There is significant dissatisfaction with this decision and the services provided by Diversity Travel. Numerous problems have arisen, and the communication to the academic staff regarding this decision was completely unexpected and abrupt. Immediately, there was confusion about what to do with trips that had already been booked but were yet to take place. No communication was provided about this; staff were instructed to inform their supervisor, who also had no solutions to offer.
The website of Diversity Travel was not functioning properly, and complaints were either not addressed or answered too late. Various travel options suddenly became unavailable. Overall, travel costs are expected to rise considerably, which is a strange message to receive in these times of budget cuts. This will also impact research and ongoing projects, as some research plans are now in jeopardy because they do not align with the travel budgets available to researchers.
During an information session for ESSB employees on 31 March, numerous questions were raised, which Diversity Travel often dismissed with ‘we know this is a problem and we are working on a solution.’ However, no alternatives were offered for what to do in the meantime. This leaves EUR researchers in a difficult position. It is clear that there was no adequate planning for this tendering process.
EUR’s argument for the tender is that the total travel costs exceed the tendering threshold. However, this is questionable: the lion’s share of travel costs for academics is not covered by the primary funding stream but comes from projects and therefore from external funders. The trips booked and paid for in this manner should not fall under EUR’s tendering requirements (as EUR is not funding them).
Furthermore, there was evidently insufficient prior assessment of what researchers need and what should have been included in the requirements drawn up by the Executive Board, outlining what the winning bidder must provide. Most researchers, especially PhD candidates, are very much aware of the impact of their travel behaviour and the associated costs. They opt for cheaper flights, public transport, and budget accommodations. Travel cost budgets are limited, so frugality is essential.
Therefore, researchers frequently choose Airbnb, as it is not only cheaper but sharing an apartment offers more space, which is particularly useful for work and for longer stays due to field research or study sabbaticals. Booking through a conference website is also popular, as the conference organisers often arrange discounts for hotel costs. By proactively consulting what researchers need, EUR could have sought a provider that meets these needs. Now we are left with a company that does not offer any of these options – and researchers are not permitted to book these themselves.
The Executive Board has thus effectively granted a monopoly to Diversity Travel. And as we know, monopolists can dictate both supply and price. Researchers are dependent on this service and are not allowed to choose cheaper options in the open market.
A university where economics and business management at the forefront should have thought this through more carefully. Now we are reliant on a company that cannot provide what researchers need, forcing us to travel at higher costs. This undermines our international exchange and scientific reputation, and I cannot believe that the Executive Board considers this a positive outcome.
Sandra van Thiel is a professor of Public Management at the Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Studies, and this contribution has been written in a personal capacity.
