@AustinC, that's an interesting read. The first one I've seen that takes it from the beginning to now. You're the first I've seen to bring up several key things - such as the first external acknowledgement of Partners. You had some
amazing access to decision makers.
I've read the article several times, but something still isn't quite lining up for me - that budget thing, those Partners, the timeline.
You see, to echo
@ParentsOf4, those Partners, who were brought in to right the ship after budget approvals, they eat billable hours like starving college kids eat free pizza. So, how can this size of a Project that goes on for 2 1/2 years longer than anticipated with a now much larger and expensive group of Partners come in under-budget?
I do hope you write a follow-up to your article because there's a key area where I think you were misdirected as to the main driver to NextGen - the interactive part. That's the icing. The cake is here, in the Patent App:
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20130018661.PGNR.
Pay close attention to the sections [0060] -[0077] . Using FP's to keep certain guest types like off-site or single day tickets in the Park longer, while offering tighter FP windows for long-staying on-site guests so they can go back to the Resort to spend more. Both to increase Disney's per-guest spend.
[0071] Once the available inventory of experiences 18 is determined in accordance with 265, scheduling windows are retrieved at 270. The parameters of the scheduling windows retrieved may depend on the guest strategy being pursued, which in some embodiments may serve to lengthen or shorten the applicable scheduling windows depending on the guest strategy. Additionally, in some embodiments, the scheduling windows retrieved may also be based on the number of days that the guest will be visiting an experience area 22, the amount of available experience 18 inventory on the day the guest wishes to visit and experience area 22, etc. For instance, using the embodiment of FIG. 3 as an example, for a guest visiting one theme park on a single day visit, retrieving the scheduling windows in accordance with 270 may comprise the scheduling element 116 causing the schedule engine 124 to lengthen the windows of time between the selected experiences 18, spreading the experiences 18 out over the entire day. On the other hand, for a guest staying on site at the experience area 22 over multiple days, the strategy information and/or parameters may dictate that the schedule engine 124 shorten the windows of time between experiences 18 to allow the guests more flexible time to enjoy their accommodations at the experience area 22.
It also points to the Park stagnation in the interim. They saw underutilized attractions, with underutilized capacity, and guests standing in line too long at the sought after rides, and guests leaving too soon after line frustration.
NextGen was the end around to the traditional way of increasing guest spend - why build more rides with their higher yty maintenance costs when we can invest in NextGen (high up front cost, low maintenance and employee costs after) as a way proactively manage our Parks and rides capacity to lock them in and then keep off-siters in the Parks spending - or on-siters out quickly and back at the pool sipping $11 Mai-Tais, or bowling at Splittsville, or at the Spa, or golf at Magnolia. Use the capacity we have to the fullest to increase guest spend before building anything new.
There's a reason, it's hard to change FP times without system knowledge, and a reason the first offered have a longer spread of times than what's really available, a reason there are kiosks where you can only schedule that 4th FP when you are physically in that Park, and a reason for FP's for later evening events like Wishes. Unfortunately, that also meant having FP's for things like Captain EO. To the Execs, capacity is capacity. But, to a first timer, they don't know that there's a huge disparity in quality for the FP's they pick.
As a Technology article, it would seem that you would be very interested in digging into that. This is where they expect the ROI. This is also where the Partners and that huge expense occurred - those complicated business rules to present the options to accomplish their goals. Only a few have the ability to turn that into a functioning system.
As a Technology article, this is also the biggest story -where they are the first to try to manipulate human behavior in this way with technology.
Which is also their biggest risk. We pesky humans tend to not always do what's mapped out on a white board. We tend to break the rule rather than follow it. That's a story worth digging into - and it points to where they really expect to see the ROI. Don't let the flashy interactive part blind the real technology story, the real risk, and the real ROI justification.
It's all spelled out in the Patent.
(Credit to
LakeTravis on the DisBoards for digging up the patent back in 12/13)
