NEWS
How MI can add value to rail procurement I
t’s fairly well understood – though not always practised – that buying corporate travel in a policy-controlled environment will deliver significant financial benefits.
For example, recent analysis produced by Evolvi, the online corporate rail booking and fulfilment specialist, shows that a return trip from London to Manchester booked in advance could yield savings of £125* against a standard fare bought on the day of travel.
It’s a trend mirrored on just about every business route. A return ticket bought on the day of departure from London to Norwich would cost £88, compared to the £18 it’s possible to pay when buying in advance.
That’s a staggering difference of 79% on a standard class journey and the financial gains on first class travel are likely to be even greater - for example a saving of up to £218 on the London-York route.
However, the benefits of a managed travel environment go far beyond stretching travel budgets when organisations enlist the support of TMCs - travel management companies - that use Evolvi for their online rail booking and fulfillment.
Evolvi’s Management Information enables managers to understand not just how much is being spent on rail journeys - and when and by whom – but to use the data to shape travel policy that underpins the business objectives of the organisation concerned.
“Critically, MI enables procurement departments to take tighter control of expenditure and to use the
10 pse
Train Operating Company (TOC), the discounted fare and take-up is highlighted in the timetable and pricing matrix displayed to the booker.
· Attribution of trip Over and above the attribution of transactions to expenditure codes, the system allows the option of trip costs to be set and analysed against a particular business unit
· Duration of trip reporting The journey time of each trip booked is reported in minutes, enabling first class travel to be restricted based on specific journey duration.
The wall mounted kiosk is demonstrated as an alternative to the desk top self ticketing option from Evolvi
data available to create valuable spend profiles and make more accurate budgetary assumptions,” says Jon Reeve, trade relations director at Evolvi.
“And because it is possible to mandate compulsory ticket purchase through the TMC structure, operational efficiency is improved and there is much greater transaction security for all concerned.”
Here is a flavour of the Evolvi MI functionality:
· Trip cost attribution Organisations can create thousands of individual expenditure codes, to which specified transactions can automatically be posted, enabling efficient scrutiny of spend.
· Travel policy compliance A managed travel
environment enables the rules
of travel to be established for every member of staff – collectively or individually – and to indentify exceptions.
· Fare exception reporting and benchmarking
The system will identify lowest possible fares that could have been booked and can either reject the transaction or allow progression upon selection of an exception reason. Booked fares are also benchmarked against “anytime” walk up fares.
· Environmental emissions reporting
The MI suite includes a multi- modal comparison covering rail, air and road, providing government-validated data on CO2 emissions.
· Dealt fare take up reporting Where an organisation has concluded a corporate discount with a particular
· Fulfilment reports Different cost bases apply to each fulfilment method, so this data can ensure the monitoring and selection of the most cost effective channel.
· City pair flows
Data on the most frequently travelled routes helps optimise supplier negotiations for discounted fares.
· Payment method reporting Payment method analysis is an important facet of payment process optimisation.
· Booking horizon reporting The average booking horizon is an important indicator of access to lower priced advance fares.
· Uncollected TOD
Statistically some 7% of journeys do not take place – this functionality monitors uncollected tickets, enabling refunds to be claimed.
*Fare comparisons based on September 6 analysis.
Sep/Oct 10
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68