The CFO wants a cost case that survives direct-booking comparisons, while the travel manager needs governance costs counted too.
Fare visibility protects finance credibility, while leakage and policy compliance protect the managed program's value.
Who you’d be doing this for
“My CFO keeps sending me direct fares and asking why we need the program at all.”
Prem Setiawan · Corporate Travel Manager
She administers a large managed travel program and must defend both traveler adoption and policy compliance to finance.
What is at stake
A CFO rejects the current savings story because direct fares, leakage, and service costs are blurred together. You must weigh a faster headline ROI against a business case the travel manager and CFO can both defend.
Why it isn’t already fixed
Every obvious fix costs something else. That’s the part you’d have to decide.
- direct fare comparisons vs. total program economics
- forecast urgency vs. defensible assumptions
- finance consolidation goals vs. travel governance needs
- headline savings vs. launch credibility
Why Navan
Travel and expense consolidation is judged on whether policy-controlled booking produces a defensible total-cost outcome.
Written with these in mind
Not your kind of problem? 54 more at Navan, or browse every organization.
This is the setup. The work is inside.
Running it puts you in the room: the full situation and its constraints, stakeholders who push back in their own words, and the decisions that are yours to make. What you produce becomes a Day One Plan — work you can show someone instead of describing.