What is the biggest issue that stands between a policy and its successful delivery? Is it a lack of knowledge or ability in order to create one? Is it uncooperative or unable suppliers or intermediaries? Is it poor uptake or availability of appropriate technology systems? Or is it simply that end users either cannot or will not comply with edicts and have ways of getting around them?
Depending on your own experiences you could say one, some or all of the above but I think you might be missing something even more important. What is this something? It is what I call the three ‘P’s of internal Politics, Procedures and Processes and these have nothing to do with suppliers, intermediaries or individual travellers.
I have seen so many companies invest huge resources and money to create detailed and potentially rewarding travel programmes only to waste much benefit due to the three ‘P’s. Many of them choose not to identify this as the cause as it would not be considered ‘Politically’ correct to do so especially as the issues usually start at board level. A shame really as board level is where any rectifying needs to start.
So what am I actually saying? I believe that internal politics, inflexible procedures and lack of communication processes are the biggest road blocks when it comes to the delivery of a negotiated and delivered travel programme. I am also saying that non compliant travellers are not the biggest villains, it is more likely the messages they are receiving (or in some cases not) from much higher up the business chain of command.
Taking a closer look at any company’s board you can see why problems could occur. Rather like a herd of elephants you have the strong patriarch and around him a chain of command with different interests and abilities. Again, like any herd there is a fair amount of head butting and scheming going on. They all represent different interests from finance to sales, operations to procurement and some hold more sway than others.
Eventually these ‘band of brothers’ agree a policy. But do they really? You can be certain that there will be winners and losers but when it comes to something as emotive as travel they seem less inclined to feed their solidarity down the line. In some areas there can be a visible lack of zeal and that is all it takes to undermine a policy. Particularly when there are so many practical ways of getting around it.
Many companies end up with a policy that has been presented by procurement who are by no means top dog (or elephant!) at the board table, which is not satisfactory to all and then they have to communicate it to a sometimes incredulous work force. This is where we come to the second closely linked ‘P’ of procedures. Who is allowed to say what to whom and what are the ‘P’ for processes for doing it. How much can you or can’t you say about your decisions? How much should you justify them? How much should you mandate them?
Let us say those wise old elephants have at least given tacit support to the policy. Who is going to sponsor it and keep on the agenda as the process develops? Who is going to go to senior directors and ask them to pull their folk into line? How are those messages going to transmit through a company that, possibly, apart from payroll has no appropriate method for these types of communication?
My message to corporations is a simple one. Sort yourself out at the top. Put into place procedures and processes and only then consider the creation of a policy that is going to be committed to and enforced across the whole employee base. This will save you more than any supplier or intermediary will.
Showing posts with label travel procurement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label travel procurement. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Travel Evolution is not just about Technology – Right?
I always thought technology drives most change and the travel industry is no different to any other business in this respect. I assumed that the reason for travel evolution being so painful was that new technology had been so scarce for so long that now it has arrived people are overdosing on it. However unlike the pharmaceutical business nobody has tested products, understood the correct dosage or learned how to deal with adverse reactions.
Already you can look back over the recent past and see all sorts of corporate travel wonder solutions that have not actually delivered in accordance with their hype. Many were unsuitable, unrealistic or simply did not work but they all looked damn good on paper. Apart from any basic flaw there seems to be something in the way of success and I think I know what it may be.
The plain truth of it is that whatever new initiatives come along they will only be embraced if the various key players in the supply chain want to make it happen. Like the old saying that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink the same goes for managed travel programmes and compliance. You still cannot get somebody to change their mindset unless you force them or justify your actions and I see precious little of either going on.
You see there are many people, either through tradition or personal experience, who still view travel as a service experience rather than a commodity. And whilst there are different suppliers of varying quality, frequent flyer programmes and individual timescales and demands there will always be service choices needed. When you think of it most corporations are insisting their employees undertake personal risks and comfort challenges with very little research into safety and standards. How do you know the airlines you have chosen are safe and comfortable? Cheap yes…but. A question that could soon be asked by lawyers in regard to ‘duty of care’.
It is not just the traveller who still has a perception that service is important. You can often see this ‘malaise’ in some suppliers and a large number of TMCs. I suspect they are getting so frustrated that service is not being given a value by typical procurement that they will continue to reduce it to a minimum like the low cost carriers. Why bother creating a value and service differentiator if nobody is interested in paying for it.
For so long the travel industry has been built around giving good service and being rewarded for doing so. Travellers too want to know they will be safe, comfortable and that somebody will be there for them if something goes wrong. Those buyers who focus mainly on unbundling, constant cost reduction and commoditisation need to take note.
My answer to my own question is yes, technology is key to the future but only as an enabler not as a solution. Pick your target end solution that matches your company ethos and then look for the enabling technology. I have seen so many people commit to unproven technology to try and solve an issue they did not really have. What is more important is service and solutions and if you embrace the need for the former to deliver the latter then all you need to do is choose the technology to enable it to happen.
Already you can look back over the recent past and see all sorts of corporate travel wonder solutions that have not actually delivered in accordance with their hype. Many were unsuitable, unrealistic or simply did not work but they all looked damn good on paper. Apart from any basic flaw there seems to be something in the way of success and I think I know what it may be.
The plain truth of it is that whatever new initiatives come along they will only be embraced if the various key players in the supply chain want to make it happen. Like the old saying that you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink the same goes for managed travel programmes and compliance. You still cannot get somebody to change their mindset unless you force them or justify your actions and I see precious little of either going on.
You see there are many people, either through tradition or personal experience, who still view travel as a service experience rather than a commodity. And whilst there are different suppliers of varying quality, frequent flyer programmes and individual timescales and demands there will always be service choices needed. When you think of it most corporations are insisting their employees undertake personal risks and comfort challenges with very little research into safety and standards. How do you know the airlines you have chosen are safe and comfortable? Cheap yes…but. A question that could soon be asked by lawyers in regard to ‘duty of care’.
It is not just the traveller who still has a perception that service is important. You can often see this ‘malaise’ in some suppliers and a large number of TMCs. I suspect they are getting so frustrated that service is not being given a value by typical procurement that they will continue to reduce it to a minimum like the low cost carriers. Why bother creating a value and service differentiator if nobody is interested in paying for it.
For so long the travel industry has been built around giving good service and being rewarded for doing so. Travellers too want to know they will be safe, comfortable and that somebody will be there for them if something goes wrong. Those buyers who focus mainly on unbundling, constant cost reduction and commoditisation need to take note.
My answer to my own question is yes, technology is key to the future but only as an enabler not as a solution. Pick your target end solution that matches your company ethos and then look for the enabling technology. I have seen so many people commit to unproven technology to try and solve an issue they did not really have. What is more important is service and solutions and if you embrace the need for the former to deliver the latter then all you need to do is choose the technology to enable it to happen.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Travel Services – Buying is just the beginning.
I have encountered many of what I would call classic buyers in my career selling travel services. By that I mean very professional people who know exactly what they want and how to get it at the best rate. They are well practised in procedures and buying protocol and have a clear plan. Good stuff, but is it enough? I do not think so.
I think there are better deals to be done and improved return if two other abilities are learned and brought into play. They are presentation and selling skills. Buyers should know how to buy but there are often other considerations that come into play when buying a service like travel. For example unless you really are going to issue a mandate that is capable of monitoring and enforcing there is likelihood you could lose 20% volume from the programme. You will also probably be buying from people who are frankly not up to dealing with professional buyers. This brings me back to selling and presenting.
Most travel suppliers are becoming more and more cynical and suspicious about the ability of buyers to deliver volume negotiated in travel deals. They are now starting to hold back a little and only give the best package to those that convince them they can deliver volume where there mouth is. The most mutually successful deals I have seen are where buyers are able to ‘sell’ their ability to deliver in a way that has credibility. I once helped a buyer create their own volume delivery agreement which they gave to a delighted supplier and got a fantastic market leading deal.
The deal itself is the beginning not the end of the project. There are numerous ways people can get round a policy and I have seen them all. I could write a book about it! However many loopholes can be closed , or at least made harder, by the ability of the buyer to get to the right internal audience along with a strong sponsor and present their case. To me this is more important than the deal itself.
I have always tried to tell myself that to be successful I should out-sell the salesman and successfully communicate how clever I (the company) has been. After all if you have used you selling skills to get an exceptional programme you might as well you communicate the benefits to ensure everyone knows and acts upon it.
There is so much talk and activity around apps, social networking et al. perhaps if we used some of these fast developing tools to focus on compliance and rationales then companies would have greater control and diminished leakage. A better ROI than repetitive tendering and programme changes to keep a leaking travel bucket full.
I think there are better deals to be done and improved return if two other abilities are learned and brought into play. They are presentation and selling skills. Buyers should know how to buy but there are often other considerations that come into play when buying a service like travel. For example unless you really are going to issue a mandate that is capable of monitoring and enforcing there is likelihood you could lose 20% volume from the programme. You will also probably be buying from people who are frankly not up to dealing with professional buyers. This brings me back to selling and presenting.
Most travel suppliers are becoming more and more cynical and suspicious about the ability of buyers to deliver volume negotiated in travel deals. They are now starting to hold back a little and only give the best package to those that convince them they can deliver volume where there mouth is. The most mutually successful deals I have seen are where buyers are able to ‘sell’ their ability to deliver in a way that has credibility. I once helped a buyer create their own volume delivery agreement which they gave to a delighted supplier and got a fantastic market leading deal.
The deal itself is the beginning not the end of the project. There are numerous ways people can get round a policy and I have seen them all. I could write a book about it! However many loopholes can be closed , or at least made harder, by the ability of the buyer to get to the right internal audience along with a strong sponsor and present their case. To me this is more important than the deal itself.
I have always tried to tell myself that to be successful I should out-sell the salesman and successfully communicate how clever I (the company) has been. After all if you have used you selling skills to get an exceptional programme you might as well you communicate the benefits to ensure everyone knows and acts upon it.
There is so much talk and activity around apps, social networking et al. perhaps if we used some of these fast developing tools to focus on compliance and rationales then companies would have greater control and diminished leakage. A better ROI than repetitive tendering and programme changes to keep a leaking travel bucket full.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Getting back to basics with business travellers
How much does the average business traveller know about travel programme management? I would argue strongly that the answer is very little which is a problem. How much does the average travel buyer know about the practicalities of using travel to meet individual traveller’s needs? Again I would argue very little except for their own particular experiences. Is this a healthy state of affairs? No.
It has always vexed me how little time and effort is spent educating, briefing and convincing business travellers of the rationale used when creating a travel policy. How can a company expect their travellers who obviously know their budgetary and practical travel needs better than anyone else to follow a policy that seems diametrically opposed to their objectives. Should they be told simply to do what they are told? Or should they have the company policy fully explained and justified.
I am not talking rocket science here. To start with one could get down to basics. Key travellers and budget holders should be approached and asked to explain any reasons why they have issues with the policy and invited to ask specific questions to illustrate these concerns. This will bring out the usual range of arguments about why certain airlines are used, why prices vary so dramatically and why can they not simply go out and choose the best fare for their own budgetary and travel needs.
These arguments are the underlying reasons why most corporations have significant known (and unknown) travel compliance issues yet very little is done about it. The average company seems keener to go out and negotiate prices with suppliers than undertake possibly more productive internal ‘housekeeping’ through communication and collaboration.
Here are a few basic example answers to basic questions that might provide surprising results if travellers understood why certain things are done that way:
Q: Why do I have to use agent X when if I book direct with an airline or use another agent I might get better?
A: The company as a whole needs a total picture of its spending and location of travellers for safety, security, financial and procurement reasons. Part of our contract with agent X ensures we get all this information and support in order to maintain control and drive improvement. Any bookings made outside the programme are lost to the company and weaken its ability to support the individual and corporate needs of all stakeholders.
Q: Why am I made to use certain airlines and certain fares when I can possibly go out on my own and find something better?
A: When the company negotiates these deals with airlines it looks at the total annual requirement of the group. It agrees fares that will be available throughout the period which represent significant discounts and other benefits. There will be occasions when lower fares will be possible but availability will be strictly limited and restrictions will apply. By going outside the programme and taking these one off individual discounts it will weaken the company’s ability to get greater benefits for all over a longer period resulting in higher cost. The overall benefit to the company of a negotiated deal is far higher than the occasional individual saving
Q: I went to an overseas conference and found other delegates who travelled on the same plane but paid less for their ticket than me. What’s going on!
A: The likelihood in today’s market of any person on a plane paying the same as another is very small unless they were booked together at the same time or booked on a fixed price. Airlines shift their prices constantly linked to time before travel, numbers booked and historic data. For example there is no such thing as a standard price on a low cost airline. That is why it is best to book early when fares are historically cheaper.
Q: Why should I pay fees to agent X? I could do it myself much cheaper.
A: The fee to Agent X is not just for making your booking but for a vast range of services provided by them to you and the company. These include back up, management information, billing, account management and a raft of others. All this is lost to you and the company if you book outside the programme to everyone’s detriment.
These roughly drawn up examples hopefully illustrate the need to communicate with
travellers to explain that the company is not totally mad and has valid reasons for
requiring their compliance. I bet that if you asked your travellers these questions they
would not give the same answers! After all, how can you expect people to do what
you ask when you don’t explain why? Surely a better way than introducing a mandate
and trying to enforce it on an incredulous traveller.
It has always vexed me how little time and effort is spent educating, briefing and convincing business travellers of the rationale used when creating a travel policy. How can a company expect their travellers who obviously know their budgetary and practical travel needs better than anyone else to follow a policy that seems diametrically opposed to their objectives. Should they be told simply to do what they are told? Or should they have the company policy fully explained and justified.
I am not talking rocket science here. To start with one could get down to basics. Key travellers and budget holders should be approached and asked to explain any reasons why they have issues with the policy and invited to ask specific questions to illustrate these concerns. This will bring out the usual range of arguments about why certain airlines are used, why prices vary so dramatically and why can they not simply go out and choose the best fare for their own budgetary and travel needs.
These arguments are the underlying reasons why most corporations have significant known (and unknown) travel compliance issues yet very little is done about it. The average company seems keener to go out and negotiate prices with suppliers than undertake possibly more productive internal ‘housekeeping’ through communication and collaboration.
Here are a few basic example answers to basic questions that might provide surprising results if travellers understood why certain things are done that way:
Q: Why do I have to use agent X when if I book direct with an airline or use another agent I might get better?
A: The company as a whole needs a total picture of its spending and location of travellers for safety, security, financial and procurement reasons. Part of our contract with agent X ensures we get all this information and support in order to maintain control and drive improvement. Any bookings made outside the programme are lost to the company and weaken its ability to support the individual and corporate needs of all stakeholders.
Q: Why am I made to use certain airlines and certain fares when I can possibly go out on my own and find something better?
A: When the company negotiates these deals with airlines it looks at the total annual requirement of the group. It agrees fares that will be available throughout the period which represent significant discounts and other benefits. There will be occasions when lower fares will be possible but availability will be strictly limited and restrictions will apply. By going outside the programme and taking these one off individual discounts it will weaken the company’s ability to get greater benefits for all over a longer period resulting in higher cost. The overall benefit to the company of a negotiated deal is far higher than the occasional individual saving
Q: I went to an overseas conference and found other delegates who travelled on the same plane but paid less for their ticket than me. What’s going on!
A: The likelihood in today’s market of any person on a plane paying the same as another is very small unless they were booked together at the same time or booked on a fixed price. Airlines shift their prices constantly linked to time before travel, numbers booked and historic data. For example there is no such thing as a standard price on a low cost airline. That is why it is best to book early when fares are historically cheaper.
Q: Why should I pay fees to agent X? I could do it myself much cheaper.
A: The fee to Agent X is not just for making your booking but for a vast range of services provided by them to you and the company. These include back up, management information, billing, account management and a raft of others. All this is lost to you and the company if you book outside the programme to everyone’s detriment.
These roughly drawn up examples hopefully illustrate the need to communicate with
travellers to explain that the company is not totally mad and has valid reasons for
requiring their compliance. I bet that if you asked your travellers these questions they
would not give the same answers! After all, how can you expect people to do what
you ask when you don’t explain why? Surely a better way than introducing a mandate
and trying to enforce it on an incredulous traveller.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
What does a hotel brand really mean?
Does that seem a weird question? Probably so but what I am trying to say is, does the logo over the door actually mean, or importantly guarantee anything? Is it saying ‘This is a Hilton, Holiday Inn, Four Seasons or whatever and this means you should expect and get what that brand markets?
This question is borne from spending many years trying to truly understand and make sense of the hospitality industry. It is a vital sector yet commentators and industry bodies barely notice it when compared to say airlines. What does make it so very different? And why should anyone need to care?
I think the difference is ownership hence my original question. You see there are quite a few different ownership scenarios within a single brand. Because a hotel displays say Hilton over the door does not mean it is owned by Hilton. Very often it is owned by someone completely different but Hilton has the management or marketing contract to run it and is employed by the owner to deliver an agreed profit. They are an employee of the owner and have to act accordingly.
So what I am saying is that if you negotiate with a hotel chain you may not be speaking to someone who has absolute control over policy, inventory or pricing with all their properties. Hence you can find yourself in a position where various properties opt out of some commercial agreements which are good for the whole family but not for them. It is a bit like a global TMC who has to sacrifice profit in one location to deliver a good deal in other countries. Most TMCs have had to come to terms with this but I do not think hotels have.
The issue becomes even more convoluted when you are dealing with hotel consortiums. These are mainly pure marketing organisations where hotels (of a certain comparable quality) link their properties to an umbrella brand in order to take on the big boys and achieve global coverage. Again, this does not mean that such consortiums can tell these hotels what to do as far as pricing and inventory is concerned.
Probably still the most influential person in any hotel is its General Manager who can, and do, instruct their reservations office to close out heavily discounted negotiated corporate rates if they think they can sell for more. Even worse for the bigger corporations is when their travellers tell them that the hotel ‘price at the door’ is cheaper than that negotiated by their procurement department. Sounds familiar?
Another side effect of confused and disparate ownership is the woeful lack of management information you get fro the hotel industry. The only really useful thing IATA does for airlines is it provides a standardised language and reporting base that is essential for meaningful information. Hotels do not have this type of global format hence they all do things in different ways. You really would be shocked by how little they know about their customers and what they spend.
So what am I trying to say? I am advising all buyers to find out exactly what control/ownership of key properties a chain or consortium has. Maybe you should insist on key contract clauses like last room availability and lowest price on the day. Perhaps require countersignature by the GMs of the main hotels confirming they understand and support the contract. Finally, why not think of ways to make your oh so wise travellers become willing watchdogs by actively encouraging them to test the system. You know how they love it so!
By the way, I have mentioned a few hotel brands in this post. This has been purely for general illustrative purposes only and does not imply that I was refering directly to them.
This question is borne from spending many years trying to truly understand and make sense of the hospitality industry. It is a vital sector yet commentators and industry bodies barely notice it when compared to say airlines. What does make it so very different? And why should anyone need to care?
I think the difference is ownership hence my original question. You see there are quite a few different ownership scenarios within a single brand. Because a hotel displays say Hilton over the door does not mean it is owned by Hilton. Very often it is owned by someone completely different but Hilton has the management or marketing contract to run it and is employed by the owner to deliver an agreed profit. They are an employee of the owner and have to act accordingly.
So what I am saying is that if you negotiate with a hotel chain you may not be speaking to someone who has absolute control over policy, inventory or pricing with all their properties. Hence you can find yourself in a position where various properties opt out of some commercial agreements which are good for the whole family but not for them. It is a bit like a global TMC who has to sacrifice profit in one location to deliver a good deal in other countries. Most TMCs have had to come to terms with this but I do not think hotels have.
The issue becomes even more convoluted when you are dealing with hotel consortiums. These are mainly pure marketing organisations where hotels (of a certain comparable quality) link their properties to an umbrella brand in order to take on the big boys and achieve global coverage. Again, this does not mean that such consortiums can tell these hotels what to do as far as pricing and inventory is concerned.
Probably still the most influential person in any hotel is its General Manager who can, and do, instruct their reservations office to close out heavily discounted negotiated corporate rates if they think they can sell for more. Even worse for the bigger corporations is when their travellers tell them that the hotel ‘price at the door’ is cheaper than that negotiated by their procurement department. Sounds familiar?
Another side effect of confused and disparate ownership is the woeful lack of management information you get fro the hotel industry. The only really useful thing IATA does for airlines is it provides a standardised language and reporting base that is essential for meaningful information. Hotels do not have this type of global format hence they all do things in different ways. You really would be shocked by how little they know about their customers and what they spend.
So what am I trying to say? I am advising all buyers to find out exactly what control/ownership of key properties a chain or consortium has. Maybe you should insist on key contract clauses like last room availability and lowest price on the day. Perhaps require countersignature by the GMs of the main hotels confirming they understand and support the contract. Finally, why not think of ways to make your oh so wise travellers become willing watchdogs by actively encouraging them to test the system. You know how they love it so!
By the way, I have mentioned a few hotel brands in this post. This has been purely for general illustrative purposes only and does not imply that I was refering directly to them.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Loyalty Cards – What value?
There have been a growing number of reports recently about airlines reducing the number of ‘ex gratia’ cards negotiable within corporate agreements and I have no doubt whatsoever this will increase in future. There are a few possible reasons for this trend.
These cards started as a way of keeping the loyalty of regular travellers by giving a range of benefits from comfortable lounges and ‘free’ flights to priority for upgrades. They became a major instrument for wooing business people away from their competition, and possibly company policy by making the travellers feel special in a rapidly comoditising market.
Some corporations hated them and went to great lengths to try and cancel out their allure. A few tried with little success to confiscate the travel element (miles) for company use. Others took a different view and used the attraction of these loyalty clubs to underline and support the use of their chosen policy carrier. It was then that such awards became a significant beneficial component within corporate deal negotiations.
So all of a sudden airline loyalty clubs became valuable to corporates and a tool to sweeten a change in policy. This whole change thing became a great deal easier if you were able to hand out membership cards with substantial benefits to key travellers. As important were the top tier cards which appealed to status conscious senior executives. These Platinum/Black/Premier cards were usually allocated in very small numbers and linked to the company’s volume potential. Often you would see joint CEOs scrapping like alley cats as to who should get ‘The Card’ and TMCs being pestered to broker more of them.
Much of the above still happens now but the mood of the airlines is changing for a number of key reasons. Firstly the number of cards at high status (gold etc) has grown alarmingly causing lounges to become too full for comfort. The cost of these lounges and other benefits has risen correspondingly whilst their exclusivity has declined. I have been in some lounges which are busier and noisier than the seats outside them.
Equally there are fewer seats available for purchase with loyalty points which can cause problems.
The airlines in their quest to reduce distribution costs are now looking very closely at the value, and importantly, the cost of these schemes. They have gone from seeing these clubs as less of a marketing ploy and more of an out of control overhead. As a result they have identified the value and put a budget cost against it. This means that every time an airline salesman gives a card their budget gets debited accordingly. They now have to manage this cost in the same way that they do discount pricing and other overheads.
This state of affairs has reduced the number of cards being awarded within deals. Incidentally the same thing works within the airlines themselves. Senior airline management are having their own travel cards downgraded too and they are probably just as aggrieved as the corporate buyer. The problem is that if you take something away from someone it has at least twice the effect as giving it to them in the first place. What you never have you never miss!
I guess what everybody will have to realise is that if you drive mainstream airlines to behave like, and compete with low cost carriers you will see the continuing decline in such ‘luxuries’. Also, if you manage to finally be successful in mandating policy to your travellers then the need for such loyalty inducements disappear anyway.
These cards started as a way of keeping the loyalty of regular travellers by giving a range of benefits from comfortable lounges and ‘free’ flights to priority for upgrades. They became a major instrument for wooing business people away from their competition, and possibly company policy by making the travellers feel special in a rapidly comoditising market.
Some corporations hated them and went to great lengths to try and cancel out their allure. A few tried with little success to confiscate the travel element (miles) for company use. Others took a different view and used the attraction of these loyalty clubs to underline and support the use of their chosen policy carrier. It was then that such awards became a significant beneficial component within corporate deal negotiations.
So all of a sudden airline loyalty clubs became valuable to corporates and a tool to sweeten a change in policy. This whole change thing became a great deal easier if you were able to hand out membership cards with substantial benefits to key travellers. As important were the top tier cards which appealed to status conscious senior executives. These Platinum/Black/Premier cards were usually allocated in very small numbers and linked to the company’s volume potential. Often you would see joint CEOs scrapping like alley cats as to who should get ‘The Card’ and TMCs being pestered to broker more of them.
Much of the above still happens now but the mood of the airlines is changing for a number of key reasons. Firstly the number of cards at high status (gold etc) has grown alarmingly causing lounges to become too full for comfort. The cost of these lounges and other benefits has risen correspondingly whilst their exclusivity has declined. I have been in some lounges which are busier and noisier than the seats outside them.
Equally there are fewer seats available for purchase with loyalty points which can cause problems.
The airlines in their quest to reduce distribution costs are now looking very closely at the value, and importantly, the cost of these schemes. They have gone from seeing these clubs as less of a marketing ploy and more of an out of control overhead. As a result they have identified the value and put a budget cost against it. This means that every time an airline salesman gives a card their budget gets debited accordingly. They now have to manage this cost in the same way that they do discount pricing and other overheads.
This state of affairs has reduced the number of cards being awarded within deals. Incidentally the same thing works within the airlines themselves. Senior airline management are having their own travel cards downgraded too and they are probably just as aggrieved as the corporate buyer. The problem is that if you take something away from someone it has at least twice the effect as giving it to them in the first place. What you never have you never miss!
I guess what everybody will have to realise is that if you drive mainstream airlines to behave like, and compete with low cost carriers you will see the continuing decline in such ‘luxuries’. Also, if you manage to finally be successful in mandating policy to your travellers then the need for such loyalty inducements disappear anyway.
Travel Compliance – So very easy.
After 42 years in the business and 3 years out I am still aghast that almost all corporations I meet and hear about have not been able to crack the compliance issue. By this I mean their directors, executives and workforce being given a travel policy and complying with it.
I cannot really see the point of building a technology and service infrastructure, buying new innovation and deeply detailed specifications only to fail in the most basic and obvious areas of communication and buy-in. You can have the smartest schemes, the keenest deals and the best online and offline support but if you do not tell people what you have done, why you have done it and got the unflinching support of ALL your board then there is very little point for the time and effort put into it.
To me it is so glaringly obvious that, before anything else, the fundamental communications groundwork must be in place. This should include:
a) What you are doing.
b) Why you are doing it.
c) What will be achieved?
d) A clear rationale for change.
e) Unequivocal evidence of executive management support.
f) A total mandate from the man at the top.
All this as a minimum should have total distribution to existing travellers and new entrants to the company. It should be kept alive by updates, progress reports, competitive performance tables and possibly even a ‘bad boys’ list.
There also has to be two areas that MUST be addressed and the both have equal importance as, without both, you will get nowhere. Firstly you have to clearly answer all the criticism and arguments against compliance before they are ever raised. This is easy as everyone should know what they are. They will range from ‘what if I find a better fare’ to ‘the timings offered were all wrong’ to ‘it’s my budget and I can spend it as my business demands’
The last comment raises the second biggest issue which is managing the cost, savings and credits of policy compliance. If you cannot do this one then I doubt you will move forward from where you are today. The answer could be anything from internal ‘incentives’ to central budgets but you must find it.
So there you are. Easy! No I am not being flippant, it should be easy. After all, if travel is really that commodity you buy then it should be treated like computers, software or anything else you purchase and get the same type of compliance. Then and only then can you move on to all the aids and gizmos available to keep the policy fresh, interactive and easy to follow.
I cannot really see the point of building a technology and service infrastructure, buying new innovation and deeply detailed specifications only to fail in the most basic and obvious areas of communication and buy-in. You can have the smartest schemes, the keenest deals and the best online and offline support but if you do not tell people what you have done, why you have done it and got the unflinching support of ALL your board then there is very little point for the time and effort put into it.
To me it is so glaringly obvious that, before anything else, the fundamental communications groundwork must be in place. This should include:
a) What you are doing.
b) Why you are doing it.
c) What will be achieved?
d) A clear rationale for change.
e) Unequivocal evidence of executive management support.
f) A total mandate from the man at the top.
All this as a minimum should have total distribution to existing travellers and new entrants to the company. It should be kept alive by updates, progress reports, competitive performance tables and possibly even a ‘bad boys’ list.
There also has to be two areas that MUST be addressed and the both have equal importance as, without both, you will get nowhere. Firstly you have to clearly answer all the criticism and arguments against compliance before they are ever raised. This is easy as everyone should know what they are. They will range from ‘what if I find a better fare’ to ‘the timings offered were all wrong’ to ‘it’s my budget and I can spend it as my business demands’
The last comment raises the second biggest issue which is managing the cost, savings and credits of policy compliance. If you cannot do this one then I doubt you will move forward from where you are today. The answer could be anything from internal ‘incentives’ to central budgets but you must find it.
So there you are. Easy! No I am not being flippant, it should be easy. After all, if travel is really that commodity you buy then it should be treated like computers, software or anything else you purchase and get the same type of compliance. Then and only then can you move on to all the aids and gizmos available to keep the policy fresh, interactive and easy to follow.
Why small is becoming big in Business Travel.
In many of the key driver markets like the UK the desire by TMCs to move back into the SME market has grown and grown without any sign of let-up. A strange phenomenon one might think considering they have spent the last few years actively trying to get them off their books. There must be a good reason for this re-think and of course there is. It’s because of that good old trio economy, technology and supplier strategy. As a result there is never a better time to be a small customer in business travel.
You see the big organisations have lost the allure they used to have. They now become harder to win and are on longer contracts. They demand more and pay less and the suppliers have done their deals direct with them which make the TMC more marginalised than ever. At the same time the TMCs have caught up with each other to the point that a competitive edge to swing an account gets smaller. So, in the main, TMCs get to keep what they have got (especially with the advent of globalisation) and, if they actually lose something big it hurts real badly. It is often more expensive to lose an account than the benefit you get if you keep it, if that makes sense, which is another reason why little moves!
So what is left out there that is flexible, relatively easy to handle yet very valuable cumulatively especially to suppliers. The answer of course is the SME who demand a good deal but does not carry all those bespoke costs of a large client. If you win one then great, but if you lose then it doesn’t hurt much. TMCs can use all those fancy gizmos created for (and funded by) the major clients to provide added value for peanuts to SMEs. The SME also can be a great deal easier to handle in both operational and financial terms and TMCs resources can be flexed to move this business to the optimum point in their structure. Another consideration is that, in a growing market, the big TMC is beginning to realise that today’s SME is tomorrow’s mega client. Finally, TMCs still need suppliers and suppliers want the SME market but cannot afford to go after them so a consolidation point via an agent is very attractive.
So what is a SME supposed to do? Well, if I was them I would shop around. I would be less interested in the transaction fee I was being charged and more impressed in what supplier savings and efficiencies I would get. I would go to the big TMCs and ask what extra value they can give by sharing out some of those big client products benefits. I would then ensure that I would get agreed levels of service continuity and not have my team poached every time there is a staff shortage with a bigger client.
So simplicity, flexibility and small are all beautiful……for now.
The large corporations? If I was them I would sit on my ego and work out how to make myself more attractive and important again.
You see the big organisations have lost the allure they used to have. They now become harder to win and are on longer contracts. They demand more and pay less and the suppliers have done their deals direct with them which make the TMC more marginalised than ever. At the same time the TMCs have caught up with each other to the point that a competitive edge to swing an account gets smaller. So, in the main, TMCs get to keep what they have got (especially with the advent of globalisation) and, if they actually lose something big it hurts real badly. It is often more expensive to lose an account than the benefit you get if you keep it, if that makes sense, which is another reason why little moves!
So what is left out there that is flexible, relatively easy to handle yet very valuable cumulatively especially to suppliers. The answer of course is the SME who demand a good deal but does not carry all those bespoke costs of a large client. If you win one then great, but if you lose then it doesn’t hurt much. TMCs can use all those fancy gizmos created for (and funded by) the major clients to provide added value for peanuts to SMEs. The SME also can be a great deal easier to handle in both operational and financial terms and TMCs resources can be flexed to move this business to the optimum point in their structure. Another consideration is that, in a growing market, the big TMC is beginning to realise that today’s SME is tomorrow’s mega client. Finally, TMCs still need suppliers and suppliers want the SME market but cannot afford to go after them so a consolidation point via an agent is very attractive.
So what is a SME supposed to do? Well, if I was them I would shop around. I would be less interested in the transaction fee I was being charged and more impressed in what supplier savings and efficiencies I would get. I would go to the big TMCs and ask what extra value they can give by sharing out some of those big client products benefits. I would then ensure that I would get agreed levels of service continuity and not have my team poached every time there is a staff shortage with a bigger client.
So simplicity, flexibility and small are all beautiful……for now.
The large corporations? If I was them I would sit on my ego and work out how to make myself more attractive and important again.
A different approach to TMC negotiations?
I think one of the most disappointing outcomes from contract negotiation is that between corporations and TMCs. You can practically guarantee that one side or the other, or in time both, are not enamoured with the end results. The corporation wants total priority and service delivery at the lowest unit price whilst the TMC spends its time trying to figure out how to comply whilst clawing back profitability elsewhere in the deal or through caveats.
Another disappointment is that many of these negotiations are so combative. It is almost like trying to play a game of poker where the TMC has to play with his cards face up and the corporation with theirs to their chest. How can you get a good result when the beginning is riddled with various levels of speculation and possibly deceit? There really must be a better way.
I would really like to see such methodology turned 180 degrees. The RFP should be changed to an IFB (information for bidders). This IFB would say ‘look, this is what we think we really want’ and ‘here is a list of the important things in priority. Can you think of anything you could add to improve our service and savings? Here are the problems we currently have and how can you help resolve them’. The corporation would then receive an inflow of pertinent and creative ideas rather than getting a load of bland ‘comply/not comply’ answers to a bunch of sometimes irrelevant questions.
Having narrowed the field down to those TMC that have shown the right level of flair and innovation one could then move on to what they are hoping to achieve from winning the contract in both money terms and ongoing partnership. This would be much better than dragging in a TMC that has been cut to the bone and is frankly going to favour the client that brings more revenue and longevity.
Having now discovered what both parties want it is time to sit down together and thrash out how both can be achieved with as little compromise as possible. I can think of lots of ways to doing this in a way that protects commits and rewards.
Otherwise I guess people can continue what they are doing now. Issuing an RFP the size of a small book to TMCs who will be initially judged on how they answer a bunch of questions that really do not address the real issues. After all, the large TMCs can answer the questions any way they think you want to hear them and are probably already handing numerous Fortune 500 companies who asked the same.
So there we have it. Naïve? Workable? Or both?
Your guess is as good as mine!
Another disappointment is that many of these negotiations are so combative. It is almost like trying to play a game of poker where the TMC has to play with his cards face up and the corporation with theirs to their chest. How can you get a good result when the beginning is riddled with various levels of speculation and possibly deceit? There really must be a better way.
I would really like to see such methodology turned 180 degrees. The RFP should be changed to an IFB (information for bidders). This IFB would say ‘look, this is what we think we really want’ and ‘here is a list of the important things in priority. Can you think of anything you could add to improve our service and savings? Here are the problems we currently have and how can you help resolve them’. The corporation would then receive an inflow of pertinent and creative ideas rather than getting a load of bland ‘comply/not comply’ answers to a bunch of sometimes irrelevant questions.
Having narrowed the field down to those TMC that have shown the right level of flair and innovation one could then move on to what they are hoping to achieve from winning the contract in both money terms and ongoing partnership. This would be much better than dragging in a TMC that has been cut to the bone and is frankly going to favour the client that brings more revenue and longevity.
Having now discovered what both parties want it is time to sit down together and thrash out how both can be achieved with as little compromise as possible. I can think of lots of ways to doing this in a way that protects commits and rewards.
Otherwise I guess people can continue what they are doing now. Issuing an RFP the size of a small book to TMCs who will be initially judged on how they answer a bunch of questions that really do not address the real issues. After all, the large TMCs can answer the questions any way they think you want to hear them and are probably already handing numerous Fortune 500 companies who asked the same.
So there we have it. Naïve? Workable? Or both?
Your guess is as good as mine!
Global Travel Programmes – Delivering?
It has been quite a few years now since the advent of globalisation, or should I say attempted globalisation, became the trend. TMCs amalgamated, acquired and re-launched just so they could offer a solution that crossed all geographical boundaries.
Maybe now is the time to asses whether the global travel programme strategy delivered what it should have and if all the stakeholders got what they wanted or perhaps, in some cases, feared. It is a huge subject which won’t be fully covered by my few paragraphs but I really do think it worth some scrutiny and debate as many companies are still considering taking this route.
Was it worth telling so many overseas offices to leave their existing suppliers and TMCs for the much expected global good of the company? Did those companies really gain global benefits and what price did it cost in terms of disruption, relationships and country budgets? Frankly, was it worth the hassle and, if so, can that worth be truly quantified to everyone’s satisfaction. Is there a case for scrapping the concept or is the dream of global control, buying power and service worth continuing with? Here are my initial observations both for and against.
I would argue that from a straightforward procurement perspective the case for globalisation is very weak. This is simply because, like many corporations almost all airline suppliers do not operate the same way and are almost quaintly traditional in their thinking. If you squeeze airlines they will admit that each country has their own cost centre and even head offices have to ‘sell’ a global deal to them. In almost all cases individual global locations can veto deals on the basis that it will create low fare precedents for insufficient regional benefits. Why should my country give a silly deal that will hurt my pricing strategy and bottom line even if it does benefit offices in another continent? This will only be solved by cross subsidisation or immoveable directives.
Interestingly enough TMCs have responded to the challenge much better and have found differing internal ways to solve the problem. They too have a different range of challenges particularly in the areas of common fees, fares, services and product ranges. Different markets have varying capabilities of GDS, M.I, market sophistication and standards and to expect the same services to be available in London as in Laos is simply unlikely and possibly unwelcome.
From a corporate perspective I think there is the same age-old issue between buying a commodity and a diverse service. This one really has to get cracked and I can count those that have succeeded on one hand, with a finger or two to spare. Everyone needs to agree the expected benefits, communicate them and benchmark results. Easier said than done as corporate head offices spending most time looking at what should be the compelling concept rather than the nitty gritty deliverability and cost both financial and practical.
In summary, if it is all about negotiating power I have severe doubts. If it is about measurement of what everyone is doing then O.K. but it may not be popular. If it is about provision of global support at times of crisis like war or volcanic ash then it is worth its weight in gold. Finally, if it is positioning for a future time when suppliers buy into the programme and global subsidiaries do what they are told (for whatever reason) then go for it now.
p.s. I define a global programme as one which covers a corporation in all their operating countries. This is entirely different to a Strategic programme which only covers two/three of an organisation’s main or driver markets. If you look at most companies you will find 80% plus of their travel comes from these two or three areas. I wonder sometimes why some find a need to spend time on the hugely fragmented 20%.
Strategic deals work well, especially between UISA/Europe and I have seen sizeable gains made by savvy organisations. Most airlines can cope with giving deals where there are good new business prospects at both ends of a route.
Maybe now is the time to asses whether the global travel programme strategy delivered what it should have and if all the stakeholders got what they wanted or perhaps, in some cases, feared. It is a huge subject which won’t be fully covered by my few paragraphs but I really do think it worth some scrutiny and debate as many companies are still considering taking this route.
Was it worth telling so many overseas offices to leave their existing suppliers and TMCs for the much expected global good of the company? Did those companies really gain global benefits and what price did it cost in terms of disruption, relationships and country budgets? Frankly, was it worth the hassle and, if so, can that worth be truly quantified to everyone’s satisfaction. Is there a case for scrapping the concept or is the dream of global control, buying power and service worth continuing with? Here are my initial observations both for and against.
I would argue that from a straightforward procurement perspective the case for globalisation is very weak. This is simply because, like many corporations almost all airline suppliers do not operate the same way and are almost quaintly traditional in their thinking. If you squeeze airlines they will admit that each country has their own cost centre and even head offices have to ‘sell’ a global deal to them. In almost all cases individual global locations can veto deals on the basis that it will create low fare precedents for insufficient regional benefits. Why should my country give a silly deal that will hurt my pricing strategy and bottom line even if it does benefit offices in another continent? This will only be solved by cross subsidisation or immoveable directives.
Interestingly enough TMCs have responded to the challenge much better and have found differing internal ways to solve the problem. They too have a different range of challenges particularly in the areas of common fees, fares, services and product ranges. Different markets have varying capabilities of GDS, M.I, market sophistication and standards and to expect the same services to be available in London as in Laos is simply unlikely and possibly unwelcome.
From a corporate perspective I think there is the same age-old issue between buying a commodity and a diverse service. This one really has to get cracked and I can count those that have succeeded on one hand, with a finger or two to spare. Everyone needs to agree the expected benefits, communicate them and benchmark results. Easier said than done as corporate head offices spending most time looking at what should be the compelling concept rather than the nitty gritty deliverability and cost both financial and practical.
In summary, if it is all about negotiating power I have severe doubts. If it is about measurement of what everyone is doing then O.K. but it may not be popular. If it is about provision of global support at times of crisis like war or volcanic ash then it is worth its weight in gold. Finally, if it is positioning for a future time when suppliers buy into the programme and global subsidiaries do what they are told (for whatever reason) then go for it now.
p.s. I define a global programme as one which covers a corporation in all their operating countries. This is entirely different to a Strategic programme which only covers two/three of an organisation’s main or driver markets. If you look at most companies you will find 80% plus of their travel comes from these two or three areas. I wonder sometimes why some find a need to spend time on the hugely fragmented 20%.
Strategic deals work well, especially between UISA/Europe and I have seen sizeable gains made by savvy organisations. Most airlines can cope with giving deals where there are good new business prospects at both ends of a route.
Airlines and Travel Management Companies (TMC)
I genuinely find it interesting to note that very little has changed over the years despite commission cuts/removal, direct sell and net fares. Airlines still need TMCs to sell their seats and TMCs are still just as much in need of airline funding. The essential metrics remain the same and it is only the methodology that has flexed to meet market changes.
This status quo has not changed despite intense efforts from airlines as they strive to find ways of getting corporations to book direct. The only trouble is they are not TMCs and can only offer individual booking service which represents a fraction of the whole TMC integrated package. Add to this their obvious bias to their own fares and flights and it becomes clear that unless they incur the cost and role change to embrace the total TMC product not much is going to change. It would not take them long to do the math that says it is cheaper to outsource to TMCs than transform themselves. In fact, if they really were smart they would outsource more of their own services, like reservations for example, to TMCs. Some years ago an airline did just that for a short time and discovered TMC staff took more calls and got better customer reaction than their normal service.
The relationship between airline and TMC can be a rather strange alliance. The only comparison I can think of comes from the animal world where the female praying mantis makes love with its mate and then tries to eat it! It can often be very turbulent and can be tracked by just how well the market is doing. When airline sales go up they start thinking “who needs these agents” and the cooperation and incentives go down. Partially as a result their market share starts dropping until they start thinking “hey, we better start being nice to these guys again”. The result is a constant wavy line of highs, lows and then highs again. Some time someone is going to realise that some kind of continuity (say a mid point) between the highs and lows would provide better results.
Some corporations are puzzled that there is still a financial relationship at all despite market changes where they too pay the TMC. I cannot understand this as they are constantly driving down their payments to TMCs so the TMC has to make up the shortfall elsewhere within the supply chain. Also TMCs do all sorts of things for suppliers that have little direct influence on any particular corporation. These can be activities spanning, access to staff, marketing, M.I. and exposure of special airline benefits. Despite this I still think airlines mainly ‘incentivise’ TMC to increase client volume and share and they are right to do so in my personal opinion.
So, in summary, TMCs still maintain the same (or possibly more) margins from airlines despite the onset of fees. The airlines want to stop it but have failed so far. The more corporations drive for commoditisation, net pricing et al, the more these incentives will grow. My recommendation to corporations is to let it happen. As long as you are getting what you need why try and influence other relationships.
I am sure everyone will agree!
This status quo has not changed despite intense efforts from airlines as they strive to find ways of getting corporations to book direct. The only trouble is they are not TMCs and can only offer individual booking service which represents a fraction of the whole TMC integrated package. Add to this their obvious bias to their own fares and flights and it becomes clear that unless they incur the cost and role change to embrace the total TMC product not much is going to change. It would not take them long to do the math that says it is cheaper to outsource to TMCs than transform themselves. In fact, if they really were smart they would outsource more of their own services, like reservations for example, to TMCs. Some years ago an airline did just that for a short time and discovered TMC staff took more calls and got better customer reaction than their normal service.
The relationship between airline and TMC can be a rather strange alliance. The only comparison I can think of comes from the animal world where the female praying mantis makes love with its mate and then tries to eat it! It can often be very turbulent and can be tracked by just how well the market is doing. When airline sales go up they start thinking “who needs these agents” and the cooperation and incentives go down. Partially as a result their market share starts dropping until they start thinking “hey, we better start being nice to these guys again”. The result is a constant wavy line of highs, lows and then highs again. Some time someone is going to realise that some kind of continuity (say a mid point) between the highs and lows would provide better results.
Some corporations are puzzled that there is still a financial relationship at all despite market changes where they too pay the TMC. I cannot understand this as they are constantly driving down their payments to TMCs so the TMC has to make up the shortfall elsewhere within the supply chain. Also TMCs do all sorts of things for suppliers that have little direct influence on any particular corporation. These can be activities spanning, access to staff, marketing, M.I. and exposure of special airline benefits. Despite this I still think airlines mainly ‘incentivise’ TMC to increase client volume and share and they are right to do so in my personal opinion.
So, in summary, TMCs still maintain the same (or possibly more) margins from airlines despite the onset of fees. The airlines want to stop it but have failed so far. The more corporations drive for commoditisation, net pricing et al, the more these incentives will grow. My recommendation to corporations is to let it happen. As long as you are getting what you need why try and influence other relationships.
I am sure everyone will agree!
Is Government Buying Wisely?
Being part of the European ‘nanny state’ must have its advantages…..although I can’t quite think of even one at this time. Most definitely government travel buying, or for that matter any kind of state procurement is not one. The conditions, deadlines, red tape, mandatory declarations and disclosures are such that the likelihood of a smart or mutually worthwhile deal is small.
Until I got involved in the process I have always been perplexed as to why, if there are so many procedures and rules government projects always end up costing much more than the original contract. In the UK you only have to look at the Channel Tunnel, the Millennium Dome and Wembley Sport Stadium as examples of this. Why is this I thought, and then I got involved in a major UK government travel tender myself and saw what I think could be the key contributors to cost and timing failures. I will share my experience and subsequent assumptions with you but I must state at the outset that these are my own personal thoughts and not those of the company I worked for at the time.
If you are a private company you can set your own tender schedule and process. In government you cannot. There is a strict procedure in relation to timelines, disclosure, format and bidder selection you must keep to. On the surface this might seem highly laudable but in actuality it becomes restrictive, eliminates flexibility and costly in unnecessary administration and process. It also works on the basis that you know exactly what you want to buy as this has to be declared and published at the outset. Unfortunately, such is the size, mix and variety of such contracts that this essential is unknown and is probably a part of why the business is out to bid in the first place.
So what are these restrictions I am talking about? Here are some of the key ones as I perceive them:
1/ you have to publish all details of the contract and bid process in advance across European and give all equal opportunity to bid. You cannot be seen as individually selective or discriminatory in any way even if you are wasting your time or that of bidders who stand no chance of success.
2/ At this stage you must declare exactly what you are putting out to tender and you cannot easily change it even if you do not really know if it is accurate or not.
3/ the system seems to prevent any informal or individual dialogue with potential suppliers without giving everyone equal opportunity so there is no way building understanding, knowledge or relationships in order to improve/modify the brief.
4/ Everything has to be done by the book on a ‘one size fits all’ basis even though these contracts are some of the most diverse one is ever likely to come across.
5/ Government bodies seem incapable of aportioning or sharing out costs and savings amongst themselves which means that pricing is a nightmare and the potential of negotiating a fair and equitable financial package is minimized.
If you put some or all the above together you end up in a no win situation as the buyer has had to follow an entirely unhelpful process ending up with an oversimplified deal full of loopholes. The seller has to find some way of picking up the pieces while making a profit and minimising negative exposure.
At the beginning of this piece I mentioned that, in my eyes, most government contracts end up costing far more than the original contract agreement. I personally think it may be as a result of my point in the previous paragraph. What can end up happening is that the supplier goes in at a rock bottom unit price but then builds in a whole raft of necessary caveats in case the core buyer RFP is wrong ,which of course it is. The buyer is not able to hold contingency funds or apportion out costs internally so they have no way of dealing with it. The end result is that the government has an embarrassing overspend and the supplier makes their money out of charging caveats built in for ‘out of scope’ activities.
I write this for two reasons. Firstly I think it is wrong that any government should have to ignore sound commercial tactics and hog tie itself with bureaucracy when buying. Secondly, as a tax payer, it is my money they are wasting.
Until I got involved in the process I have always been perplexed as to why, if there are so many procedures and rules government projects always end up costing much more than the original contract. In the UK you only have to look at the Channel Tunnel, the Millennium Dome and Wembley Sport Stadium as examples of this. Why is this I thought, and then I got involved in a major UK government travel tender myself and saw what I think could be the key contributors to cost and timing failures. I will share my experience and subsequent assumptions with you but I must state at the outset that these are my own personal thoughts and not those of the company I worked for at the time.
If you are a private company you can set your own tender schedule and process. In government you cannot. There is a strict procedure in relation to timelines, disclosure, format and bidder selection you must keep to. On the surface this might seem highly laudable but in actuality it becomes restrictive, eliminates flexibility and costly in unnecessary administration and process. It also works on the basis that you know exactly what you want to buy as this has to be declared and published at the outset. Unfortunately, such is the size, mix and variety of such contracts that this essential is unknown and is probably a part of why the business is out to bid in the first place.
So what are these restrictions I am talking about? Here are some of the key ones as I perceive them:
1/ you have to publish all details of the contract and bid process in advance across European and give all equal opportunity to bid. You cannot be seen as individually selective or discriminatory in any way even if you are wasting your time or that of bidders who stand no chance of success.
2/ At this stage you must declare exactly what you are putting out to tender and you cannot easily change it even if you do not really know if it is accurate or not.
3/ the system seems to prevent any informal or individual dialogue with potential suppliers without giving everyone equal opportunity so there is no way building understanding, knowledge or relationships in order to improve/modify the brief.
4/ Everything has to be done by the book on a ‘one size fits all’ basis even though these contracts are some of the most diverse one is ever likely to come across.
5/ Government bodies seem incapable of aportioning or sharing out costs and savings amongst themselves which means that pricing is a nightmare and the potential of negotiating a fair and equitable financial package is minimized.
If you put some or all the above together you end up in a no win situation as the buyer has had to follow an entirely unhelpful process ending up with an oversimplified deal full of loopholes. The seller has to find some way of picking up the pieces while making a profit and minimising negative exposure.
At the beginning of this piece I mentioned that, in my eyes, most government contracts end up costing far more than the original contract agreement. I personally think it may be as a result of my point in the previous paragraph. What can end up happening is that the supplier goes in at a rock bottom unit price but then builds in a whole raft of necessary caveats in case the core buyer RFP is wrong ,which of course it is. The buyer is not able to hold contingency funds or apportion out costs internally so they have no way of dealing with it. The end result is that the government has an embarrassing overspend and the supplier makes their money out of charging caveats built in for ‘out of scope’ activities.
I write this for two reasons. Firstly I think it is wrong that any government should have to ignore sound commercial tactics and hog tie itself with bureaucracy when buying. Secondly, as a tax payer, it is my money they are wasting.
Who should buy travel? (Part two)
In part one I gave my view as to who should buy travel within a corporation. To recap, I pointed out that no one person should do it. Instead an alliance of procurement and operational management was required pulled together by the influence and gravitas of a hands-on board sponsor. In the mix of travel there is no way to success if the person buying is not linked seamlessly with those who will manage the contract and they can both give up unless there is someone on the board who fully contributes and ensures top down buy-in to the programme. Surely with the complexity, emotional factors and likelihood for misunderstanding this extra effort is worthwhile?
Here in this follow-up I will submit my view on whom in suppliers should negotiate with corporations and how, as I can say from the outset that from what I saw this process is often flawed. If you put the wrong person in front of a professional buyer you deserve everything you get. By wrong person I mean anybody that is not researched, not empowered and lacks crucial client understanding. If a buyer does not know his own volumes or traveller behaviour they too will become unstuck. Obvious really but it is a starting point as so often these ‘givens’ are not evident.
Sales are the lifeblood of any supplier especially during times of diminished and uncertain market conditions yet you would be hard pressed to see much evidence of this. To survive and thrive you would need to be decisive, flexible and have the right attitude towards prospective customers yet I think I would find very few buyers who have observed these necessary traits in their negotiations.
Many travel suppliers (especially major airlines) still seem to think there is their way or no way. The old style still thrives where a supplier will create their strategy and programmes, drive it into their sales teams and say this is the only way people can buy from us. The sales folk then have to go out with minimal flexibility or authority and try to tell the customer why they will have to fit in with what the seller wants. Some of these sales folk are little more than front line ‘cannon fodder’.
I cannot see why a far more productive approach cannot be taken. If you are selling to a high volume senior corporation then you should send out someone of a comparable level with a full mandate to close the deal. That person should not have one type of programme but a range tailored for the differing types of customer out there. It is not rocket science but prospect customers should be researched to discover what their philosophies and missions are, what their previous issues have been and what their capability to deliver is. Elementary I know but it actually happens very rarely.
If I was a buyer the first thing I would do is examine my own company well. Granted the numbers are important but equally so are the levels of internal support, mandate and cross company delivery any negotiated programme is likely to get. If you do not do this any deal could end up compromised or possibly an unpopular, unproductive financial and political liability. As I have said before you may be thinking you are buying a commodity but it quickly becomes a service as soon as the contract ink dries.
I mentioned earlier that there should be a range of potential deals and services to choose from which should deliver increased volume to suppliers and lower prices to buyers. There are plenty of ideas out there but few seem to make it past the internal discussion phase. For example I cannot understand why there cannot be different day and time pricing on individual airline routes. If you looked at airlines flying between London and New York you would find some flights at specific times and dates are always full whilst others go half empty. Why not give your best price on the slack flights?
Airlines could also give bigger rewards to corporations who save them money. By this I mean better deals for corporations who book early and whose travellers always turn up. Why not give bonuses to corporations and travellers who do such things which enable suppliers to maximise their loads and reduce costs. It still puzzles the hell out of me that suppliers still seem to allow people to not turn up without penalty as it must cost them a fortune. What other industry would allow that?
So there you have some simplistic but hopefully logical thoughts and recommendations. Suppliers should be flexible and recognise the individuality of corporations whilst buyers should spend more time ensuring they can deliver their part of the bargain.
Here in this follow-up I will submit my view on whom in suppliers should negotiate with corporations and how, as I can say from the outset that from what I saw this process is often flawed. If you put the wrong person in front of a professional buyer you deserve everything you get. By wrong person I mean anybody that is not researched, not empowered and lacks crucial client understanding. If a buyer does not know his own volumes or traveller behaviour they too will become unstuck. Obvious really but it is a starting point as so often these ‘givens’ are not evident.
Sales are the lifeblood of any supplier especially during times of diminished and uncertain market conditions yet you would be hard pressed to see much evidence of this. To survive and thrive you would need to be decisive, flexible and have the right attitude towards prospective customers yet I think I would find very few buyers who have observed these necessary traits in their negotiations.
Many travel suppliers (especially major airlines) still seem to think there is their way or no way. The old style still thrives where a supplier will create their strategy and programmes, drive it into their sales teams and say this is the only way people can buy from us. The sales folk then have to go out with minimal flexibility or authority and try to tell the customer why they will have to fit in with what the seller wants. Some of these sales folk are little more than front line ‘cannon fodder’.
I cannot see why a far more productive approach cannot be taken. If you are selling to a high volume senior corporation then you should send out someone of a comparable level with a full mandate to close the deal. That person should not have one type of programme but a range tailored for the differing types of customer out there. It is not rocket science but prospect customers should be researched to discover what their philosophies and missions are, what their previous issues have been and what their capability to deliver is. Elementary I know but it actually happens very rarely.
If I was a buyer the first thing I would do is examine my own company well. Granted the numbers are important but equally so are the levels of internal support, mandate and cross company delivery any negotiated programme is likely to get. If you do not do this any deal could end up compromised or possibly an unpopular, unproductive financial and political liability. As I have said before you may be thinking you are buying a commodity but it quickly becomes a service as soon as the contract ink dries.
I mentioned earlier that there should be a range of potential deals and services to choose from which should deliver increased volume to suppliers and lower prices to buyers. There are plenty of ideas out there but few seem to make it past the internal discussion phase. For example I cannot understand why there cannot be different day and time pricing on individual airline routes. If you looked at airlines flying between London and New York you would find some flights at specific times and dates are always full whilst others go half empty. Why not give your best price on the slack flights?
Airlines could also give bigger rewards to corporations who save them money. By this I mean better deals for corporations who book early and whose travellers always turn up. Why not give bonuses to corporations and travellers who do such things which enable suppliers to maximise their loads and reduce costs. It still puzzles the hell out of me that suppliers still seem to allow people to not turn up without penalty as it must cost them a fortune. What other industry would allow that?
So there you have some simplistic but hopefully logical thoughts and recommendations. Suppliers should be flexible and recognise the individuality of corporations whilst buyers should spend more time ensuring they can deliver their part of the bargain.
Who should buy travel? (Part one)
This debate has rumbled on for a very long time and I expect it will continue particularly at this time of financial and strategic difficulty. Suppliers have to earn more and corporations have to pay less to achieve their recovery strategy so it has never been more important that the function in the middle of the pricing debate gets it right. If they don’t we will end up either with less products or fewer customers or perhaps both. The key reason for there being an impasse in this debate is there is no right answer for all the stakeholders. It very much depends on the flexibility, specialist knowledge and skills of individuals concerned.
It is not an easy subject to comment on without rubbing someone up the wrong way and getting called biased to one particular part of the supply chain. Although I was very much a TMC man I now feel I can look back more objectively and hopefully put forward some valid considerations to be taken into account. For example I do not believe this activity should be outsourced to a TMC in the current climate as they will be viewed sceptically by the suppliers and not have sufficient mandate within the corporation. It also has the potential of removing ongoing control of the programme, especially within large organisations and their global subsidiaries.
To understand the challenge and make an informed decision you have to know the key issues. I believe many of you know them so I hope you will bear with me while I ad my thoughts on them. Rather like buying most things the secret is to get the correct blend between quality of product and price. In the travel arena this is easier said than done especially when the product is either a commodity or a service and more likely both. In this environment the corporation needs to look closer at a) what exactly they want to buy and b) how they are going to manage the programme to maximum gain when it starts. A decision has to be made as to who in the company is suited to doing both jobs or if the project should be split into two parts. This is where it mainly goes wrong as one task naturally blends into the other.
If you put the TMC and outside consultants aside for a moment that really leaves just two functions which are procurement and the travel manager. One view is that a buyer is expert at buying a commodity and a travel manager is much better at controlling a service. Having seen both in action more times than I can remember it is very rare indeed to find one person who can lead both functions successfully as the skill –set is so different.
So there we have it. When a buyer says it should be their job they are probably as wrong as the travel manager who says it should be them. In my opinion there are only two alternatives. One is that you go out and find that rare breed of person who can both buy professionally and manage a complex service orientated project. After all travel is a commodity when you buy but turns into a service when you use it. The second option (and best in my opinion) is to form a triumvirate of a buyer, a travel manager and a leader who should be a senior board member with a strong mandate from his colleagues. All three should work together from concept to strategy to buying to delivery. This liaison should not stop at delivery but move forward to ensure disciplines and benefits are achieved.
What about the suppliers? Who should be negotiating what with whom?
I will put forward my views in part two but I can say now that I think it works pretty badly in general!
It is not an easy subject to comment on without rubbing someone up the wrong way and getting called biased to one particular part of the supply chain. Although I was very much a TMC man I now feel I can look back more objectively and hopefully put forward some valid considerations to be taken into account. For example I do not believe this activity should be outsourced to a TMC in the current climate as they will be viewed sceptically by the suppliers and not have sufficient mandate within the corporation. It also has the potential of removing ongoing control of the programme, especially within large organisations and their global subsidiaries.
To understand the challenge and make an informed decision you have to know the key issues. I believe many of you know them so I hope you will bear with me while I ad my thoughts on them. Rather like buying most things the secret is to get the correct blend between quality of product and price. In the travel arena this is easier said than done especially when the product is either a commodity or a service and more likely both. In this environment the corporation needs to look closer at a) what exactly they want to buy and b) how they are going to manage the programme to maximum gain when it starts. A decision has to be made as to who in the company is suited to doing both jobs or if the project should be split into two parts. This is where it mainly goes wrong as one task naturally blends into the other.
If you put the TMC and outside consultants aside for a moment that really leaves just two functions which are procurement and the travel manager. One view is that a buyer is expert at buying a commodity and a travel manager is much better at controlling a service. Having seen both in action more times than I can remember it is very rare indeed to find one person who can lead both functions successfully as the skill –set is so different.
So there we have it. When a buyer says it should be their job they are probably as wrong as the travel manager who says it should be them. In my opinion there are only two alternatives. One is that you go out and find that rare breed of person who can both buy professionally and manage a complex service orientated project. After all travel is a commodity when you buy but turns into a service when you use it. The second option (and best in my opinion) is to form a triumvirate of a buyer, a travel manager and a leader who should be a senior board member with a strong mandate from his colleagues. All three should work together from concept to strategy to buying to delivery. This liaison should not stop at delivery but move forward to ensure disciplines and benefits are achieved.
What about the suppliers? Who should be negotiating what with whom?
I will put forward my views in part two but I can say now that I think it works pretty badly in general!