A Travel Policy’s Biggest Barrier

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.

Do we need another Industry Association?

Surely we have enough associations? Do we really need another one? I think the answer is probably no…if those we have provide greater focus on the re-engineering and industry strategies that are developing as I write. But they don’t.



Corporate travel industry evolution is predominately run by it’s suppliers who then create a further strategic reaction across the rest of the supply chain. It has always been so and sadly decisions are made not by the sellers who attend industry conference but executive well removed from them.



In fact I would say the travel supplier strategist liaise as little with their own salesmen as they do with their customers. In addition the airlines have another vehicle (IATA) who are even more removed from the corporate buyer and justify their existence by introducing policy changes that pay for themselves and earn airlines more money. The money comes from tinkering with the rules that were created by airlines for the airlines and are mainly unknown to the other end of the supply chain. Amongst them are things that impact corporates cash flow data fares and rules.



So what is my point? What I am saying is that the whole industry needs to have input and understanding travel evolution and I do not think this is getting any kind of priority by the existing associations. I think there is still too much smoke and mirrors and too little hard information.



Do not get me wrong. GBTA, ACTE et al all provide a useful and valuable service but how deep do they delve into the shadowy world of industry development. I think the trouble is that they have to be all things to all men. If you rely on supplier income from advertising and sponsorship for your very existence can you really afford to challenge your benefactors? Can you really have those suppliers represented at the very core of your own executive grouping? Although I admire these associations greatly for the excellent job they do in their field I do not think the answer lies with them.



So what else is there? I never thought (in my old life) I would say this but the nearest thing we have is Kevin Mitchell’s Business Travel Coalition. For some reason, as a TMC, I found them rather galling but now I have looked closer I realise a developed model could possibly do the job. It represents a key group of large corporations with little or no outside influencers. The problem is that it is not big enough and needs to be more global. It also needs (in my opinion) more subtlety when dealing with international suppliers.



I guess the organisation I am hoping for is a group of key global corporate customers who are strong enough to win serious attention and prepared to invest both brains and power into understanding and contributing to the market they spend so much money in. Could it possibly happen? I hope so. Otherwise we can continue to evolve the way we currently do which is that suppliers such as Lufthansa and American come up with their own strategies and savvy corporations invest in finding an antidote.



You may think I have a point or you might not. May I suggest you take a look at the conference agendas of the major association players and see how little time has been given to the key issues relating to distribution, regulation and other industry developments?