Critique on “MAGICBANDS IN THE MAGIC KINGDOM: CUSTOMER-CENTRIC INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION AT DISNEY”
The word ‘Centric’, is defined as the essential radical centre of all customer requirement. Customer-centric information systems is an approach used in designing and developing a new product initiative, that replicates the essential needs and requirements of the core end user. In this reading, we see how the authors, Borkowski, et al., discuss the implementation of a customer-centric information technology at Disney. The case includes innovation and adoption of wearable information technology and subsequent positive customer engagement.
The Authors initiates by explaining the core customer belief of Disney. They demonstrated the brand of Disney and its huge conviction of being a highly customer-oriented company with its major focus on providing personalised experienced for each customer visiting their amusement parks (Adamson,2014). The reader is then informed on how Disney, faced several customer challenges (like standing in queues, hotel bookings) which they needed to deal with a better system design. Disney marked at empathising how customers bought tickets for their rides and to find a solution as to how they could perhaps aid them in streamlining that. Their prime intention was to bring out new wearable technologies in that distinct domain (Baldwin, 2014). The reader also draws a thorough description of project success and positive user response. Lastly, they address the use of IoT and big data that was used to discover customer behaviour leading to higher revenue streams while keeping the personalized service, that reconciles with newer technology in a large traditional organisation.
This reading, having its clout from the various big news publication, is mainly being marked to the customer experience involved in the implementation of the successful project of MagicBands. However, the biased use of speech, says that the authors’ have made a one-sided hypothesis with respect to the success and experience of the project. They have gone to a considerable degree and kept no stones unturned in conveying the comprehensive description of Disney’s success with the wearable technology of MagicBands. Although, it does create a sense of concern with respect to the challenges. For a person like myself, who has no background in large project implementation, this reading has suggested me thought-provoking acumen in the field of system design. Moving to the challenges faced by the project which the author failed to mention in the case, the matter seems to be broad than what is at hand. There is no indication of the cost involved and the infrastructure replacement needed to incorporate the new technology. Which raises the query if they could build up an adequate vision of developing a versatile product, convenient for each visitor. Taking the situation of how dynamic a large project can get, more than 28,000 rooms were revisited in Disney’s MagicWorld to incorporate the use of RFID technology in MagicBands with more than half of the rooms occupied at the same time (Carr, 2015). The author mentions the positive experience of visitors by quoting their statement shows the inclination towards the brand. Whereas, the author failed to mention the other side of the coin where a few customers felt a bit wriggled about the wearable as they felt it invaded their privacy. (Barnes,2013)
The proposed statements, which are supposed to bring the brighter side of the process, are all established on the assumption of the success of the project. Even though, the authors claim that the project had great success but the current COO along with Disney’s executives have publicly stated the project a failure by acknowledging the restructuring cost and admitting moving onto use smartphone-based infrastructure is clearly reflective of the realities of a rapidly changing technology landscape (Baig, 2015), by itself, paradoxically, is stated unfairly, about how precisely the project is stated as a success. Undoubtedly the question must be put forward to the organisations as to, why the scope and expenditure were not stressed strictly, from initiation.
I would like to conclude that, perchance, cautious implementation and profound management could have assisted in avoiding the project to be confined to a single site. From a personal point of view, I feel that it is abstract to visualize the success of a large project from a single way of looking at it, wherein, personalized user experience is decisive in each of the project implementations, thus, giving a large traditional organisation a difficult philosophy to solve by keeping the projects future proof.References:
Adamson, A. (2014). Disney knows it’s not just magic that keeps a brand on top, Forbes, October, 2014.
Baig, J. (2015). Disney’s $1 Billion Bet on the Wrong Technology. Retrieved from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/disneys-1-billion-bet-wrong-technology-mohammad-jameel
Baldwin, C. (2014). Disney spreads the magic through wearable technology, ComputerWeekly, October, 2014.
Barnes, B. (2013). At Disney Parks, a Bracelet Meant to Build Loyalty (and Sales). Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/07/business/media/at-disney-parks-a-bracelet-meant-to-build-loyalty-and-sales.html
Carr, A. (2015). The Messy Business Of Reinventing Happiness. online Fast Company. Available at: https://www.fastcompany.com/3044283/the-messy-business-of-reinventing-happiness#! Accessed 10 Aug. 2018.
Kouprie, M. &. (2009). A framework for empathy in design: stepping into and out of the user’s life. The Journal of Engineering Design, 437-448.