Sunday, October 2, 2016

Evaluating SaaS solutions for an Enterprise Architecture ? Watch for these 5 challenges

CIOs at large and small organizations have embraced the trend of moving their application portfolios to the cloud, many with stated “cloud first” and “SaaS first” principles. Keeping pace with this demand, Software as a Service (SaaS) vendor offerings also continue to mature at an exceptional rate.

Corporate users are increasingly aware of vendor offerings in their business verticals. In many cases, vendors are reaching out directly to business users and “selling” their SaaS offerings; which is not necessarily a bad thing. More power to users!

In my role of an Enterprise Architect for a multinational, I routinely engage with corporate stakeholders to evaluate new solutions, and generally come away impressed with the maturity of their SaaS offerings. Many times, however, these evaluation sessions turn out to be knowledge sharing exercises where I end up having to educate and guide business sponsors and users, and even SaaS vendors on aspects of our corporate ecosystem.

Business stakeholders are often surprised to learn that even “service on the cloud” need additional design and integration before they can be seamlessly used in our corporate setting. An analogy is perhaps that of water or electric utility providing service to a large manufacturing plant. The utility provides the “service” for the electric wires with power to come coming up-to the plant. The plant’s Engineers and electricians need to draw a blueprint, design for the conduits, wires, switches etc down to individual rooms, workstations and equipment. Only after that can the users flick a switch.

Drawing from the same analogy, if we think of the SaaS as yet another “utility,” providing a new service at the manufacturing plant, one still needs the internal architecture and design - wiring and conduits - to ensure that the proposed SaaS platforms co-exist, and operate seamlessly with other capabilities that business users expect from the organization. The themes that seem to recur in SaaS conversations include:

#1. Configurations and customizations can add to cost and complexity
  • SaaS solutions are like a Swiss army knife - designed for many scenarios, but require to be configured before they can work for complex and global business functions. In the analogy, the utility company might supply an agreed “standard” - units of Volts and Watts - that will need to be transformed for specific needs and machines in the plant.
  • Most SaaS solutions support configurations; like changes to UI templates, basic workflows, role based authorization and authentication etc. However, even seemingly small configurations done together might cascade into a considerable piece of work.
  • SaaS platforms for complex business needs – like CRM, Financial Services, Supply Chains, HR, Talent Management, Legal matter management, Contract Management etc. - rarely work out-of-the-box (OOTB), especially given the requirements for larger companies with hundreds of users spread across geographies.
  • Configurations need to be done by product experts with the right functional and technical skills, and knowledge of corporate ecosystem. (In our analogy, one would need an electrician - not a plumber or carpenter – with the plant’s wiring diagram to do the wiring.)
  • The technical and functional skills required to configure SaaS solution may need to be sourced at a premium. Just try searching for “workday consultant” or “salesforce project manager” on LinkedIn jobs section and see the number of hits. Technology consulting firms have sensed an opportunity, and developed entire practice areas with armies of consultants focused on specific SaaS solution.

#2. Synchronizing upgrade calendars

  • SaaS solutions continually undergo change as vendors enhance capabilities and offerings. Such changes are generally kept transparent to end users, which is really attractive to IS executives.
  • Vendors try to manage most of the changes to SaaS solutions “behind the scenes” but some changes may need end-user communication - for instance, they may need to be informed that on Monday morning the screens may look and feel a bit different after the weekend’s software upgrade! (in the utility analogy, the electric utility might notify the plant manager if a transformer is being upgraded in their neighborhood; and the plant supervisor will plan tests with machines prior to the following shift.)
  • SaaS solutions that integrate with other corporate applications will need to be tested after major upgrades. This is typically done as User Acceptance Tests (UATs). Before planning such upgrades, the organizations’ IS team will also verify upgrade calendars. The calendars also track business seasonality, peak sales periods, financial account closing etc. System changes and upgrades are generally “frozen” and disallowed during such periods. Such business driven calendars need to be orchestrated with the SaaS vendor’s upgrade calendars.
  • Back to our analogy, the manufacturing plant might subscribe to several utilities – power, water and sewage, network phone etc. In the same way, organizations continue to consume SaaS services for critical functions - e.g hypothetical MyCorp in Figure-1. The challenge in tracking upgrade calendars of all service providers, synchronized with internal calendar is not a trivial one.
( Figure-1: MyCorp integrating SaaS)

#3. Don’t underestimate integration complexity

  • Technology solutions designed to enable complex business functions will require corporate data from different sources before they can provide consistent and meaningful results to business users.
  • SaaS services for such functions will also require such corporate data and information from the “backend” corporate platforms. Depending on the existing technology landscape, such interfaces and integrations may not be trivial or cheap to implement.
  • The promise of Service oriented Architectures (SOA), when done right should help mitigate the impact of ongoing changes, but will still require testing and validations. [Point #2 above]

#4. Do not underestimate the need for a “service” to manage the SaaS service

  • Corporate technology consumers and users are promised a certain service level to ensure their productivity. The manager at the manufacturing plant expects his lights to turn on, his phones to work and perhaps also coffee in the break-room. All these utility “services” are orchestrated and managed with well-defined service levels (SLAs/OLAs). Likewise, organizations design internal help-desk and support organizations to provide consistent “service” and user experience. If there issues with the power or phone, the plant worker knows to call the corporate help desk and not the utility directly.
  • A SaaS solution introduced in a corporate environment will require a service “wrapper,” for example designed into the existing help-desk to make the support experience seamless.    
  • Service management is generally not free. SaaS Service providers offer corporate users a variety of service levels that sound like frequent flyer program’s tiers - Bronze/Silver/Gold, Standard/Enhanced/Premium etc. The tier come at increasing cost with distinct implications on service levels, support hours and terms, which may not be obvious at the outset. A business group signing up for “Bronze” service might think of “Support hours: 8 hrs/ day” as reasonable, not realizing that the “service” will be required to support colleagues across three-four time-zones in the US alone, not to mention Europe and Asia! (ref example in the chart below)

(Figure 2: Illustrative SaaS Support model)

#5. Watchout for the TCO

  • At the outset, SaaS service and licensing costs may seem inexpensive. There is perhaps a grain of truth to it, since SaaS offerings are cheaper and perhaps faster to deploy than solutions developed by in-house teams. However, the business stakeholders sold on the promise of no-touch deployments and “light” service models need to be informed and educated of the total cost of the solution deployed – this may include configurations, customizations, integration, integrating service model etc.
SaaS offerings continue to mature and are being positioned as traditional “utilities.” Vendors and consultants continue to enhance pre-built templates and accelerators to minimize the need for configurations. However, just like we still have to design for the consumption of utility services at our manufacturing plants, there is work to be done before a SaaS service is consumed by corporate users. There are few shortcuts.

Bottomline: Corporate users need to be aware of incremental hidden costs!

Repost from my LinkedIn Pulse post

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

Yet another Climate change story? Chinese to cut meat consumption by 50%

As an Enterprise Architect for a multinational Agribusiness company, food and the business of food is at the center of many of our discussions. 'Feeding over 7 billion people' in a sustainable way is a perennial topic of discussion in the media. National Geographic dedicated several cover stories on this last year. (link)

Large agri-business firms have also embarked on corporate social initiatives: like the “good growth plan” from Syngenta (my employer), or Monsanto's “growing better together” campaign.
Agribusiness companies are, rightly, focused on trying to address the problems in improving crop yields, farm production, wastage and supply-chains. In a sense, the business world is really focused on meeting consumer demand and has limited influence when it comes to shaping global food consumption and tastes. One aspect of consumer demand directly impacting the global food production is the increase in meat consumption. For example, a recent article in The Guardian states how “Meat has gone from rare treat to a regular staple for many Chinese people. In 1982, the average Chinese person ate just 13kg of meat a year and beef was nicknamed “millionaire’s meat” due to its scarcity.”

This trend is not unique to China and is increasingly common in other developing nations like India and Brazil where meat consumption has gone up too. And why does this matter? An article in AJCN Journal (link) “Sustainability of meat-based and plant-based diets and the environment” explains how “producing 1 kg of fresh beef may require about 13 kg of grain and 30 kg of hay. This much forage and grain requires about 100 000 L of water to produce the 100 kg of hay, and 5400 L for the 4 kg of grain.”

Figure below shows the layers of agriculture production before consumers get meat on their table

It is interesting how the Chinese have decided to tackle this problem head on. Recent news headlines proclaim “The Chinese government has outlined a plan to reduce its citizens’ meat consumption by 50%, in a move that climate campaigners hope will provide major heft in the effort to avoid runaway global warming.” (link:

So what will this move by Chinese government do? Consuming more grains and less meat by humans will cut an entire layer from food-production-supply-chain! (figure below)
This is certainly a big deal since “Globally, 14.5% of planet-warming emissions emanate from the keeping and eating of cows, chickens, pigs and other animals – more than the emissions from the entire transport sector.”  (link:

For those wondering where the billion-plus Chinese will get their “protein” when they cutback on meat consumption, refer to my recent blog: Musing on Food, Protein and Vegetarianism)
I wonder if governments in western nations where meat is a staple diet, and other developing countries – eg. India with a billion-plus population – where meat consumption is on the rise, have the political and social will to follow suit?!

(repost form LinkedinPulse)

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Book Review: Modern medicine and Mortality 101

My #bookReview of "Being Mortal: Medicine and What Matters in the End" by Atul Gawande
I have been a fan of Mr. Gawande’s writing, and had read his earlier bestseller “complications: A Surgeon's Notes on an Imperfect” and other articles in New Yorker. I like the lucid, narrative style in which he explores medical topics which many of us laymen might find hard to comprehend.  I picked up “Being Mortal” for another practical reason: I happen to be an Indian-American, with aging parents living in the old country, and a father who is undergoing treatment for an advanced prostate growth.

As humans, we are confronted with death, dying and mortality of life that sometimes comes with old age and disease but also confronts us at the most unexpected of times. Most of us look to prolong life, in many cases blinded by the promise of technical advances in modern medicine, but disregard or ignore the risks and side- effects such practices can have on quality of life.

Based on extensive research, interviews and review of several case studies, Atul Gawande’s though provoking book is not just topical, but for some, may also be a timely read.  What makes this book especially readable is the ‘life’ Atul brings to a rather morbid topic (sic!)

In the first few chapters, Atul starts by building a case for medical care professionals to be aware of geriatrics:

“most doctors treat disease and figure that the rest will take care of itself. And if it doesn’t – if a patient is becoming infirm and heading toward a nursing home – well, that isn’t really a medical problem, is it?”

Grounded in extensive research and analysis, Atul also opens himself up by exploring the experiences of his wife's grandmother and his own father as they and their family come to grips with mortality. He also lucidly describes how his family prepared for their death with dignity, at their own terms:

“The neck pain remained annoying …. But they also knew what mattered to him and left well enough alone. This was, I remember thinking, just the way I ought to make decisions with my own patients – the way we all ought to in medicine.”

Even his narratives on diseases and death, while exploring scores of case studies are expressive, and tend to stay away from clinical text; for instance, when he summarizes “no matter how much one has seen, nature refuses predictability”

Being Mortal is a very readable book that explores a demanding topic that can be deeply personal.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

Vendor-Driven Technical Debt: Why It Matters and What to Do About It

IT Leaders continually strive to balance the diverging needs of the organization, trying to address the “innovate vs sustain” challenge. They need to ensure that the limited resources support the existing investments in technologies, systems and processes while also enabling innovative techniques.
One of the key challenges in sustaining technology landscape is to ensure “technical debts” are paid off.

The term technical debt is generally used to describe the burden created by decisions to cut corners during design and coding software. The catchy metaphor is attributed to Ward Cunningham, who helped us think about how quick-and-dirty solutions set us up for debt that has to be paid back with interest. Technical debt driven by software vendors is a less frequently discussed, but significant variation on the theme.

In a recently published article in Cutter IT Journal, I try to broaden the conversation around technical debt to include the challenges of keeping up with software vendors’ lifecycles. Such vendor-driven technical debt requires the continual attention of CIOs and technology executives who need to balance limited budgets to address the issue.

This seems to be a persistent challenge fellow Enterprise Architects face in other organizations too. For instance, a query in a recent EA forum generated nearly a dozen responses in a span of a few days.  Damien Malone’s queries on tracking technical debt - How do I track? What do I track? - yielded a range of ideas.

Crux of the problem

Enterprises of all sizes buy or license software products, solutions, and tools from vendors. These products range from small investments in worker productivity tools to large investments in ERPs, CRM, databases, and specialized solutions designed to meet specific functional needs. The decision to implement a version of the software  — for example, Oracle Database 12c Release 1 or SQL Server 2008 R2 or SAP ERP 6.0, EP 4 — is generally a strategic one, requiring considerable analysis, planning, and resources. Such decisions are taken at a point in time, while considering the organization’s business needs and constraints in the technology landscape.

Software vendors and solution providers continually upgrade their product offerings, promising newer technical and functional capabilities. In order to provide support, vendors expect clients to keep up with their upgrade cycles. Upgrading to a newer version of software recommended by the vendor requires deliberate impact assessment to understand the potential impact to systems upstream or downstream. Such an upgrade may have to be orchestrated with changes in the rest of the landscape; for example, during a large pre-scheduled program.

After a few cycles of not upgrading, the software may fall behind the vendor’s support cycles, and the vendor may demand a penalty for supporting older versions. Some vendors call this “extended support,” and it can be expensive.  In some cases, after adequate notice, vendors may stop support of versions going back several generations.

Note: a more detailed analysis of this topic and techniques to address and repay technical debt are in my Cutter IT Journal article “Vendor-Driven Technical Debt: Why It Matters and What to Do About It (link).”

Cross post from my LinkedIn Pulse article

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Musing on Food, Protein and Vegetarianism

My journey into the complex and fascinating business of agriculture started a little more than four years ago when I took on a role of Enterprise Architect with a multinational Agribusiness company. Learning about the “business” is critical for EA’s, given the role we play in bridging the IT-business divide. One could argue many of us – even urbane city dwellers - are not too far removed from food, and the business of getting food to the table. While my day job primarily focuses on Business Processes and services enabled by Technology, I try and keep abreast of the business of food. A recent book by Dr. Garth Davis’s “Proteinaholic: How Our Obsession with Meat Is Killing Us and What We Can Do About It” caught my attention.
In the nearly two decades that I have spent living in the west - in North America and Europe - as a vegetarian, I have been fascinated by the westerners’ penchant for protein in their diets. This has defined modern food habits and the central role meat and meat based entrĂ©e play in our daily lives. I am often asked by colleagues and friends about my protein intake and where vegetarians get this “much needed” nutrient. Rather than getting into a debate on my dietary preference, I downplay my vegetarianism or just deflect the questions. I realized that Dr. Davis’s book, although intended for a meat-eating audience, also offers tips that vegetarians can use to explain the benefits of their dietary preferences.
The well-researched book written in a folksy narrative style addresses some of the very same topics I had been observing, and reflecting on, much of it empirically. In the book, Dr. Davis takes us through a journey of his discovery and research on diet, after his flailing health acts as a call-to-action. Chapter after chapter, he refers to data and research to emphasize why excess protein (and meat) consumption by humans is neither necessary nor beneficial to the health and sustenance. He starts by explaining the major fallacy of modern medicine and how he “had come to view human body as a kind of expensive, unreliable car – something that was always breaking down and needing to be repaired. I was totally focused on treating disease – prevention hadn’t really entered my mind as a possibility.” 
I read the book with much interest; however, I am left shaking my head on whether it will make a dent in meat-centric diets that the western readers are used to. I am willing to bet that most, if not all Americans reading the book aren’t going to share the same epiphany as Dr. Davis, or the enthusiasm to convert to vegetarianism. Just a few reasons why:
  • Food is an acquired taste. One grows up eating comfort food at home and school and with family and friends. Preferences and attitudes towards food, taste and diet that one acquires at an early age are hard to change. For instance, even after having lived in the west for most of my adult life, I still find a plate of rice or rotis and lentil soup (Dhal), the Indian staple I grew-up on to be my comfort-food. Likewise, an American growing up on Burger-and-fries or pepperoni-Pizza is not going to easily acquire a taste for lentil-soup and rice or other vegetarian foods.
  • Western penchant for meat is exported as a subculture. In their quest to ‘globalize,’ newly affluent Chinese and Indian middle-class is taking to meat and poultry like duck to water. This trend is not likely to reverse anytime soon; and is likely to amplify as the next generation that is growing up on a diet of meat is going to look to it as comfort food.
  • Don’t under-estimate the power of food industry resistant to change. An entire multi-billion dollar industry thrives on converting grains, corn and soyabeans into cattle and poultry that in turn are slaughtered and processed into burgers and meat. This industry is likely to work hard to ensure status-quo, and continue to dictate consumer tastes in meat.
  • Doctor heal-thyself – in the first few chapters of the book, the author makes a point of emphasizing how modern medicine is focused more on cure, and less on prevention; and how diet receives minimal attention in modern medicine.  It would take scores of western doctors like Dr. Davis to have an epiphany, and a change in mindset, before they get to a point where they can prescribe a change to the rest of us.
Bottomline: Views and habits, especially when it comes to food are going to be especially hard to change. But for those looking to firm up their views on Protein in our diets, this book is a good reference

Wednesday, January 20, 2016

Reignite the spirit of innovation by embracing Globalization!

For those of us in the vibrant field of Technology, President Obama’s question during the State of Union address this week How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges? struck a chord.   Mr. Obama’s emphasis was on rekindling the American “spirit of innovation,” but what was unsaid was the need to embrace globalization in the quest.
Perhaps to underscore the point, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella was invited to be Michelle Obama’s guest at the State of the Union.  Microsoft, like most hi-tech companies, embraces ideas and people with ideas from around the globe while retaining its “American” identity.
It’s not just Microsoft. Other American tech giants like Amazon, Apple, Google, and firms in Silicon Valley have leveraged extensive global networks in order to retain an edge in digital technology innovations. Hubs of technology innovation also continue to grow in Ireland, Israeli and increasingly in Bangalore.
Case in point: SUVs Designed in the US but made in India
Just this week, there was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal that described how the Indian auto giant Mahindra was betting big on sourcing Detroit's expertise in Auto design (link)
“Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., a Mumbai-based conglomerate with a thriving tractor business and information technology operation in the U.S., quietly has amassed an engineering staff about a dozen miles north of Detroit. Plucking talent from Ford Motor Co., Tesla Motors Inc. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV, the company aims to catch up with industry leaders by developing a vehicle able to meet American buyer’s demands and the nation’s tough regulatory standards. ….. The company’s senior executives say they are still intent on becoming a global force and Detroit, which Mahindra’s product planning chief Rajiv Mehtacalls “a Mecca for SUVs,” is a natural place for the company to learn how to do that.”
The article quoted an auto executive Lynn Bishop emphasizing how “Detroit isn’t outsourcing anymore, we’re being outsourced to.” Outsourcing Innovation in Automotive and other sectors is just tip of the iceberg. The trend seems to be much more pronounced in the digital startup space.
So, what does this mean?
In an election year, American leaders are bound to take a cue from Mr. Obama’s call to “Reignite the spirit of innovation.” Likewise, leaders in other countries are going to try and promote innovation within their shores: India, for instance has several initiatives like Startup India, Make in India and Digital India campaigns.
In the past, when confronted with outsourcing and offshoring, western governments began to erect protectionist barriers like visa and immigration restrictions. However, they will find it harder to erect barriers on innovation and ideation that continues to span geographic boundaries. This is a good thing for innovators and businesses that wish to benefit from the ideas.
  • Lower cost and barriers to entry. Access to ubiquitous internet in developing economies means ideation will go global. Many digital tools to aid innovation and development are on the cloud and available in the open source or free from vendors. Young entrepreneurs who dream up new ideas or digital “Apps” in their dorm-rooms or garages could do it just as easily in Bangalore, Delhi or Mysore, and not just in San Jose or Research Triangle. 
  • Smart money will follow smart ideas. Money already seems to be following innovation to their global hubs. For instance, a recent Times of India article highlights how “Over the past two years, investors have pumped in billions of dollars into hundreds of startups, many of which have grown into thriving businesses.”
  • Faster adoption. Smart ideas and skills developed in startups are being adopted in a corporate environment at a faster pace.  For example, mobile development skills honed in developing a “cool App” at a startup can easily be used to mobile-enable legacy corporate applications: an opportunity waiting to be tapped at Fortune 500 organizations. Likewise, technologies to cloud enable and virtualize IT applications and software are finding their way into corporate IT shops at a faster pace. 
  • Convergence of outsourcing and innovation: Large enterprises and corporations that source IT Operations and Business Processes and services to offshore service providers are increasingly expecting them to also tap into the innovation ecosystem. Leaders of offshoring firms like TCS, Infosys, and Wipro have long talked up the need to innovate and develop solutions, tools and automated services for global clients. They are realizing now is finally the time to walk the talk. (link TOI: What Infosys CEO Vishal Sikka wants bigger startups to do)

(Reposted from my LinkedIn Pulse)

Friday, January 1, 2016

Disney’s Magic Kingdom with Six-year-old on Christmas Day … and a few lessons learnt

A visit to Disney’s Magic kingdom is almost a rite-of-passage for contemporary families with young kids, especially those graduating from kindergarten and elementary schools. A visit to Disney or Disney Institute is also a rite-of-passage for management gurus looking to excel in customer expectations management; Disney also happens to be among the most studied case studies in Business School, especially in Marketing and Customer Management 101 courses.
I remember reading about, and discussing the intricacies of Disney Cast Members’ training and skills in managing customer and guest experiences, years ago in a Business School course. Management gurus and business executives alike make a pilgrimage to Disney Institute to learn the “D Think,” but a trip to Disney with young kids can teach one more than any textbook. This past Christmas day, many of those old lessons came flooding back during a trip to the Magic Kingdom with our six-year-old.  

Build it - really well - and they will come
Disney’s Magic Kingdom is an elaborate, well maintained theme park focused on putting up the best show possible, for the maximum number of people that can be accommodated. At Magic kingdom, all the Disney characters – not just Mickey, Minnie, Donald and Snow-White – but contemporary ones, including Frozen’s Elsa and Toy Story’s Woody and his pals come alive, and are milked for all they are worth.
Disney invests boatloads of money in dreaming, creating and buying up characters, and is perhaps rightfully, protective of their use. A recent Economist article describes “An intricate flow chart drawn by Walt in 1957 elegantly lays out the firm’s component parts and strategy, with films at the center surrounded by theme parks, merchandise, music, publishing and television.”  (link) That zeal for maximizing investments in ideas continues. Having invested four billion dollars in buying up rights to Star Wars from George Lucas, Disney is more than content to exploit the franchise: If you want Star-Wars branded paraphernalia, you’ve got to buy it from Disney or their licensee. 
Large drug companies have perhaps taken the same lesson from Disney. They spend tens or hundreds of millions developing new drugs and formulations, and make sure those are patented to ensure milking of the blockbusters.
Note to self: Successful companies and entrepreneurs create or acquire the best ideas they can, and exploit them for what they are worth.

It’s all about valuing one’s Intellectual property
Nobody knows the value of Intellectual Property better than the folks running the show at “white slavers,” as George Lucas calls Disney’s folks.   The “white slavers” know and value their intellectual property assets, and the potential is on display at the theme parks and resorts. The rides and shows are all themed in tune with the characters, and so are the expensive souvenirs, trinket and food at themed restaurants. One might think the entrance tickets to theme parks are pricy, but the thousands of folks paying hundreds of dollars to travel to Orlando to endure endless hours of wait for rides and shows think the experience is worth the price; market economics at work.
Note to self: Disney “owns” Mickey and his pals, so if you want them to come alive, come to Disney! Successful entrepreneurs and organizations to “own” and manage their IP well.

It’s all in the App, stupid!
As a technologist, I am not easily impressed by technology or User Interfaces. When it comes to user experience with technologies, large financial institutions and eCommerce sites with endless resources have set the bar quite. I must admit, “Disney World” App, with its easy-to use interface, real-time updates on ride, shows and wait times, combined with free-wifi in the theme parks is among the best use-cases using technology to connect with customers and visitors.
Many, if not most, of Disney visitors are tech savvy and seemed to be comfortable using the “Disney World” App on their mobile devices. The app combined with free-wifi has another benefit: keeping parents and teenagers glued to screens while waiting in queues. And, for those without smartphones, fast-pass kiosks are scattered throughout the park, with helpful cast members around to guide non-techie folks.
Note to self: Designing an easy-to-use App is just the first step towards user satisfaction. Focus on design of the entire eco-system that goes with it.

Delegate the dream of Magic to guests
On an average day, Magic Kingdom gets almost 53,000 guests; my guess is that on holidays, like Christmas day when we happened to visit, the parks get double that many visitors.  Keeping that many guests, most with picky, fussy kids is no mean feat.    This is a task Disney does really, really well by delegating expectation management to parents and visitors.
For instance, I had planned and “booked” several interesting rides/shows using our allotted three-fastpass bookings, prior to coming. But our six-year old chanced upon Seven Dwarfs Mine Train in Fantasyland and insisted we join the queue. The smart folks at Disney have designed the serpentine queue to weave into the arcade, making it hard for a six-year old to visualize the meaning of a “120 minute” wait that the app indicated.  After waiting for an hour on this sunny Florida Afternoon, when the little one began getting restless and repeatedly asking “how much longer, dad,” it took all my wits to not reply “it was your idea to wait for this ride, dear;” but to cook up some Disney like story to keep the little one engaged.
This experience made me reflect on the oft quoted expression “explain this like you would to a six year old.” Having survived the wait, and enjoying the ride at the end, I am sure I will be able to use that skill at work too.
Note to self: Delegate customer self-service by setting customer expectations upfront.

Our Christmas break at Magic Kingdom was a memorable vacation, and the teeming crowd and endless wait at the rides just added to the experience. For Disney, crowd control is really about delegating patience and control to visitors. Having sold the ‘dream of Magic’ to parents and kids alike, Disney’s cast members just have to execute their part. But executing their part is what the Cast members do, and they do their part really, really well!

(Cross post from linkedin Pulse)