CASE STUDY · FEC-C02 · LEISURE COMPANY · GULF REGION (GCC)
Opening a much bigger second park, without the old way of running breaking.
The planOpen a separate adult waterpark at a new site, built for 500–1,000 guests a day and 50–100 staff, without stretching the way the children's park was run further than it could handle.
- Guests a day each way of running handledCHILDREN'S PARK · EXISTING MODELADULT PARK · NEW OPERATING MODEL300–400800–1,000SEEN ON SITESEEN ON SITE WITH REAL CROWDSDifferent parks. The comparison shows how many guests the old and new ways of running handled, not growth within one park.
- Safety checks completedCHILDREN'S PARK · EXISTING PRACTICEADULT PARK · NEW SAFETY SYSTEM70–85%95–100%SEEN ON SITEMOBARO RECORDSDifferent parks: the old practice compared with the new system, not one park measured twice. The result came from written procedures, software, alerts and staff training together.
- SECTOR
- Leisure (waterparks)
- REGION
- Gulf region (GCC)
- THE AGREED WORK
- OPERATING JUDGMENTAGREED CHANGESAGREED BUILDSCHECK AND KEEP WATCHING
WHY IT MADE SENSE, AND WHAT WAS IN THE WAY
The children's park was doing well, and revenue was climbing. Opening an adult park was the right move.
But the adult park was not a bigger children's park. It was a separate park on a new site, with new rides, two to three times as many guests, and 50–100 staff instead of 10–20. Everything the company had was built for the first park.
8 of 9parts of the business we examined were not ready for the expansion.
The company, before and after
Scroll to see how the company worked, what would have stopped the plan, what changed, and how it works now.
- 01Before
- 02The problems
- 03The changes
- 04After
What we found
The expansion itself made sense. The problem was that the existing company had been built for a children's park handling roughly 100–400 guests a day with 10–20 staff. The adult park was a different park to run, at a different site, with different rides, staff, safety demands and guest numbers. It needed its own way of being run: its own areas, supervisors and staff levels.
- HOW MANY GUESTSThe children's park was already close to its practical limit at around 300–400 guests a day. The new park needed to handle as many as 1,000 a day.
- WAYS OF WORKINGMost of the park's work ran on habits people had learned over time. Ticketing, lifeguard rotations, cleaning, safety checks and staff handovers were not properly written down.
- MANAGING STAFFThe informal way of managing 10–20 staff would not work with 50–100 staff. There was no clear line of who reports to whom, and nothing written down about what supervisors could decide on their own.
- SAFETY CHECKSSafety checks were being completed only 70–85% of the time.
- INCIDENTSOnly 40–60% of incidents (accidents and other problems) were being properly recorded.
- EMERGENCIESEmergency response still depended on the founder being there. There was no set chain of command, saying who takes charge, that could work without him.
- ENTRYGuests could only get in one way, by booking. With the number of guests planned for the new park, that single way in was expected to cause serious hold-ups at the entrance.
- STOCKThere was no proper system to keep track of stock: chlorine, uniforms, food and drink stock, cleaning materials and other supplies that get used up.
- STAFFINGStaff were not scheduled around the busiest times and places. At the new park's size, that would have meant too many people in some areas and too few in others.
- MEASURESNothing measured safety, guest numbers or service, and what guests said was not collected in any set way.
What we changed and built
What FEC leaves behind: what was there before, how it works now, and who runs it.
01AREAS & SUPERVISORS · SET UP
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREThe children's park ran on 10–20 staff managed informally, with no set areas and no clear line of who reports to whom.
HOW IT WORKS NOWThe park's work was split into seven clear areas: Entry & Ticketing, Ride Operations, Lifeguard Coverage, Food & Beverage, Cleaning & Maintenance, Guest Services and Supervision. Each area was given a minimum number of staff for busy and quiet times, a supervisor, clear duties, and a clear line of who it answers to. Every frontline job got written duties, a standard to meet and a set route for passing problems up.
WHO RUNS IT NOWEach area's supervisor, within the area's written limits.
02CHAIN OF COMMAND · BUILT
WHAT WAS THERE BEFORESupervisors were unsure what they could decide, and emergencies depended on the founder being there.
HOW IT WORKS NOWEach area's supervisor reported to a Head Supervisor. Supervisors were told in writing what they could decide themselves and what they had to pass up. Who takes charge in an emergency, at every level, when the founder or the Head Supervisor is not there, was written down and built into the safety system.
WHO RUNS IT NOWThe Head Supervisor and the area supervisors. Only what is too big for supervisors goes to the founder.
03STEP-BY-STEP PROCEDURES · WRITTEN
WHAT WAS THERE BEFORETicketing, lifeguard rotations, cleaning, safety checks and staff handovers ran on habit. Nothing was written down.
HOW IT WORKS NOWWe wrote step-by-step procedures for ticketing and entry, lifeguard rotations and positioning, cleaning and maintenance, guest complaints, staff handovers and emergency response. Each one sets out what the work is for, the steps, what done properly looks like, when to pass a problem up, and why each step is there.
WHO RUNS IT NOWEvery new hire at the adult park learns from the written procedures, not from habits they never saw.
04ENTRY · REDESIGNED
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREGuests could only get in by booking, through a single way in.
HOW IT WORKS NOWEntry became two separate ways in: guests who booked ahead have their booking checked at the entrance, and walk-in guests use self-service kiosks. The queues were split as well, with new signs, barriers and staff positions designed for the busiest times.
05SAFETY SYSTEM · PUT IN PLACE
WHAT WAS THERE BEFORESafety checks were done by habit, with nothing recorded, and were completed only 70–85% of the time.
HOW IT WORKS NOWFEC recommended running safety checks on a proven, ready-made specialist platform instead of building new software from scratch. The client then got Mobaro, a platform of that kind, following that recommendation.
WHO RUNS IT NOWThe supervisors: every completed check is time-stamped, and a missed check alerts the supervisor in charge.
06INCIDENT REPORTING · REBUILT
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREOnly 40–60% of incidents were properly recorded, on paper.
HOW IT WORKS NOWEvery incident now has to be recorded digitally when it happens: what happened, where, who was involved, what was done and what follow-up is needed. Emergency practice drills are planned and tracked in the same system.
WHO RUNS IT NOWThe supervisors, who see every open incident as it happens.
07STAFF TRAINING · DELIVERED
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREMost staff at the new park had never worked at the children's park, and there was nothing written down to learn from.
HOW IT WORKS NOWNew staff were trained on the safety procedures and on Mobaro before they started work at the new park: first on the written procedures, then on site.
08STAFFING · PLANNED AROUND BUSY TIMES
WHAT WAS THERE BEFOREStaff were not scheduled around the busiest times and places.
HOW IT WORKS NOWWe worked out when the adult park would be busiest, from the children's park's own attendance, adjusted for the new park: weekends, public holidays and school holidays. Staff schedules were planned around those times, with a minimum number of staff in each area.
09STOCK TRACKING · BUILT
WHAT WAS THERE BEFORENothing kept track of chlorine, uniforms, food and drink, or cleaning supplies.
HOW IT WORKS NOWA stock-tracking system was installed for every kind of supply. Each one has a set stock level and a point at which to reorder, and every item taken out is recorded by area and date, so buying is based on actual use rather than memory.
Results
Guests a day handled without things breaking down
300–400 a dayCHILDREN'S PARK · MOST IT COULD HANDLE, SEEN ON SITE
800–1,000 a dayADULT PARK · SEEN ON SITE WITH REAL CROWDS
The first park, the children's park, was seen running reliably at around 300–400 guests a day.
After the new setup of areas, supervisors and staff levels was in place, the adult park handled 800–1,000 guests a day without things breaking down.
This result did not come from one change.
Our case record says it came from all of these working together:
- the new setup of areas, supervisors and staff levels
- written procedures
- supervisors' power to decide
- redesigned entry
- the safety system
- staffing planned around busy times
- stock tracking
Safety checks completed
70–85%CHILDREN'S PARK · SEEN ON SITE
95–100%ADULT PARK · MOBARO RECORDS
The old park relied on safety checks done by habit, with nothing written down.
At the adult park, the digital safety system showed that 95–100% of checks were completed, even though the new park was running with far more guests and staff.
The improvement came from the combination of:
- written safety procedures
- software that made sure checks were done
- automatic alerts
- staff training
rather than software alone.
More results from our work with this company
- Incident reporting
- 40–60% → 90–100%
- SEEN ON SITE + MANAGEMENT'S REPORTS → MOBARO RECORDS
- Reporting every incident became required, and each one was recorded digitally on the spot, as it happened.
- Time to get each guest through entry
- 3–6 minutes per guest at the smaller children's park → 2–4 minutes per guest with adult-park crowds
- TIMED ON SITE
- Without the entry redesign, the old way in was forecast to take 8–15 minutes per guest with the new park's guest numbers.
- Queue wait
- 30–60 minutes forecast if nothing had changed → 15–30 minutes seen on site with adult-park crowds
- FORECAST → TIMED ON SITE
- The children's park had seen 10–20 minute waits with far fewer guests, so that number cannot fairly be compared with the adult park.
- Staff coordination
- 10–20 staff, managed informally → 50–100 staff working with clear areas, supervisors and reporting rules
- SEEN ON SITE BY FEC
- Staff coordination remained stable while the operation moved from roughly 10–20 staff at the children's park to 50–100 at the adult park.
How we know
Every number on this page, where it comes from, and what it cannot prove.
| SOURCE | WHAT IT SHOWS | WHAT IT CANNOT PROVE |
|---|---|---|
| CHILDREN'S PARK · SEEN ON SITE | The most the children's park could handle (300–400 guests a day), and its safety checks (70–85%), from watching the park and its daily reports. | Safety checks were done by habit with nothing recorded, so this was measured by watching. |
| ADULT PARK · SEEN ON SITE WITH REAL CROWDS | 800–1,000 guests a day handled without things breaking down. | These figures come from different parks. They compare how many guests the children's-park model handled with what the adult park handled after the new operating model was put in place. They do not show a same-site increase from 300–400 to 800–1,000. The result came from all the changes together, not one alone. |
| ADULT PARK · MOBARO RECORDS | Safety checks 95–100% completed, and 90–100% of incidents recorded. | Different parks: these compare the children's park's old practice with the adult park's new system, not one park measured twice. The client chose Mobaro on FEC's advice, and the result came from procedures, software, alerts and training together, not software alone. |
| SEEN ON SITE + MANAGEMENT'S REPORTS | Only 40–60% of incidents recorded at the children's park. | – |
| TIMED ON SITE | Entry down from 3–6 to 2–4 minutes per guest, and queues of 15–30 minutes at the adult park. | The children's park was timed with far fewer guests, so its numbers cannot fairly be compared. |
| FORECAST | 8–15 minutes per guest at entry and 30–60 minute queues at the new park's numbers, if nothing had changed. | Worked out from what we found before the changes. Not measured. |
| SEEN ON SITE BY FEC | Staff coordination remained stable while the operation moved from roughly 10–20 staff at the children's park to 50–100 at the adult park. | – |
Bring us the plan.
Tell us what the company is trying to do next.