Design Programming: An Interview with Norm Doerges
In part one of our interview with Norm Doerges we learned about some of the fundamentals of design programming – the relationship between attendance and capacity, between economics and the guest experience. In the second half of our interview we’ll have the chance to hear how these principles worked in actual situations; how they were instrumental in the success of shows and attractions; and what the consequences were for those operations that chose to ignore them. And finally, Norm will share his insights on the state of theme parks today, the benefits and challenges of technology and why sound design programs are needed now more than ever.
Q You had previously mentioned that it’s not just clients who have been known to disregard design programming, but operators, designers, and even management. Are there any particular examples that you could share with us?
Doerges There are two things that come to mind: one is a more a general recollection, the other a specific experience.
Seeing the whole picture
Doerges Before design programming was put in place, designers were primarily responsible for area development. This includes the design of all pathways to and from attractions within a theme park. If a designer wanted the architecture, in relation to the area development, to feel cozy and intimate, he’d make the pathways narrow. If he wanted it to feel open and expansive, he would make them wide. But this approach didn’t give any consideration to the numbers of people that would use these pathways, nor to the relative capacity required. Consequently, some areas were overly congested and others had more space than necessary.
Another design issue that was rarely considered was that of the parade route. Parade routes were generally decided upon after the theme park was built. Consequently, when it came to actual operations, the operating group had a difficult time finding a parade route that used existing pathways. The routes were too narrow, they had turns that were too sharp, or there was limited viewing space for the parade. From an operating perspective, this made parades terribly difficult to manage. By introducing a design programming approach, we were able to resolve many of these issues. The first thing we found was that we needed twenty feet to accommodate a marching band. Then in order to provide viewing space, there needed to be five feet on either side – on a flat surface people really couldn’t see the parade beyond five feet. Finally, there needed to be circulation space during the time of the parade, which could last up to fifty minutes. In order to accommodate this circulation, an additional five feet was required. In the end, there needed to forty feet of width throughout the length of the parade route. Once the team understood this, a design could be developed that met the operational requirements, while at the same time address the architectural needs of the specific theme.
The more specific instance involved the development of a new zone within a large theme park. The operators had always known that the main thoroughfare became overly crowded during heavy exits and entrances in the summer months. So when they began to plan for this new zone, they went to the existing thoroughfare and measured the width of the main street. Again, recognizing that there had been a flow problem in the one area, they added additional footage to their measurement to provide what they thought would be a solution for the new zone. They came back to the design team and announced that the pathway for the new zone needed to be sixty feet wide. On the surface it seemed like they had learned from previous mistakes and had come up with a viable solution.
This announcement, however, completely upset the architects. To them, this was like being told you have to put a runway in front of all your attractions. All their efforts at creating a charming atmosphere would be ruined. Traditionally, buildings in theme parks were designed based on forced perspective – a manipulation of scale achieved by building relative to other objects. For example, if you want a building façade to appear larger than it actually is, you make the lampposts smaller, you make the sidewalks narrower. This principle still holds true today. Of course, if your walkway is sixty feet wide, your building has to be built closer to actual scale – forced perspective no longer works because the relationship between objects is now thrown off balance. So when the architects heard that their walkways were bigger, they began drawing all their buildings bigger. Well, you can imagine what this did to the cost – everything started going through the roof. All of the sudden the estimates were coming in way over budget.
As it was, there were essentially two parties behind the dilemma: an operator who didn’t understand design programming, and a live entertainment person who wanted to have a parade route. When we were brought in to resolve the situation we decided the first step was to take the parade out of the initial equation and figure out how wide the walkway should be just for guest traffic. Well, when you ran the math based on actual data, it turned out that only a twenty-foot walkway was really needed. So now instead of a mile of sixty-foot wide architectural concrete, all stamped and textured, we find that twenty works nicely. Furthermore, by reducing the size of the walkway, all the buildings could become smaller in scale and the use of forced perspective could once again be utilized. Now instead of being way over budget, we actually came in under budget because the pathway could be smaller than anyone originally thought it needed to be.
Q So in both instances you had parties that were trying to design based on limited information.
Doerges Yes. They were trying to do their best, but they didn’t understand the whole picture, which is exactly what the design program is meant to do. The first time these methodologies were used in the complete design of a theme park was in the early eighties. It was the first opportunity we had to thoroughly test design programming.
Q And how did it do?
Doerges It was the first time in our experience that a theme park didn’t require retrofitting after it opened. And the lack of retrofits meant a cost-effective park. More importantly, it also meant that guests were moving smoothly through their experience: they were happy, and in guest surveys indicated they would definitely return for another visit.
Q Had you found it challenging to work with designers and operators?
Doerges Fundamentally, no. Most often these relationships were, and are, extremely good. I think a good deal of departmental conflict stems from the frustration felt by parties trying to understand what makes the best guest experience. Take, for instance, a designer and an operator. The designer tries to make an intimate guest experience. The operator wants sufficient capacity so the ride will have a short wait time and be easy and efficient to operate. The designer might see a ride thematically as being a two-seat vehicle; the operator might see the same ride as a six-seat vehicle with more capacity. Both parties have the best intentions in mind; both are trying to consider what is going to be best for the guest. But without design programming, neither knows exactly how much capacity the attraction should actually have.
Design programming utilizes observable data and creates a program model that determines how much capacity is needed in the whole park, based on certain service criteria. Subsequently, specific capacities for all the attractions follow. It’s at that time that the team can decide what size vehicles should be. This helps both designers and operators achieve their objectives.
Q The design program acts almost like a mediator.
Doerges Ultimately, our program data empowers all parties to achieve their goals. It takes the speculation out of the equation and frees them to focus on developing the best guest experience possible.
But the real advantage to the design program – and having professionals who know how to implement it – is that it’s capable of accommodating most design situations. This isn’t a tool just for large-scale theme parks.
Q So while the scale of the operation might vary, the principles behind the program remain the same.
Doerges Exactly. Yet at its core, design programming is built on the understanding that every park is different. And this holds true for the relationships associated with the park. From the client, to management, to the design team – they are all approaching their tasks from a different viewpoint. As I mentioned previously, you’ll have one park where the operator has one set of needs and the designer has another. But if you boil it down to what’s in the best interest of the guest – and that’s what’s most important to all parties involved – all that conflict goes away. You won’t have any problem getting a designer to agree that the attraction has to work for the guest. He may have envisioned forty feet, but if the design program tells him that twenty feet will work better, he’ll have no problem with twenty. Likewise, you won’t have an operator wanting to make things operationally more difficult by asking for sixty feet where twenty will do. By using data specific to a given park, the design program resolves conflict, enables teams, and satisfies guests. It’s a living tool.
You can never out-guess the guest
Q From our discussion I’ve gathered that a good design programmer starts with an understanding of how the whole theme park operation functions. But they’re not just technicians.
Doerges What sets the design programmer apart is an understanding of the dynamic human factor. And this isn’t some purely hypothetical consideration made from a removed position – it’s based, to the largest degree possible, on observed data. You might say it’s something of a science of human behavior in theme parks. Of course, no matter how scientific you’d like to make it, people are people. You can never be entirely sure how they’ll respond. The guest experience is a living, changing, dynamic thing. You quickly discover that you can never out-guess the guest.
Q And did the guests ever surprise you?
Doerges All the time. Let me give you an example:
In 1992, I was the Executive Vice President of Disneyland. Disney had planned to develop a major new show to replace the one running in the Lincoln Theater. Unfortunately, a number of unforeseen problems arose and the project came to sudden end. The show’s untimely demise was made even more problematic by a very real business crisis – in a year where Disney needed a new attraction to keep the local market engaged, we were suddenly left without one.
During this time, Bob McTyre was in charge of Disneyland ’s Marketing and Entertainment. He and his group had been working on a live show that involved a lot of special effects. Of course special effects shows weren’t entirely new at that time, but Bob’s team was pushing the boundaries of what this kind of show could do. A lot of time and effort had gone into this program, and it was generating a lot of excitement from internal parties.
So there we were. We didn’t have our original show, but we did have Bob’s show that we could do for significantly less money. Even though we were looking at a much smaller investment, the proposition was still risky – Bob’s show was something entirely new and untested. Once we got the okay to proceed we discovered just how frightening this project really was – Disney’s Imagineering was in the middle of building Disneyland Paris and had no resources to give us. For the first time the operating entity was responsible for designing its own show from start to finish.
Needless to say, it was critical that we hold to a sound design program. Every dollar had to count, every number had to be right on. We believed that we wouldn’t get the same incremental attendance that we would with the larger show, so we re-worked the program data and came up with a conservative projection that was significantly lower. This incremental attendance projection gave us the basis for our budget. When the dust finally settled, we came in on time and on budget, knowing that, at the very least, our design program ensured a cost-effective attraction that would meet all our service criteria.
Well, that show ended up setting the record that year for incremental attendance. Furthermore, this little show held attendance in its second year, more than what anyone had expected. Our analysis anticipated a three-year run, but it’s still running today. Sticking to our program ensured that our show would be cost-effective for the company and enjoyable for the guest, but nobody could have anticipated the overwhelming response we received from the guests. Ultimately, what made this show so successful was the outstanding creative work. That’s what the guest responded to so positively, and that’s something the design program simply couldn’t account for. As highly informed as you can make yourself, you just can’t out-guess the guest.
All rides are not equal – understanding the demand factor
Q Obviously parks will vary in size and scope, but do capacity considerations remain constant for attractions? For instance, if I know my overall attendance and capacity, could I simply adjust accordingly and plug in a THRC for, say, a wild mouse ride?
Doerges All rides are not equal. Attraction capacity can vary from park to park, and not just in terms of how it relates to overall attendance. Each attraction has what we call a demand factor, meaning how does one ride rate in demand against another. The most popular ride in the park would have the highest demand factor; the least popular would have the lowest. Typically, we find that there’s a definable rate of separation between the two. Like other estimates and figures generated from the program, this ranking system is based on research and actual observed data.
Q Clearly there’s more to designing an attraction than simply capacity.
Doerges It’s all part of the same picture. Earlier I explained that the program model dictates capacity for the whole park, and that subsequent capacities for individual attractions follow. These individual capacities are developed using demand factors for each attraction.
Q So just as wait time is a critical service criterion, so is the projected demand for a given attraction?
Doerges Absolutely. You can’t design based on only one service criteria factor. There is a science to how you divide a park up. Let me give you a quick example of what happens when the demand factor is overlooked. Take, for instance, a standard, family ride: it’s a simple attraction, but families mean capacity – moms and dads with kids in tow. So the operator says, we need lots of capacity – let’s make it a six-seat car. It turns that when you do the research and analyze how the new ride compares to other attractions in the park, the data will inform you how best to distribute your capacity-per-hour figures and where to put it. In this particular case, had all the design program data been followed, they would have realized that a much smaller number of guests would actually be moving through this family ride. Despite the operator’s observations, the demand factor for this attraction didn’t warrant a six-seat car to handle its actual capacity. A four-seat car would have been sufficient, would have cost less money for the ride system, and would have been more fun for the guest.
Theme parks – their own worst enemy
Q With the advances in ride and show technology there seems to be a growing problem with attraction cost. How is this impacting design programming?
Doerges This is the dilemma facing the U.S. theme park industry today. Theme parks have become their own worst enemy, in that every time they set out to develop a new attraction they feel they have to do something bigger and better. Fundamentally, this isn’t a bad thing – we always want to give the guest something new and exciting. But when this happens at the expense of following a sound design program it can be financially disastrous.
Q How so?
Doerges Generally speaking, if you’re going to build an attraction that requires an expensive show system – animatronics, special effects – you want to try to match this with a fairly inexpensive ride system. This also holds true in reverse – build an advanced track and ride system and you’d do best to keep your show elements to a minimum. This doesn’t mean you don’t theme your ride in some way, but to couple an expensive show system with an expensive ride system typically defeats the economics of that attraction. It puts you over your capital investment limit.
Big parks, however, have the capital to sink into the newest technology, regardless of what the design program might advise. In today’s parks it’s not uncommon to find attractions with an advanced show system coupled with a horrendously expensive simulator vehicle. It’s hard to imagine that these rides were produced within the parameters of a sound design program. But the real concern involves more than just money. These rides end up setting a new standard for the guest experience. Once one park has an over-the-top attraction, the next park feels they have to have one that will not only match the technology, but exceed it as well. It’s a terribly expensive game that the smaller parks simply can’t play. Every attraction, every shop, and every restaurant – they all have to operate as efficiently as possible for the park as a whole to be profitable. And this holds true for large parks just as it does for the small seasonal parks. No one can afford an attraction that loses money.
Q How would you sum up design programming and its place in the theme park dynamic?
Doerges In the end, design programming can perhaps be best described as a kind of dynamic resource for management. It’s a fluid approach to an ever-changing industry. And it’s an absolutely invaluable tool for understanding how to effectively match the objectives and resources of your organization to the needs and requirements of your guest. Economics and the guest experience are inextricably linked, and if you can learn to effectively design to meet the needs of your guest, your operation is better equipped to meet its goals and objectives.
up
(c) 2006 Apogee Attractions, Inc.
Theme Parks | Amusement Parks | Water Parks | Themed Resorts | Cultural Attractions | Museums | Mixed-Use Developments
Home | Services | Experience | Contact Us | FAQs | Articles of Interest | Site Map