The Metaverse at Work

Leslie Shannon has cycled through Japan, New Zealand and the Peruvian Andes without leaving her exercise bike. Using a sensor, a VR headset and an application built around Google Street View, she turns a workout into a journey. There is an unexpected perk: in her account of the experience, the traffic lights are always green. The camera car recorded its progress while moving, so the virtual rider keeps going too.

For Nokia's Head of Trend and Innovation Scouting, this is more than an entertaining demonstration. It changes a routine she actually follows. In this episode of Innovation Rockstars, Shannon brings that same practical curiosity to industrial augmented and virtual reality. Her advice to innovation leaders starts with trying the technology closely enough to judge what it could do for their own work.

Define the application before debating the label

Shannon prefers the term spatial computing to a conversation dominated by the word metaverse. It describes the combination of digital and physical experiences without making one company's virtual world stand for an entire field. Virtual reality creates a digital environment; augmented reality places digital information into the user's view of the physical world.

The distinction makes business applications easier to discuss. A maintenance technician might need an expert to identify a component remotely. Someone assembling equipment might benefit from a wiring diagram in their field of view. An instruction manual can be useful without becoming a separate object the worker has to hold.

The hands-free aspect is central. Shannon describes industrial settings where wearing a relatively bulky headset for a specific task is acceptable because it provides useful assistance. Consumer adoption sets different demands on weight, appearance and everyday comfort. Judging both markets by the same hardware expectations can obscure opportunities already worth testing.

Ask what changes in the task

Training is another application Shannon highlights, particularly where practicing in the physical world is dangerous, difficult or expensive. The useful question is what an immersive environment lets a person rehearse, see or understand that the existing approach handles poorly.

She discusses a Nokia and EY study of industrial and enterprise use cases, describing respondents who reported business benefits exceeding their expectations. That is evidence worth examining, rather than a guarantee that every proposed implementation will succeed. A team still needs to connect a specific application to the work it intends to improve.

Her own fitness routine makes that connection unusually tangible. She says concentrating on the game and earning points encourages her to exercise harder than she does outside VR. She also discloses that she invested in the company behind one of her favorite applications. The enthusiasm is personal, and the relationship is explicit.

For an R&D team, a hands-on trial can make the discussion more precise: where does the experience help, what becomes awkward, and which problem would justify continuing?

Plan for the dependencies behind the experience

Nokia's role in Shannon's account concerns connectivity. An immersive application depends on more than the display in front of someone's eyes. Rendering, computation and the movement of data all affect the experience.

She connects the ambition for lighter devices to moving computation elsewhere. That, in turn, creates network requirements. Her discussion of future mobile generations reflects the long planning horizon of telecommunications: work on a new generation begins while another is being deployed. Infrastructure cannot be built instantly when a popular application arrives.

There is a broader planning lesson here. A compelling prototype may depend on capabilities outside the team's control. Understanding those dependencies helps distinguish an application that can work in a defined industrial setting from a vision that requires wider technical change. Shannon's optimism about future consumer experiences comes with acknowledgment that their eventual form remains uncertain.

Combine technologies without confusing a concept with a product

Shannon explores how generative AI could make spatial computing more accessible. Natural language could let people request digital objects or describe functionality they want to use. Her illustrative example is an application that identifies an aircraft overhead and displays its destination in the user's view.

She presents that as a possible combination of technologies, not a finished product. The components suggest a direction; integrating them into something useful remains work to be done. For innovation scouting, that distinction keeps imagination productive without turning a scenario into an unsupported capability claim.

It also requires a willingness to revise a view as evidence changes. Early in the conversation, Shannon identifies attachment to one's own prediction as a professional hazard.

“And so you have to be ready to be wrong.”

Challenge the idea that sounds helpful but feels intrusive

Shannon recalls a company excited about using cameras to detect employees' emotions during work tasks. The intention was to understand whether people were happy. Her objection was immediate: unhappiness can originate outside work, and she would not want HR tracking it.

The example exposes a question that technical feasibility cannot answer. An organization may be able to observe something without having a good reason to do so. Shannon argues that concerns should be raised during the pitch, while an idea can still be challenged, rather than saved for a private conversation afterward.

“We all have to raise our voices here.”

That combination of curiosity and scrutiny runs through the episode. Shannon is willing to put on the headset, change her exercise routine and imagine unfamiliar applications. She is equally willing to question a prediction or reject an intrusive use. For leaders deciding where to experiment, both habits belong in the room: enough direct experience to see the opportunity, and enough independence to challenge what should happen next.