20th Annual Conference

SCTM Benchmarking Survey

John HarnerDirector of Travel Management Services, Indiana University

Ian ThomasPartner, Academic Travel Consulting

September 18, 2007

2007Benchmarking Survey

• Tracks changes in vendor relations, service fees, technology, and travel program structure.

• 68 institutions completed the survey– 47 attending the conference

Institution Type

Public80%

Private19%

Other1%

Annual T&E $ Volume

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

Less $5M $5-10M $10-20M Over $20M Don't Know

2005 2006 2007

• Total T&E spend may be increasing slightly

Annual Air Only $ Volume

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Less $1M $1-3M $3-5M $5-10M $10M+ Don't Know

2005 2006 2007

Percentage International Air by $ Volume

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

20032004200520062007

• Significant decrease in International air $ volume

Survey Participants with Airline Agreements

55%64% 66%

58% 55% 56%51%

0%10%

20%30%40%50%

60%70%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• Future questions will focus on types of contract

Contracted Airlines

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

AC FL AS AA CO DL F9 YX NW WN UA US

2005 2006 2007

• Significant decrease for American, Southwest and US Air

Where are airline contracts negotiated?

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

By Institution

By System

By StateBy Consortia

BY TMCOther

2005 2006 2007

Institutions with Car Rental contracts

83%86% 85% 84% 84%

89% 89%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Car Rental $ Volume

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

$0-100k

$100-300k

$300k-500k

$500k-1M

$1M+ Don'tKnow

2005 2006 2007

Car Rental Agreements

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

2005 2006 2007

Local Hotel Agreements

44%

57%64%

77%70% 73% 72%

69%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Hotel $ Volume

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Less $500k $500- $1M $1- 3M Over $3M Don't Know

2005 2006 2007

Survey Participants with Ghost Card Programs

69% 67% 68%55% 57% 59%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• Unexplained drop in Ghost Card programs could be due to increased use of Procurement cards

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

2005 2006 2007

Ghost Card Companies

Survey Participants with Corporate Card Programs

81%

96%90%

85%

77%86%

75%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

2005 2006 2007

Corporate Card Companies

Corporate Card Programs with

Individual Liability

71% 70% 71% 73% 73%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• Majority individual liability rather than institutional liability

Survey Participants with Purchasing Cards

89% 90% 90% 87% 88% 92% 85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

2005 2006 2007

Purchasing Card Companies

Is P-Card used for Travel?

29% 31%45% 41% 41%

36% 40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%

2005 2006 2007

Number of Contracted Travel Agencies

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Full ARC AgencyAccreditation

CTDAccreditation

Not Accredited Don't know

ARC/CTD Accreditation

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Required Required, withreasonable exceptions

permitted

Optional

2005

2006

2007

Is Use of Travel Agency Required?

• Policy on use of contracted travel agencies reflects the need for flexibility in academic travel management

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

In-houseoperated

AMEX /Rosenbluth

BCD/WorldBTI

Carlson/TQ3Nav

Regionaltravel

agency

Local travelagency

2005 2006 2007

Travel Agencies Used by Survey Participants

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

$0 $10 orless

$11-$15 $16-$20 $21-$25 $26-$30 $31-$35 $36-$40 $41-$45 $46-$55

2005 2006 2007

• Fees remaining constant with about half paying more than $25

DomesticService Fees

International Service Fees

• Noticeable increase with half now paying more than $30

GDS Related ServiceFee Increase

Yes42%

No47%

Don't know11%

• Nearly one half of respondents were not subjected to service fee increases as a result of the new Global Distribution System cost structure

Survey Participants with Self-Booking Tools

24% 22%29%

34%42%

51%44%

49%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

• When asked the same question at the 2006 conference keynote address, the audience response was 48%, also a decrease over 2005, and a significantly different respondent pool.

8%

19%26%

20%27%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Self-Booking Adoption Rate

• Seven of 18 respondents had adoption rates of 30% or higher

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

$0 $10 orless

$11-$15 $16-$20 $21-$25 $26-$30 $31-$35 $36-$40 $41-$45

Online Full-service (domestic)

• 67% are charging travelers a service fee of $10 or less (84% in 2006 )

Online Booking Service Fees

Top Self-Booking Tools

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%

2005 2006 2007

* OTAs are business versions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Online Booking Fulfillment

Planning an Online Booking Implementation Next Year?

21%

42%

60%

39%46%

45%38%

0%

25%

50%

75%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Survey Participants with Automated Expense Reports

11%

17%

24%

20%23%

19%23%

25%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Expense Report Applications

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Developed in-house

Concur/Gelco/Vinnet

ExtensityPeoplesoft

Other

200520062007

• The predominance of internally developed applications highlights the unique needs of academia

Planning to Begin Automated Expense Reporting Next

Year?

19%

32% 35% 34% 38% 41%29%

0%10%

20%

30%

40%50%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Travel Management Position

Dedicated Position

54%

Position with Other Responsibi

lities46%

Travel Management Position Reporting

Other29%

Purchasing29%

Financial Management

21%

Accounts Payable

21%

Travel Management Responsibilities

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Travel Manager (dedicated position) salary range

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Reason for not attending 2007 SCTM conference

41%

35%

6%

18% Budget constraints

Scheduling conflict

Decided to attend adifferent travel-relatedconference

Other

• 17 of the 68 Survey Participants did not attend the 2007 SCTM conference