And you think it is a good thing that these operational issues were discovered when the thing went live? Seriously? No one wants to find problems and figure out basic optimization in production systems. That's why you test and do softs or betas before going live. You of course can make modifications in production, but why make your audience a test subject?
Because there is a point of diminishing returns and if your metrics are good enough, you should launch and accept that you will still do continuous improvements. You know.. the same determination they make AFTER doing softs.
Play out your preferred scenario... the attraction has been processing on avg over 100 BGs a day... with the worst we saw was only down about 20%, with the best being nearly 30% over that.
Let's say you got your soft openings for a week.. and they ran for 1/3 the day.. which is pretty typical of the limited daytime hours most softs do.. less than half the day. They open late, they close early. Let's be generous and say they rock it and get 100% utilization during their 40% run time of the day. That's equivalent to 40 BGs getting through a day. They do that for a week. And at the end of their softs, instead of running up to -20% on worst days, let's assume they get to their full 120 BGs EVERYDAY after opening due to their work during softs.. and we get our second week at this higher capacity.
That means for 14 days, they would have serviced 280+840 = 1120 BGs.
Now contrast this with what they have done... let's assume the conservative 100BG average.. during that same 14 day period, they've serviced 1400 BGs.
As you can see, more guests have experienced the ride even tho it's not running at 100% vs the alternate strategy to try to improve operations with taking another week of softs.
Even if the softs meant they improved operations to run at 130 BGs a day at opening.. they STILL have serviced LESS GUESTS than if they just opened the attraction with lower capacity. Even if they were to get higher utilization during softs and averaged 45 BGs (to better match the 130 we've seen lately).. they still fall short of what they actually did and just opened the attraction with the throughput they had. (45*7 + 130*7 = 1225)
So what would have using softs gained the guests who showed up at opening? Nothing... fewer people would have gotten to experience the attraction during the same period of time. The same optimizations that would have been gained from softs, are happening now. There are not reports that the attraction is being HINDERED by having the guests on it are there?
And what negative consequence did Disney face by 'testing with the public'? You don't test with the public when there is negative consequences for doing so. Bad experience, safety risks, negative impact to their day, etc. But has that been a problem here? No... the main risk of downtime has been mitigated by Disney through GR efforts and the virtual queue. Limiting the number of guests impacted by an unexpected shutdown. The net result of this has been almost universal praise from everyone who has been through the process. All those people you put 'at risk' by not using softs have resoundedly said 'WE ARE OK!'
So.. like I said pages ago... the people with the most to lose from not using softs was Disney's accountants.. as Disney used tech, staff, and GR compensation to offset the risks their guests faced by queuing for an attraction that didn't have any softs.
By not having softs, MORE guests have gotten through, the attraction is still being optimized, and Disney is not facing negative customer sentiment.
You're talking in circles once again. All premieres will have their own problems, but there is a standard approach which has worked very well for Disney and others in the past, especially with super complicated ride systems. Going live and using guests as unknowing test subjects is not part of that approach.
I'm not talking in circles.. you're bringing up cites that don't support your postulation. You also fail to acknowledge how Disney CHANGED what they did to mitigate the risks of negative customer impact... which by all accounts.. have been working. Instead of just pounding the drum of "keep doing what we've always done..." recognize it's not just a single thing left out... its multiple changes in the approach.
