When travel programmes underperform, the TMC is often the first area that comes under scrutiny.
Service levels are questioned. Response times are reviewed. Escalations increase. In some cases, organisations move quickly toward launching a new RFP.
While there are situations where provider performance is genuinely an issue, in many cases the root cause sits elsewhere.
TMC performance is highly dependent on how the programme itself has been designed.
In practice, we frequently see environments where expectations placed on the TMC are not supported by the surrounding structure.
For example, organisations may expect high-touch service while simultaneously negotiating transaction fees at levels that only support highly automated delivery models. The result is a mismatch between expectation and operating reality.
Similarly, service challenges often originate upstream in the booking environment. If the online booking tool is not configured correctly, if content is incomplete, or if policy rules create friction, demand shifts toward offline servicing. This increases pressure on the TMC, often without a corresponding adjustment in service scope.
Another recurring issue is lack of clarity in governance.
Service level agreements are defined, but escalation processes are not actively managed
Performance reviews are scheduled, but not used to drive corrective action
KPIs are tracked, but not linked to operational decisions
Over time, this leads to a reactive relationship rather than a managed one.
From the TMC’s perspective, this creates ambiguity. From the client’s perspective, it creates frustration.
Airline and hotel sourcing decisions also influence TMC performance more than is often acknowledged. When supplier strategies are misaligned with actual travel demand, booking complexity increases, exceptions rise, and servicing requirements become less predictable.
In these conditions, even a well-performing TMC will appear inconsistent.
Organisations that achieve stable and high-performing TMC relationships approach the problem differently.
They start by aligning the programme structure:
- Service expectations are matched to commercial models
- Booking environments are configured to reduce unnecessary complexity
- Policy supports practical execution
- Supplier strategies reflect real demand patterns
Governance is then used actively:
- Regular performance reviews with clear actions
- Defined ownership on both sides
- Transparent escalation frameworks
- Continuous calibration based on data
In this context, the TMC operates within a system that supports performance.
As a result, service stabilises, escalations reduce, and the relationship becomes more predictable.
Changing the provider may address symptoms.
Designing the programme correctly addresses the cause.
