In the second of two articles on the future development of traditional travel policy, Stanley Slaughter looks at what changes could be made.
In the last ABTN analysis (RIP: the traditional corporate travel policy?), it was suggested that the days of the traditional, mandated travel policy may be numbered. This was based on a growing feeling that the current model was beginning to outlive its time with several factors were forcing change. These were generational and evolutionary but both were driven by rapidly advancing technology.
But if old-style travel policy is “dying" - as one leading industry figure put it - then the obvious next question is what will take its place?
There were some hints at the stimulating session on Is Travel Policy Dead? at the Business Travel Show in London last month. Michael Hill, European travel manager for the Coca Cola Company, said that while he supported the concept of a “strict” travel policy, he did not believe in making it mandatory. He gave as an example how his company has a list of preferred four- and five-star hotels in London with travellers being free to use whichever one suited them. This had actually increased compliance.
Rob Hughes, EMEA travel and expense programme manager for salesforce.com, said the travel policy concept needed an “overhaul” as there was a “gap between the needs of the traveller and what the corporates are trying to do”. But Hughes argued that the arrival of what he called social enterprise - the use of the social network - had rendered the old “command and control” style policy as out of its time.
The problem facing the industry was how to marry the requirements of the corporate and those of the traveller. “If corporate can work with their employees in the new social environment, it will be a win-win for all parties,” he said.
How this can be done – or at least part of it – is laid out in an excellent report by two US industry analysts Scott Gillespie and Evan Konwiser. First they suggest that goals are more important than processes. If the traveller gets the best price for his or her trip and the travel manager gets the data, does it actually matter which airline they travel with or which hotel they stay at.“Corporate management demands results, but is increasingly agnostic about how to get there,” the authors say.
The solution is for travel managers to focus on “delivering key outcomes” rather than concentrating on the minute detail. Both suppliers and TMCs s can help them by getting discount on brand sights and on making sure the necessary data is delivered.
Their second point is more contentious. They claim that cost reduction is a “false goal” and that travel manager should concentrate more on getting a good ROI on travel spend. Cutting costs is what many company directors regard as the sacred duty of travel managers and both parties would, currently at least, have great trouble putting it aside.
Secondly measuring ROI on travel is notoriously difficult and inexact and thus not a good thing on which to base a policy. But the next suggestion Gillespie and Konwiser make is surely valid. The focus should be shifted from policy compliance to budget compliance. In other words a set amount should be allocated for a trip and as long as the traveller sticks to that, everyone should be happy. Google has successfully been doing something along these lines for several years now.
One point the authors do not make here is that it would have to be mandatory that travellers told their company with whom they were travelling and staying in the interests of the corporate duty of care.
Gillespie’s and Konwiser’s next point is perhaps their most interesting. They boldly claim that traveller safety and satisfaction is replacing savings as the main function of a travel policy. It may be too early to expect companies to abandon savings as their foremost goal, especially in the current economic climate. But certainly safety (see above) and, more notably, traveller satisfaction, are growing issues.
Companies, the authors note, “increasingly are seeing the value of keeping road warriors happy.” They go on to add: “The command-and-control mindset has far less clout with younger workers. More companies accept the need to win by influencing, rather than by punishing. Mandates have become obsolete. Forcing inferior experiences on travellers, especially when they know of better options, is not sustainable.”
This exactly sums up the situation. The younger generation, now coming to the fore, is not likely to put up with the following a policy they neither understand nor agree with. Companies are now realising this. There were encouraging signs from the BTS session that it is vital to take into account the views and sensibilities of travellers.
Michael Hill said: “We don’t use the “M” word mandated. We have an element of flexibility. We have to balance what is our duty of care with a work life balance. When we are approached about going outside policy, we have to balance this up. We are communicating more, we are more accepting of feedback.”
Rob Hughes added that for the first time, social enterprise was allowing him to work with his travellers.
These seems to be a change in the air. Travellers are expecting - and in some cases getting - more say in how they travel. “The travel policy needs re-inventing,” said Hughes. “Travel managers who don’t embrace this aspect of social enterprise do so at their peril.”