betty rose
Well-Known Member
A million and two likes!
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
MyMagic+ article from Fast Company magazine
- Thread starter AustinC
- Start date
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
And POOF, just like that... FP+ reservation times for benches was born.
Be sure to reserve them 60 days out as they fill up fast.
Technically, option 3 you have made is no different than option 1 that @ParentsOf4 proposed. Everybody can find something positive at WDW, even doom and gloomers, they just find more negative aspects of the current state vs the past. You just re-worded option 1. You like Disney the way it is and theres nothing wrong with that. I still visit and spend money in its current state so obviously I like it as well.
I just feel the park has seen better days and that while most of the new construction is not bad, its far from what they once could/would build.
betty rose
Well-Known Member
Okay, they must bring my Icee to me, as they will know what bench my butt is parked on!
I disagree. Here is what he wrote:
When it comes to “pixie duster” vs. “doom and gloomer” debates, there tends to be two camps:
Those who like Walt Disney World the way it is.
Those who like Walt Disney World the way it was.
A pixie duster can think today’s WDW is just fine the way it is and still reminisce about a time when it was better.
I don't think that WDW is "fine" the way it is, and I don't reminisce about a time when it was better, because it wasn't always better than it is now. I don't know when you started going there, or at what age, but I was 20 when I made my first visit in 1978, and have been visiting ever since. I was at EPCOT when it opened, and while certain parts looked good, other parts were still crappy with all of the construction going on, and for many months afterward. In addition, the food resort wide back then was simply nowhere near as good as it is now. Yes, I said that. My opinion is that it was NOT as good back then. I was not a kid with rose-colored glasses, but a young adult who saw things as they were. I had absolutely the worst salmon dish at EPCOT in 1982, and it is so much better now.
That's why I think a third category. I really like a lot of what they are doing, but I also dislike certain things, as I enumerated. According to most here, a pixie duster thinks that everything at WDW is great and they don't need to change a thing. You mention that the D&G crowd here just find more negatives, which would leave some to believe that there are parts of the new projects that they like, but their posts say otherwise. Most (not all) of the D&G crowd complain about EVERY project that Disney has done in the last several years, and the one thing that they don't seem to get is simple - IT IS NEVER GOING TO BE THE WAY THEY WANT, NO MATTER WHO IS IN CHARGE. So instead of looking for all of the negative, maybe, since they still claim to enjoy going, they could just enjoy the parks, and stop looking for every little tiny thing that is wrong, and then coming here to complain about it endlessly.
Oh, and I would still like answers from @clsteve for my questions. He expected answers from @AustinC, so I would like answers from him.
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
Anyone who has visited the two resorts frequently over the last five years would come to the same conclusion - they are guided by two different philosophies at this point.
One is still adhering to the core values that Disney Parks legacy was founded on and one is operated as a chain franchise that is only interested in using the brand and not the underlying meaning behind it. TDA and TDO don't exist on paper anymore under the One Disney initiative; but, the resorts are operated and budgeted using different principles.
Without even entering into the discussions about attraction lineups or capacity, a cursory glance at the attention to detail, the services they offer and the entertainment packages on offer yields a vast discrepancy between the way the two are run.
The whole debate about the resorts catering to different audiences is a bunch of hooey. The audience is the exact same on both coasts - they are both serving those that have elected to visit a Disney Park for a Disney Parks experience. The only true difference is that one resort takes advantage of the amount of effort a guest takes to get to their gate versus another resort that understands that their guests won't let them be taken advantage of.
DLR knows that they need to keep the standard high to satisfy their audience as their audience (or at least a large percentage of the "local" population) won't let them let the show quality continue to slide because if they do, they will either stop coming or flood the resort with complaints.
WDW knows that their audience goes to great lengths to get to their resort. They know that it takes preplanning and that takes time and more importantly - commitment. Once committed, they know they've locked you in. There is no need for effort at that point other than making a stab at nabbing a guest's "intent to return". MM+ and FP+ serve as their method of accomplishing both the locking you in and the intent to return. MM+/FP+ serve as a form of contract between you and the resort that you guarantee you will be onsite with them during "x>y". You reserved it in advance and you sign the contract. TDO knows that as long as people are still making reservations for MM+, then it's all compound interest for them. They can just sit back and watch and do nothing but continue to trim away costs until people stop signing the contract (or their soul). TDO knows that their audience can't just decide to not come back tomorrow or next week like a large percentage of Anaheim's audience can.
So, the audience is the same on both coasts. We all love Disney Parks.
It's just one coast is having their love taken advantage of because of the commitment that is involved in expressing it.
As I've been saying all along with this MM+ project, WE (look in the mirror) are the problem and WE are the only solution. Until all of us wise up and stop accepting things like MM+ as a Magic Bean, we will continue to have more and more taken away from what made the place so special to us to begin with.
Until WDW fans can look at something like the Hub refurb (why it was "necessary" and why it is taking so long to complete) or Pirates refurb (some fans are happy it's refurb was reduced) or the sad state of DHS, AK, or EPCOT, then we shouldn't expect anything to get better.
We are the problem. We keep forking over our money for less and less of the Disney Parks quality we should be receiving . As long we continue to do so, to quote David Byrne "Same as it ever was, same as it ever was..."
*I admit I'm guilty as anyone. I spent a week and WDW in January and will be going back in June to take my niece on her first WDW adventure; but, I am tapering my WDW addiction. We didn't go last year for our annual week long WDW trip in the winter and we are going to do the same again this coming season. We will be taking our Disney dollars to DLR.
flynnibus
Premium Member
Sorry, this misses a very important difference. While the 'vacationers' may really be the same kinds of people on both coasts... DLR has a whole other demographic which isn't the vacationer, but simply those looking for entertainment as a local diversion. Disneyland is entrenched in many people in the region as where you go to see people, hang out, find entertainment on a Friday night, etc. For other parts of the country, kids may have the local mall, or whatever the local scene is to go and just goof off... see people, have some fun, get some food, do the things you like. In SoCal... for a lot of people and generations of families.. that place is Disneyland.
So you don't just have the vacationers... but the 'lets go out' crowd too. These people visit more frequently, and they also end up taking more ownership in feeling that the place is 'THEIR park', etc. Generations have grown up this way now.
When you add in the millions that look at Disneyland as their 'regional park' and not just their hangout.. that audience explodes in size.
Those two categories of guests are widly different in the percentage of guests, and what the offerings cater to between the resorts. Yes, there are people in Central FL that match the kind of description I laid out, but they are a minority.. and WDW doesn't cater the larger product towards them. The opposite is true on the west coast.
As you say, WDW is focused on getting people to return... DLR has to face an audience that is pretty much determined to return regardless but insist the park be what they think it should be
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
Agreed. @JediMasterMatt and TDA would be missing the mark if they simply lumped their guests into one giant category of "Disney Lovers." This is exactly where TDO misses the mark, and where the devoted fanbase of WDW isnt large enough to be a concern over the "vacationer" segment. Well said @flynnibusSorry, this misses a very important difference. While the 'vacationers' may really be the same kinds of people on both coasts... DLR has a whole other demographic which isn't the vacationer, but simply those looking for entertainment as a local diversion. Disneyland is entrenched in many people in the region as where you go to see people, hang out, find entertainment on a Friday night, etc. For other parts of the country, kids may have the local mall, or whatever the local scene is to go and just goof off... see people, have some fun, get some food, do the things you like. In SoCal... for a lot of people and generations of families.. that place is Disneyland.
So you don't just have the vacationers... but the 'lets go out' crowd too. These people visit more frequently, and they also end up taking more ownership in feeling that the place is 'THEIR park', etc. Generations have grown up this way now.
When you add in the millions that look at Disneyland as their 'regional park' and not just their hangout.. that audience explodes in size.
Those two categories of guests are widly different in the percentage of guests, and what the offerings cater to between the resorts. Yes, there are people in Central FL that match the kind of description I laid out, but they are a minority.. and WDW doesn't cater the larger product towards them. The opposite is true on the west coast.
As you say, WDW is focused on getting people to return... DLR has to face an audience that is pretty much determined to return regardless but insist the park be what they think it should be
DLR is totally handicapped by their lack of real estate - when you add together the huge LA market, the rest of the "west coast" market, as well as its draw as an international icon, the place definitely could definitely expand and have more hotels/waterpark. Even with the high prices that place is way too crowded, like, all the time. Walking through Disneyland on a normal weekend is like being at MK on Christmas (even with significantly less people there).
JediMasterMatt
Well-Known Member
Sorry, this misses a very important difference. While the 'vacationers' may really be the same kinds of people on both coasts... DLR has a whole other demographic which isn't the vacationer, but simply those looking for entertainment as a local diversion. Disneyland is entrenched in many people in the region as where you go to see people, hang out, find entertainment on a Friday night, etc. For other parts of the country, kids may have the local mall, or whatever the local scene is to go and just goof off... see people, have some fun, get some food, do the things you like. In SoCal... for a lot of people and generations of families.. that place is Disneyland.
So you don't just have the vacationers... but the 'lets go out' crowd too. These people visit more frequently, and they also end up taking more ownership in feeling that the place is 'THEIR park', etc. Generations have grown up this way now.
When you add in the millions that look at Disneyland as their 'regional park' and not just their hangout.. that audience explodes in size.
Those two categories of guests are widly different in the percentage of guests, and what the offerings cater to between the resorts. Yes, there are people in Central FL that match the kind of description I laid out, but they are a minority.. and WDW doesn't cater the larger product towards them. The opposite is true on the west coast.
As you say, WDW is focused on getting people to return... DLR has to face an audience that is pretty much determined to return regardless but insist the park be what they think it should be
That demographic is comprised of the same group of people - those that seek out Disney Parks brand of escape. A subset of that is the "hang out" culture that was imprinted on them by the desire for a Disney Parks escape.
Life is full of options and the determining factor for every visitor to a Disney Park is a conscious choice to visit in lieu of every other option on the table.
The market that was sold into the Florida Project is the same that was sold on the original magic kingdom on the West Coast. The same standard of quality and service is what sold people on returning time and time again and it's the same standard that people expect from a Disney Park wherever they travel. Disney Parks have become a brand.
The critique is that the Florida Project use to achieve that standard and is no longer doing so while the original product has righted their ship and are living up the legacy they created.
Whether you are local or not, the standard that Disney strives for shouldn't differ. WDW is using the fact that people have to commit so far in advance as another excuse to lower the bar.
Iwerks64
Well-Known Member
Hi, I thought I’d jump into the deep end here in the forums. I just finished reading the FastCompany article and found it to be interesting and well written. As I went through the article, highlighting and annotating (yes, I printed it and read it on paper – I’m old school), so many questions and concerns jumped out at me, especially as a stockholder in DIS. I’m sure in the interest of magazine word-count brevity, many of the areas the article only touched on briefly and there’s a lot more detail (that the @AustinC may or may not have). I’d love to see a follow-up article. If we’re still open to comments and questions, I have a few thoughts that the article has prompted.
I’ll start with the budget. From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, there has been a great deal of discussion and angst over the budget for MyMagic+. Was it $1B? Was it $2.3B? What did they actually spend? Was it spent wisely? I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the corporate speak and the rumors to understand this from a business standpoint. I’ve been an executive in large, global companies for many years and have managed large infrastructure projects and the budgets that go along with them. I feel I’m fairly knowledgeable of the corporate politics and games necessary to obtain, manage, defend, administer, forecast and “spin” your budget and actuals.
From the timeline in the article, the NGE project was kicked off in early 2008 (call it February). For the next three years, there’s what sounds in the article to be almost a drunken sailor approach to spending money with the collection of outside contractors, the 12,000-square-foot R&D lab (with hotel sets, mini-version of the haunted mansion and Be our Guest restaurant, airport simulation), a $500,00 project to redesign TSA luggage x-ray machines, etc. It’s unclear when the actual “living blueprint” R&D lab started, but with the amount of sets built and Disney’s normal pace of building, I would have to believe this had been in motion for more than 3 months. Any insiders want to take a stab at how much money was spent from February 2008 to February 2011?
It’s in February 2011 when the article states that the board authorized a budget of “nearly $1 billion for MyMagic+”. We have no idea how much was spent in the previous three years, nor do we know if the $1B was for that fiscal year (which for Disney would have only been another 7-8 months). My opinion, based on my own experience, is that it was most likely a forward looking budget and did not capture the previous three years of spending and was a budget for the (rest of the) full project as defined. And believe me, no project gets approved without a detailed scope, specifications and timeline. However, if the project as defined stated that an “early target date to deliver MyMagic+ was February 2012”, you’ve got a $1B budget for a 1 year project.
We also don’t know what specifically, within Disney’s corporate budget structure, the MyMagic+ project budget itself contained. What was the scope? In Disney corporate speak, is the MyMagic+ project and the NGE initiative one and the same from a budgetary standpoint? The article makes a point of separating the “NGE team” and the “MyMagic+ experience”. The article states that “the Dumbo renovations fall under the NGE initiative.” The $1B budget is for the MyMagic+ project. Where do interactive queues, on-line menu ordering, increased customer support, iPads for CMs, cost of changing out 28,000 hotel doors, etc. get budgeted? Are the costs of the bands themselves a MyMagic+ project cost or is that an operational cost? I can see them spinning the spending this way so that Staggs can say with a straight face that the MyMagic+ project came in under budget.
Earlier in this thread, when the subject of budget came up:
Ah, but Staggs never says the total cost was under the $1B mark. “He says the project was under budget”. The original 2011 scoped 12 month $1B board approved MyMagic+ project? Maybe. Although I’d have to do some very fancy footwork to be able to show financials to my board that a 12 month project that turned into a 36 month project still met its’ original budget. Given that “Accenture billed over $100 million for its role in developing MyMagic+” and “the cost to redesign and integrate DisneyWorld.com with MyMagic+ soared to around $80 million”. That’s almost 20% of the budget right there and doesn’t even begin to cover the on-site infrastructure.
I think it’s fairly easy to see from the article how the total cost to the WDC for all of the NGE initiative and the MyMagic+ project from February 2008 to today can easily exceed $2B as some of the insiders have claimed. I’d love to see what was given to Sheryl Sandburg when the board was “provided materials breaking down the program’s cost” to see what was included in the scope of that original $1B number. @AustinC, were you privy to those documents as part of your research?
I’ll start with the budget. From what I’ve read here and elsewhere, there has been a great deal of discussion and angst over the budget for MyMagic+. Was it $1B? Was it $2.3B? What did they actually spend? Was it spent wisely? I’ve been trying to wrap my head around the corporate speak and the rumors to understand this from a business standpoint. I’ve been an executive in large, global companies for many years and have managed large infrastructure projects and the budgets that go along with them. I feel I’m fairly knowledgeable of the corporate politics and games necessary to obtain, manage, defend, administer, forecast and “spin” your budget and actuals.
From the timeline in the article, the NGE project was kicked off in early 2008 (call it February). For the next three years, there’s what sounds in the article to be almost a drunken sailor approach to spending money with the collection of outside contractors, the 12,000-square-foot R&D lab (with hotel sets, mini-version of the haunted mansion and Be our Guest restaurant, airport simulation), a $500,00 project to redesign TSA luggage x-ray machines, etc. It’s unclear when the actual “living blueprint” R&D lab started, but with the amount of sets built and Disney’s normal pace of building, I would have to believe this had been in motion for more than 3 months. Any insiders want to take a stab at how much money was spent from February 2008 to February 2011?
It’s in February 2011 when the article states that the board authorized a budget of “nearly $1 billion for MyMagic+”. We have no idea how much was spent in the previous three years, nor do we know if the $1B was for that fiscal year (which for Disney would have only been another 7-8 months). My opinion, based on my own experience, is that it was most likely a forward looking budget and did not capture the previous three years of spending and was a budget for the (rest of the) full project as defined. And believe me, no project gets approved without a detailed scope, specifications and timeline. However, if the project as defined stated that an “early target date to deliver MyMagic+ was February 2012”, you’ve got a $1B budget for a 1 year project.
We also don’t know what specifically, within Disney’s corporate budget structure, the MyMagic+ project budget itself contained. What was the scope? In Disney corporate speak, is the MyMagic+ project and the NGE initiative one and the same from a budgetary standpoint? The article makes a point of separating the “NGE team” and the “MyMagic+ experience”. The article states that “the Dumbo renovations fall under the NGE initiative.” The $1B budget is for the MyMagic+ project. Where do interactive queues, on-line menu ordering, increased customer support, iPads for CMs, cost of changing out 28,000 hotel doors, etc. get budgeted? Are the costs of the bands themselves a MyMagic+ project cost or is that an operational cost? I can see them spinning the spending this way so that Staggs can say with a straight face that the MyMagic+ project came in under budget.
Earlier in this thread, when the subject of budget came up:
Ah, but Staggs never says the total cost was under the $1B mark. “He says the project was under budget”. The original 2011 scoped 12 month $1B board approved MyMagic+ project? Maybe. Although I’d have to do some very fancy footwork to be able to show financials to my board that a 12 month project that turned into a 36 month project still met its’ original budget. Given that “Accenture billed over $100 million for its role in developing MyMagic+” and “the cost to redesign and integrate DisneyWorld.com with MyMagic+ soared to around $80 million”. That’s almost 20% of the budget right there and doesn’t even begin to cover the on-site infrastructure.
I think it’s fairly easy to see from the article how the total cost to the WDC for all of the NGE initiative and the MyMagic+ project from February 2008 to today can easily exceed $2B as some of the insiders have claimed. I’d love to see what was given to Sheryl Sandburg when the board was “provided materials breaking down the program’s cost” to see what was included in the scope of that original $1B number. @AustinC, were you privy to those documents as part of your research?
flynnibus
Premium Member
Not really.. your statement makes it sound like they seek Disney.. and this is the avenue to that. When instead, it was 'we seek entertainment, and Disney was the best provider of it'. Since then, people have made Disney synonymous with that experience they seek.. and people get hooked on the Disney flavor (characters, stories, experiences, etc) as part of their past experiences.
The way Disneyland is ingrained in SoCal life can be paralleled with other things like.. Central Park, or a regional amusement. Don't put the cart before the horse. Disneyland has become a culture thing in SoCal... not simply that SoCal has more Disney brand fans than other places.
Yes, and what you overlook is that culture decision.. and pattern building that is done when a generation passes them down to their children.
Disneyland was built to serve a regional audience as a day-dodge. WDW was built to serve as a vacation retreat whose location was picked with long distance travelers in mind.
When we are talking about standards.. I agree. When you try to say because they have the same standards, the audience is the same... that's where you're wrong. And what your audience is and their needs vary... greatly alter your business model, priorities, and decisions. That's not to mean 'travelers = lower standards' as you may jump to.. and in some ways that is even true... but that doesn't make the audiences the same.
Customer demographics are different for different locations... even for companies that sell the same story, vision, and products. It's why companies must alter their offerings when they enter NEW markets.. even if they have the same corporate brand and image they want to project.
Just because McDonalds as a standard they want to project and meet... that doesn't mean their customer demographics in LA is the same as their customer demographics in Paris.
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
I don't agree that the parks are way too crowded at Disneyland. The parks are relatively peaceful on weekdays until after 5pm, and even on weekends there is so much to do, I've never felt like I was overcrowded. I've never experienced "dead stops" like you get at Magic Kingdom either, I think it's because most people know where they're going. The crowds keep moving, and Disneyland Park Ops is great at crowd control. And on any given weekend night there are 3 or 4 night time events going on (Fantasmic, Fireworks, WoC, parades) and 2 or 3 live music/entertainment offerings in addition to the attractions. Could it be expanded, yes...but they do very well with what they have.
Some excellent points. Having also been involved in large IT projects, it seems that there were many times that, due to the extended scope, the budget was broken down into multiple arenas. One for hardware, one for software, one for consulting, etc. so it is entirely possible that the MM+ portion was under budget, even if other costs were not. I'm willing to bet the board was not provided numbers for every portion, since a large portion were for infrastructure additions/upgrades.
I think it a bit disingenuous to add in every single cost of every single project as some have done to come up with the over $2 billion number. WDW desperately needed the WiFi additions and upgrades to not only the parks, but all of the resorts as well. While they may have had WiFi in some areas of some resorts, it was woefully inadequate for the task. Adding guest access WiFi to the parks was no doubt a HUGE cost. They had to allow for the possibility of 20,000 or 30,000 or more people trying to use it at the same time. Anyone not in IT will have NO idea how much that will cost in infrastructure, not to mention the huge resort and internet pipes needed to allow thousands of guests to be uploading pictures and such to instagram and facebook at the same time. It would be mind-boggling to most people as to how much bandwidth is needed to even come close to accomplishing this.
You mentioned the change out of all of the resort locks. Well, that happened before they ever started talking about the MBs. We used our regular KTTW card to tap and enter our rooms 2 years earlier. Does NGE take advantage of it? Sure, but they spent a lot of money on new KTTW cards long before the MBs came out, so that, according to Tom Staggs would never be considered part of the MM+ project money. These items were probably purchased under a resort hotel budget.
Another area is the park turnstiles. They also worked with the RFID AP passes long before MBs came out. That is another cost that COULD be added to MM+, but was probably a completely separate budgeted item from somewhere else. Heck, that might even have come from operations budget, rather than any kind of capex budgets.
The same can be said for the POS terminals everywhere on property. Since a new federal law puts the onus of CC fraud back onto the retailer if they don't accept the new credit cards, Disney was going to be replacing all of their terminals anyway. Do the MBs take advantage of them? Yes, but again, since they were going to have to do it anyway, Tom Staggs would also not have to include this cost in with MM+. This also might have come from a retail operation budget as well.
What about all of the servers that have had to be purchased for all sorts of reasons? Should they be included? I'm willing to bet that they were budgeted separately as well under just an IT budget.
Anyway, my main point is that with so many disparate parts that now work together, and were probably purchased under different teams budget, it really isn't a stretch to see why Tom Staggs can say with a straight face to the board that MM+ was under it's $1b budget. I will absolutely concede that the rest of the additions/upgrades would easily top $1 billion at a resort so vast, but I just don't agree with adding it all together, since a lot of it was infrastructure additions/upgrades that they really needed anyway. JMHO as an IT person for almost 40 years.
DDLand
Well-Known Member
Do you have a ballpark estimate, just for curiosity's sake?
Not for the cost, though I'm willing to bet just the MK alone was in the tens of millions just for the WiFi. And remember that Disney will have the access points hidden and themed so that you don't notice them, also an additional cost.
devoy1701
Well-Known Member
Those are some good points. Every cost needs a cost center and when a project covers multiple departments and divisions, I'm sure some of those costs were passed to other areas and WDW operating budget probably ate a significant part of the total cost of NGE. As you mentioned, upgrading door locks could have fallen to the individual resorts, new turnstyles and mickey posts at each attraction could have fallen to Park Ops, the payment scanners could somehow have been pushed to food and beverage or merchandising, still more could have ended up under the budget for New Fantasyland.
flynnibus
Premium Member
The change over to RFID locks was part of the MM+ initiative. Just because you used it earlier because it rolled out first doesn't exclude it from the project.
No, again, these changes were made explictly as part of the MM+ plan. They changed the ticket media to support the idea each ticket would be a RFID tag, not a mix of barcodes and tags.
Again.. completely wrong.
1) It's not federal law regarding the change to Smartchip and liability. It is the agreement between the CC companies and merchants.
2) Both Visa and Mastercard set Oct 2015 as the date where the liability for fraud will shift to the merchant if they did not validate the transaction via EMV. But this long coming change didn't finally get motivation to set a hard date . The change in the mandate only happened after the Target breach brought so much more attention to the topic and finally broke the logjam and got things moving
3) The POS terminals were designed as part of the MM+ system.. hence the common Mickey design shared with the Turnstiles.
Everything you listed before was all part of an overarching deployment plan for a unified system under NGE/MM+.
No, a budget gets FUNDING from a source. The source would account for the expense in their own budget. Or things would be directly cross-charged and again.. be seen by the funding source.
No, if you want to make the numbers appear a certain way, they can be shifted and distorted to look anyway you want when you control all the buckets. They can spin any answer they want.. because the boundaries are really arbitrary. Its only at the financial reporting level where they are constrained. They aren't hiding they spent the money, but they can mask what money was spent where. At the end of the day its still spinning a story they want.
The word 'budget' is so misused on discussion forums it's absurd. Budgets are nothing but plans. The only thing that really matters is what you actually spend or are willing to spend. here you're just trying to support their notion of hiding what efforts went to what.
Would these systems change eventually on their own? Yes.. but they were changed now and to these choices to support MM+.. and would have been funded under corporate initiates to do so. Everything else is just a shell game.
It has to be funded as part of common initiatives otherwise you never would achieve a uniform roll out and project plan. If you left it to each division to prioritize and find the money in existing standing budget norms... such radical overhauls would never happen, and certainly not in unison.
Exactly!! You know, I was just thinking about this, but I find it very strange that some people will lump all of this together to say that MM+ is way over budget, but for some reason, they won't add together separate projects that are costing hundreds of millions over the same time period resort wide. If you add up the cost NFL, DS, AoA resort, VGF, Poly villas, Avatar, etc. not to mention all of the refurbs, I'm willing to bet that a lot more has been spent on these in total than MM+ and all of the other IT upgrades. We can only imagine waht it is costing to widen Buena Vista Drive to ten lanes, with separate bus lanes to help with traffic flow. Not pretty, but it has to be done., and you can bet that it isn't cheap!
flynnibus
Premium Member
The real catch... and why 'what was the total spend' discussions are really pointless in the end.. is actually the other side of the process. Not what the bosses included... but what the other teams CHARGE to it.
It's what people ATTACH to a plan and roll up their spend under that initiative's umbrella.
OOOO.. new mandate for RFID? Ok, let's upgrade all our phones to the latest and greatest and lump it under the initative as needed for beta testing. OOOO.. new mandate for field service? Ok, lets buy a bunch of iPads and throw it under that cost code.
When people know there are no constraints on a program.. it becomes a self-feeding cycle where excess abounds and accountability is hard to come by. This is why you see such corruption and waste in Iraq/etc...
The bigger and faster something is.. the more people will abuse it for their own gain.
The accounting at the end will be a mess of intentional and unintentional spend... and isn't always representative of what really belongs or not. The only thing that really matters is how much ADDITIONAL spending over their normal levels did they do.
It's what people ATTACH to a plan and roll up their spend under that initiative's umbrella.
OOOO.. new mandate for RFID? Ok, let's upgrade all our phones to the latest and greatest and lump it under the initative as needed for beta testing. OOOO.. new mandate for field service? Ok, lets buy a bunch of iPads and throw it under that cost code.
When people know there are no constraints on a program.. it becomes a self-feeding cycle where excess abounds and accountability is hard to come by. This is why you see such corruption and waste in Iraq/etc...
The bigger and faster something is.. the more people will abuse it for their own gain.
The accounting at the end will be a mess of intentional and unintentional spend... and isn't always representative of what really belongs or not. The only thing that really matters is how much ADDITIONAL spending over their normal levels did they do.