|
Going Global is all the rage! Corporations are going global with their SMMP programs. Many hotel chains say they are global, but may not act globally. Third party planning companies are claiming to be global. But what does going global really mean? Some think that taking an SMMP global is an all or nothing proposition. Some organizations feel that global means they need to use one supplier throughout the world, such as one Travel Management Company (TMC), one meeting logistics company, etc. So, according to some, if you have to use regional suppliers in a particular category of spend versus one global supplier, your program is not truly global. I feel that as an alternative to this thought process, global programs can be successful if designed regionally, which addresses the needs and various cultures of multi-national organizations, while providing global, enterprise-wide data.
Many companies feel that this regionalized approach is the best option for their business rather than trying to force all entities into one global format. The regional method could manifest itself by having one meeting logistics company or Travel Management Company (TMC) for the Americas, a different one for Europe, Middle East and Africa (EMEA), and yet a third one for Asia-Pacific (APAC). Each company will define their own regional, "theater" or country approach based on what alignment makes the most sense for their international footprint. I have seen this regional methodology work successfully in support of Strategic Meetings Management Program when companies are able to aggregate all of the data so there is visibility to the total global spend for the company.
In fact, the market place almost requires a regional approach as there are very few suppliers that have a truly global scope. In order to fill the void of genuinely global suppliers, I have observed many who are forming alliances and partnerships with like minded companies resulting in a global reach for their clients. What is interesting is that some clients do not like this approach, as they feel it is a patch work approach rather than a bona fide worldwide company. I expect there are examples of where this partnership approach has not been well executed. Conversely, I am also aware of many partnerships that are well managed so that the process is seamless to the client, and the outcomes are consistent from country to country and region to region.
It is important to keep in mind the challenge that some of the global hotel chains have in gathering data on behalf of their clients as well as enforcing agreed contract terms on a global basis. The underlying problem with the data issue is that the data collection tools are inadequate for the global hotel chains. The good news is that they are making progress, but upgrading the infrastructure coupled with the time and cost of implementation to develop one common data base is a huge challenge for the large chains. Helping to enforce consistent adherence to the approved chain hotel contract, can be a real challenge for the Global Sales Office (GSO) of the hotel chains. On the surface this seems simple enough, but many of the hotel companies have a predominance of franchise owners rather than hotels that they own. This means that there are certain things the hotel chains are unable to require the hotel owner to do, such as force them to agree to accept standard contract wording and addendums. This is where a strong relationship with the Global Sales Office (GSO) of your preferred hotel chains is critical, as they can really be an advocate for their clients with the hotels that are reluctant to comply with system wide contract terms.
|
