGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations