For years, the main driver for implementing a Strategic Meetings Management Program has been cost savings. Certainly, risk mitigation was a nice outcome, but usually the selling point to senior leadership was the annual savings of 10-20% of meeting expenditures. Over the past 18 months I have seen a marked increase in risk mitigation as the primary impetus for implementing an SMMP. This indicates that meeting managers have been able to articulate the considerable cost of inaction of not having an SMM to senior leadership.

What are some of these costs of inaction? Contracts signed by occasional planners who do not understand the hotel negotiation process, leaving their company exposed to tens of thousands of dollars in cancellation and attrition penalties. How many of us have received the phone call saying "I am canceling my meeting next week and the hotel wants me to pay a cancellation fee, I don't understand! Can you help me?" Another cost of inaction can be because there was no "non-compete" clause in the contract, your head to head competitor was in the hotel the same time you were during a product launch. Or perhaps you have specific hotel types to be used based on the meeting attendees: incentive meetings are okay at luxury properties, but customer meetings should only be at upscale hotels. Contemplate this example: a customer meeting gets contracted at a luxury 5 star hotel, and the mistake is recognized ahead of time, but it requires cancelling, paying penalties, and the embarrassment of rebooking the meeting with your clients. Or worse, it's not caught and the situation ends up on the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Any of these "cost of inaction" scenarios are poor outcomes that can have a detrimental effect on your precious company brand that makes it unique in the marketplace.

So it's not just about reducing costs, but it is also about the very real need to reduce risk by gaining visibility and control into where meetings are being placed, ensuring that company funds are being handled with the proper fiduciary responsibility, and eliminating conflict of interest concerns. In my opinion there is no way to control these issues unless there is a centralized process to manage the sourcing and contracting of meetings and events. The lack of visibility and control results in being reactive, rather than being proactive. I am sure you all agree that being reactive is a terrible way to conduct business.

Conflict of interest policies remind me that in June it will be 10 years since the enactment of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (or SOX), which required public companies to do a better job of corporate governance and internal controls, among other issues. As I reflect back on the many conversations I have had with audit departments over the past ten years, a consistent point from them was that the absence of policy for employees highlights inaction by Senior Leadership. Even if you have a process in place, although it might not be the best, it demonstrates that the organization has at least thought about the issue and has developed guidance to help protect the company and its employees.

When mentioning protecting company employees, Duty of Care is another hot topic this year, as organizations are required to safeguard their employees while they are on business travel. As a meeting manager, if you don't have insight into all of the meetings and where employees are via a Strategic Meetings Management Program, it is impossible to fulfill on the promise of Duty of Care.

In closing, I will repeat myself in that the Cost of Inaction is Considerable! SMMP is not simply about reducing costs. SMM is also about the critical need to reduce risk by gaining visibility and control into where meetings are being placed, ensuring that company funds are being handled with the proper fiduciary responsibility, eliminating conflict of interest concerns, and through protecting staff and the company brand.