Implementing a new travel structure — a revised policy, a new TMC, a booking tool deployment — often creates a sense of accomplishment. The RFP is complete. Contracts are signed. Communication has been issued internally.
Momentum, however, is not governance.
In the months following implementation, we frequently observe what can be described as governance fatigue. Stakeholders assume the system will now function autonomously. Review meetings become less structured. KPIs are circulated but not interrogated. Exception reporting becomes routine rather than analytical.
The programme stabilises — but not necessarily optimally.
Governance fatigue is subtle. It does not manifest as failure. It manifests as drift.
Compliance gradually softens.
Supplier service consistency varies.
Escalations increase in frequency but decrease in visibility.
Data is collected but not translated into decisions.
Without active oversight, even well-designed programmes weaken.
A robust governance framework requires discipline beyond implementation.
Quarterly business reviews must be structured with predefined agendas, performance dashboards, and documented actions. Supplier scorecards should reflect not only service metrics but behavioural alignment and continuous improvement commitments.
Internally, ownership must be explicit. Who is accountable for policy adjustments? Who reviews exception trends? Who evaluates whether travel demand patterns have shifted materially?
Another contributor to governance fatigue is organisational change. Acquisitions, restructuring, leadership transitions, and geographic expansion all alter travel patterns. Programmes designed for one demand profile may not fit another.
Without periodic recalibration, misalignment accumulates.
Mature organisations treat governance as an active management discipline rather than an administrative obligation. They use performance data diagnostically, not ceremonially. They align travel oversight with broader financial and risk management frameworks.
Most importantly, they recognise that governance is not static.
It must adapt as:
- Travel demand evolves
- Market pricing shifts
- Risk landscapes change
- Sustainability expectations increase
The strongest travel programmes are not those with the most detailed policies or the most sophisticated tools. They are those with the most consistent oversight.
Implementation is an event.
Governance is a practice.
And in travel management, the difference between the two determines whether control is sustained — or quietly eroded.
