SONA Q3 Report 15/16

AIESEC in Malaysia

introduction

• All information in the current document refers to the timeframe between the 1st of July and the 30th of September of 2015, more commonly known as Quarter 3 (or Q3) of 2015. • The information was provided by the 13 LCs through the AIESEC in Malaysia Q3 SONA Survey and also by the 5 SUs through the Q3 SONA for SUs Survey. • Other information sources used in the present document:

•  LC XPP and Team Minimum trackers •  National S&S Tracker •  Monthly Finance Trackers

• The information was collected by functional area but is presented through broader organizational elements. This is because JDs are integrated in different roles from LC to LC (i.e., AIESEC in TU has a BD department whereas other LCs integrate it either in iGTP, MarComm or the LCP herself) and also because it gives you, the reader, a better big picture understanding of the state of AIESEC in Malaysia iregardless of what functional area you are currently allocated to. • The elements are the following:

•  External Engagement (p.3-11) •  Talent Capacity (p.12-17) •  Sustainability (p.17-22) •  Exchange Management (p.23-33) •  Specialized Units (p.34-36)

• You should not just read and think alone about the results; •  All results should be discussed in EBs – the mindset should be “how can I improve” instead of justifying the

reason why those are your results. If you justify you are not being constructive and you’re just deceiving yourself. This will not lead to growth.

•  Each element should also be discussed by the teams in the functional areas which concern them. By doing this we are including all the members of AIESEC in Malaysia in the way we work in our LCs and in cultivating awareness towards the overall organizational reality.

statistical information

how is the information organized?

how to capitalize on sOna to make my lc grow?

external engagement

CU

TU

SU

UTP

USM

UM UPM

UNMC

UUM

UKM

offline (83,7%)

online (16,3%)

# of applications for EP

546 applications for am

3

external engagement

offline (41,7%) online

(58,3%)

# of applications for EP

127 applications for am

UKM

UUM TU

UTP

USM

UPM

4

external engagement

offline (67,7%)

online (32,3%)

# of applications for tmp

2031 applications for am

USM

UUM

TU

UNMC

UTM

SU

CU

UNIMAS

UTP

UM UPM UKM

5

external engagement outcampus performance

UTP 35

UPM 9

UNMC 5

UUM 2

USM 1

TU 19

UNIMAS 4

UTP 2

UKM 5

UPM 3

52 outcampus gcp ep applications

9,5% of total applications

25 outcampus members recruited

3,9% of total membership

8 outcampus gtp ep applications

6,3% of total applications

LC operations in…

UMP University Malaysia Terengganu

UKM GMI, SEGI, UniKL, UITM, MMU

SU KBU

LC operations in…

TU INTI, HELP

UNMC LimKokWing University

UNIMAS UCTS, Segi, UiTM 6

external engagement expansion

LC su target(s) engagement

USM KDU (Penang) Yet to start

UTP UPSI, UiTM UPSI – report submitted to advisor

UMP UMT (Terengganu) UMT – focus EP Reintegration

UPM - UCSI - PIC met, will proceed with

permission request and info booths

UKM GMI GMI - Application

TU HELP HELP – SU Development

UNMC UTeM UTeM – no progress

CU UMS UMS – letter sent to set up OCR

UNIMAS Swinburne, Segi Swinburne – preparing for EPRD

7

external engagement

LC # of media appearances

# of external events

social media activity

# of partners

participation in external

events

UUM 1 5 3 2

USM 1 2 0 2

UTP 0 1 0 0

UMP 0 0 Instagram 0 0

UM 0 1 Twitter, Blog 0 0

UPM 0 1 7 1

UKM 2 2 2 0

SU 0 0 0 0

TU 1 0 Blog 9 10

UNMC 1 0 1 0

UTM 0 0 1 0

CU 1 2 1 0

UNIMAS 0 1 0 1

general indicators

8

external engagement

LC # of Fb likes daily average of engaged

people

engagement rate

UUM 1287 85 0.07

USM 728 30 0.04

UTP 1153 412 0.36

UMP 1166 500 0.43

UM 2502 150 0.06

UPM 1359 391 0.29

UKM 1350 117 0.09

SU 937 56 0.06

TU 871 80 0.09

UNMC 1211 1 0.00

UTM 1079 50 0.05

CU 424 - * -

UNIMAS 1872 21 0.01

* information not provided

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

UU

M

USM

UTP

UM

P

UM

UPM

UK

M

SU

TU

UN

MC

UTM

CU

UN

IMA

S

# of FB Likes vs. Daily Average of engaged people

facebook performance

9

external engagement organizational health vs. performance

UMP

UTP TU

USM

UUM

SU

UPM

CU UKM

UM

UTM

UNIMAS

UNMC

10

external engagement LC inferences

UUM Has low efficiency in converting large number of external events into applications for Exchange programs. MRD on the other hand has had a very positive outcome. Need to refocus Mkt strategies to support GCP and improve daily engagement on Facebook.

USM Great on-campus presence for MRD can simply be re-focused to now attack oGCP recruitments. Room to improve in overall performance indicators for Facebook (both number and likes and daily engagement) and formation of strategic partnerships to

promote program growth.

UTP A lot of success with offline channels for GCP EPs and a good health in terms of FB engagement. Needs to improve on general performance indicators by diversifying Mkt strategies (organizing events, participation in other organization events under AIESEC)

to sustain high goals.

UMP Needs to focus on physical channels, where performance indicators are at a critical stage. Good Facebook engagement has not translated into any Exchange applications, which further explains the need to invest in on-campus channels

UM Has the most diversified online marketing strategies out of any LC, but most of its applications come from offline channels, hence the best bet is to improve performance indicators here (external events, etc.)

UPM Can leverage good partnership situation to engage in more external events. Can capitalize more on its current moderately good health in terms of Facebook engagement.

UKM A lot of success in engagement through online channels, especially in oGTP Marketing. Needs to capitalize on offline channels by organizing more external-oriented Exchange promotion-based events to boost GCP applications.

SU Needs to diversify Marketing strategies and improve performance indicators to sustain its moderate results under threat of stagnation.

TU Incomparable strength in the field of external relations needs to be capitalized to improve performance indicators on the MarComms side (i.e., using partners to organize meaningful external events)

UNMC Facebook engagement is at a critical stage. Less days of gap between posts and incentivizing members to share and like can improve FB exposure.

UTM Clear focus on MRD until end of Q3 needs now to be completely shifted to Winter Peak recruitments, judging from the poor performance in garnering applications for GCP.

CU Managed to run promotion for MRD and GCP simultaneously, distinguishing itself as 2nd most performant in terms of # of applications for GCP EP. Can invest in online Marketing to boost Facebook exposure.

UNIMAS Margin for improvement in overall performance indicators for offline channels (external events and engagement with other on-campus organizations) and facebook page engagement.

overall customized inferences

11

talent capacity

am has 638 members

UTP 79

USM 60

UUM 25

UNIMAS 47 CU

47

UTM 91

UNMC 29

TU 98 SU

65

UKM 22

UPM 23

UM 27

UMP 25

front office

(34,5%) back office

(65,5%)

highest front office weight

1.  SU (83% vs. 17%)

2. UM (74,1% vs. 25,9%)

highest back office weight

1.  UMP (56% vs. 44%)

2. UPM (52,6% vs. 47,8%)

366 members (57,4%) attended

induction during q3

TOTAL # OF LC MEMBERS

12

talent capacity

LC oGCP productivity

igtp productivity

igcp productivity

ogtp productivity

overall productivity

UUM 0,06 - 2,4 0 0,52

USM 0,07 0,5 0,1 0 0,12

UTP 0,65 0 0 0 0,25

UMP 0,43 - 0 - 0,12

UM 0,31 0 0,06 1 0,22

UPM 0,33 0,63 0,71 0 0,78

UKM 0,38 0,25 0,25 - 0,27

SU 0,13 0,13 0,17 - 0,14

TU 0,14 0,08 0,25 0 0,13

UNMC 0,88 0,5 1,5 0 0,83

UTM 0,14 0 0,27 0 0,14

CU 0,21 - 0,53 - 0,32

UNIMAS 0,28 - 0,41 - 0,32

lc productivity

National Productivity: !

0,32 oGCP

Productivity:!

0,31

iGTP Productivity:!

0,23

iGCP Productivity:!

0,51

oGTP Productivity:!

0,13 13

talent capacity team minimum fulfillment

team

76,8%

Most: UTP, UKM (100%) Least: USM (37,7%)

training

79,5%

Most: UTP (100%) Least: UKM (66,7%)

plan

79,3%

Most: UTP, USM, UKM (100%) Least: UPM (47,8%)

jd

79,4%

Most: UTP, USM, CU, UM (100%) Least: UNMC, SU, UKM (50%)

tracking & coaching

53,1%

Most: USM (77,1%) Least: CU (30%)

evaluation & reflection

49,4%

Most: UKM (100%) Least: USM (0%)

14

talent capacity general indicators

LC # of total IXPs

1. UNIMAS 31

2. USM 13

3. UMP 11

Total # of IXPs !

107

membership retention

93,4% 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 tlp positions

vs. applicants National Average: 1,46

37 Eps recruited as members

30 tmp on exchange

40 tlp on exchange

UNIMAS 14

UMP 7

UTM 3

UNIMAS 7

CU 7

USM 7

SU 5

UNIMAS 10

UUM 6

USM 6

UNMC 6

15

talent capacity organizational health vs. performance

UNIMAS

USM

UNMC

UPM

UTP CU

UMP

UTM

SU

UUM

UM

UKM

TU

16

talent capacity LC inferences

UUM Extremely unbalanced productivity indicators between oGCP and iGCP reveal a need to focus TM/HR strategies on focusing on and supporting Global Citizen recruitments.

USM Should promote post-experience evaluation and reflection meetings and activities with members.

UTP Room for improvement in creating integrated experiences by reintegrating EPs into the organization. Outperforms other LCs in competitiveness for TLP roles but has very low efficiency indicators.

UMP Should reconsider area allocations as front office needs to achieve a manpower edge over back office areas.

UM Critical state of membership retention rate reveals need for a focus on TMP Experience delivery by supporting leadership development of TLP and providing TMP with more evaluation and reflection opportunities.

UPM Allocations of new members need to be extremely heavy on the front office side, as LC structure is currently unbalanced.

UKM Focus on L&D for both current members and incoming newies to boost productivity indicators. Team Minimums tracker reveals the need to quickly finalize JD requirements for all members and to invest in the Training component.

SU LC structure heavily implying front office allocations may jeopardize development of back-office areas. Consider moving more experienced TMP/TLP to support back office growth.

TU Good performance in recruitment in Q3 needs to now translate in an increased focus in L&D to boost low productivity indicators.

UNMC High productivity is derived from contradicting factors: moderately good performance in oGCP against fact that MRD is not over yet. Should focus on effective induction to new members to ensure fast mobilization of HR towards winter

peak operations under threat of jeopardizing productivity indicators during Q4.

UTM Lacking ability to convert HR number into operational performance. Performance across other areas reveals need to invest in internal communication to push all members to become more action-driven and kickstart operations.

CU Simultaneous performance between MRD and GCP EP recruitment allows opportunity to engage new members with operations and motivation through quick results. Focus on simplified and effective L&D processes to capitalize on

head-start towards Winter Peak achievement.

UNIMAS Leverage great performance in IXP creation to support growth in oGCP, as productivity indicators here are dropping.

overall customized inferences

17

sustainability

LC expenses (operations)

expenses (non-

operations)

revenue (exchange)

revenue (non-x)

UUM 14132,41 RM 5574,63 RM 20085 RM 100 RM

USM 2834,99 RM 17356,01 RM 2200 RM 523,2 RM

UTP 1109 RM 13194,15 RM 19800 RM 69,73 RM

UMP 1834,25 RM 10833,76 RM 600 RM 0 RM

UM --- --- --- ---

UPM 10479,7 RM 10833,59 RM 9930 RM 1596 RM

UKM 677,12 RM 8674,11 RM 7200 RM 242 RM

SU 3450,22 RM 5353,21 RM 6411 RM 842 RM

TU 13560,99 RM 7495,48 RM 27910 RM 407.4 RM

UNMC 6919,29 RM 19848,26 RM 4770 RM 5640 RM

UTM 1219,26 RM 12866,58 RM 5650 RM 144 RM

CU 5900 RM 5921,02 RM 1100 RM 400 RM

UNIMAS 0 RM 6161,47 RM 7600 RM 1110 RM

revenue and expenses

exchange (90,8%)

non-x (8,2%)

revenue streams

operations (33,1%)

cost structure

non-ops (66,9%)

18

sustainability payment times and financial health

GCP TN Takers

National Average: !

42 days Best: USM, UNMC (7 d) Worst: UTM (160 d)

GTP TN Takers

National Average: !

14 days Best: USM, UNMC (7 d) Worst: UTM (30 d)

EPs

National Average: !

3.7 days Best: UPM (1 d) Worst: UNMC, UMP (7 d)

sponsors

National Average: !

27.6 days Best: UNMC, USM (7 d) Worst: UPM (90 d)

LC total cash

cluster (Q3)

health (fcm)*

UUM 55 K IV Over

USM 20.4 K IV Under

UTP 30.6 K III Under

UMP 10 K V Under

UM 33.2 K IV Good

UPM 42.1 K IV Over

UKM 5.7 K IV Under

SU 18 K V Good

TU 21.5 K IV Good

UNMC 20.9 K IV Under

UTM 330 RM V Under

CU 7.1 K V Under

UNIMAS 12.1 K V Good

* FCM = Finance Clustering Model

19

sustainability incoming global citizen

LC income tn raising

income sponsors

income other

UUM --- --- 20030 RM

USM --- --- 2500 RM

UTP --- --- ---

UMP --- --- ---

UM --- --- 7129,7 RM

UPM 2100 RM 1000 RM ---

UKM 150 RM 28000 RM 750 RM

SU --- 1550 RM 411 RM

TU 7530 RM 500 RM 885,78 RM

UNMC 2315 RM --- 525 RM

UTM --- --- 700 RM

CU 400 RM 1100 RM ---

UNIMAS --- --- 2000 RM

expenses transport

expenses accomm.

expenses food

expenses other

5751,2 RM 3164 RM 4493,2 RM 5296,61 RM

482, 7 RM 4400 RM --- 294,46 RM

--- --- --- ---

--- --- --- 1723,4 RM

1216,7 RM 4059,8 RM 1990,5 RM ---

1093,9 RM 6840 RM 922,75 RM 5338 RM

1021 RM 4294,5 RM --- 52,75 RM

866,9 RM 463,93 RM --- ---

884,05 RM 7469,3 RM 33 RM 213,99 RM

347,8 RM 3000 RM --- ---

900 RM --- --- ---

1200 RM 4400 RM 983,8 RM 182,45 RM

7325,9 RM 6070 RM 348,6 RM 3403,4 RM

*Green = Program is self-sustainable; Yellow = Program is at or almost at a break-even point; Red = Program is currently unsustainable 20

sustainability organizational health vs. performance

UUM

UTP

SU TU

* UM not included due to lack of FIN

data

UNIMAS

UPM

USM

CU UMP

UKM

UTM

21

sustainability LC inferences

UUM Highest direct investment in operations in Malaysia and steady flow of Exchange revenue. Perfect opportunity to keep on taking investment risks to maintain exponential Exchange growth.

USM Huge discrepancy between investment on operations and expenses in non-Operations. Should review investment plan/budget to ensure more aggressive direct investments.

UTP Should conduct budget review with EB, has not directly reinvested its huge amounts of revenue into Exchange operations

UMP Needs to find alternative financing ways to support iGCP before increasing results. Should focus on oGCP operations to increase revenue from Exchange.

UM Decentralizing Finance role from LCP is the only way to move forward, connect back with the Finance network and avoid data absence.

UPM Performing moderately good in terms of Exchange revenue but overburdened by non-Operations costs, which are as high as the LCs that organized national and regional conferences. Should reassess cost structures to avoid deficit.

UKM Should conduct budget review with EB. almost no direct investment on Operations and unsustainable non-operations expenses

SU Solid financial health, can start doing small leaps of expansion by taking risks and investing directly in Exchange operations.

TU 2nd highest direct investment in operations has payed off, as it became the LC with the most Exchange revenue. Should continue on stimulating operations with direct investments.

UNMC Overburdened by non-Operations costs (NATCON), needs to sustain recovery on profitable Exchange programmes - oGCP and iGTP and adjust investments accordingly.

UTM Even with receivables from RIC, it is still in a critical position. Needs to place sustainability as iGCP’s focus and redirect investment towards oGCP. Should conduct budget review with EB. Payment time of GCP TN is way above national

average.

CU Should reduce non-operation Exchanges and focus on cash cow Exchange programmes. Investment should follow accordingly.

UNIMAS Should capitalize on its favorable financial health to provide direct investments to operations in order to keep them  from stagnating.

overall customized inferences

0

10

20

30

40

USM UTP UMP UM UPM UKM SU TU UTM

application

open/IP

match

realization

Conversion Rate: !

31,3%

Conversion Rate: !

42%

Conversion Rate: !

85,7%

Top: UKM (70%) Bottom: USM (13%)

Top: TU (68,2%) Bottom: CU (7%)

Top: UTM (100%) Bottom: UTP (57,9%)

Average # of days (App -> Open/IP):

!

11,4 days

Average # of days (Open/IP -> MA):

!

17,7 days

Average # of days (MA-> RE):

!

29,3 DAYS

0

10

20

30

40

USM UTP UMP UKM SU TU CU

exchange management global citizen outgoing

23

meeting

open

match

realization

Conversion Rate: !

11%

Conversion Rate: !

40,1%

Conversion Rate: !

33,9%

Top: UTM (50%) Bottom: UPM, UTP, USM, UM, UKM (n/a)

Top: TU (100%) Bottom: UPM, UTP, UM (n/a)

Top: UKM(100%) Bottom: UTP, USM, UM, TU (n/a)

Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):

!

10,6 days

Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):

!

93,6 days

0

5

10

15

USM UPM UKM TU UNMC

0 100 200 300

USM

UPM

UKM SU

TU

UNMC

UTM

exchange management global talent incoming

24

0

10

20

USM

UTP

UPM

UKM SU

TU

UNMC

UTM

meeting

open

match

realization

Conversion Rate: !

53%

Conversion Rate: !

66,1%

Conversion Rate: !

91,1%

Top: UUM, TU (100%) Bottom: USM (13%)

Top: UPM (100%) Bottom: UM, UKM (20%)

Top: USM, UMP, UM, UPM, UKM, SU, TU,UNMC, UTM (100%) Bottom: UNIMAS (50%)

Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):

!

9,8 days

Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):

!

33,5 days

0

50

100

UUM

USM

UMP

UPM

UKM TU

UNMC

UNIM

AS

exchange management global citizen incoming

25

exchange management

application

open/IP

match

realization

Conversion Rate: !

78,2%

No Mas for Q3 (0%)

Conversion Rate: !

100%

Top: UNMC (100%) Bottom: TU (62,5%)

Average # of days (IP -> MA):

!

30 days

Average # of days (MA –> RE):

!

95 days

UUM only LC with Realizations (100%)

# of people at Info Sessions:

!

11

# of people at selection meeting:

!

22

% of Podio applications from planned background:

!

56,8%

global talent outgoing

26

exchange management global entrepreneur

incoming outgoing # of meetings for GE:

!

4 # of meetings for GE:

!

10,6 days 9,5% of Total

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

USM UTP UM UPM UKM SU TU UNMC UTM

Meetings

IP

MA

RE

Meetings !

307 Open/IP

!

194 MA

!

152 RE !

90 Planned Goals for

GE Incoming for Q4

27

exchange management podio expertise

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

UUM

USM

UTP

UMP

UM

UPM

UKM

SU

TU

UNMC

UTM

CU

UNIMAS

iGCP

iGTP

oGCP

National Average for oGCP:

!

7,5 / 10

National Average for iGTP:

!

5,5 / 10

National Average for iGCP:

!

5,9 / 10 28

exchange management overall performance

232

50

71

349

10

3

38

25

81

10

20

63

0

10

169

2

OGCP

IGTP

OGTP

IGCP

app/meeting open/IP match realize

-27,5% +31,5% +122,3%

+100% +78,6% -28,6%

-7,7% +268,2% -25%

+66,7% -400% -60%

*values below final results represent growth or decrease from q3 of 2014 29

12

0 UNIMAS - 8

11

7 UUM, USM, TU - 2 UNIMAS - 4

exchange management

8

3

1

6

OGCP

IGTP

OGTP

IGCP

break match

break re

TU - 3 TU - 1

TU - 2 UM - 2

value delivery indicators

119

igcp

EPs went on a border run for

VISA extensions.

47

igCp

LC buddies were recruited

for the EPs.

76,5% EPs had full

preparation for the experience.

igcp

14

igTp

Re-Raises with previous TN

takers.

30

exchange management lead for eps implementation

Ogcp lead flow

39,9%

IgTp lead flow

igcp lead flow OgTp lead flow

Top Implementer: UUM (70%) Focuses for Q4: In Progress (7 LCs) Matched (3 LCs) Realized (3 LCs)

Top Implementer: UKM (100%) Focuses for Q4: In Progress (3 LCs) Matched (7 LCs) Realized (3 LCs)

45,4%

18,4%

Top Implementer: UUM (50%) Focuses for Q4: Application (2 LCs) In Progress (3 LCs) Marched (3 LCs)

Top Implementer: UNMC (70%) Focuses for Q4: Application (1 LC) In Progress (2 LCs) Marched (4 LCs) Realized (1 LC) Re-Integration (1 LC)

59,6%

31

exchange management organizational health vs. performance

UNIMAS

UNMC

UUM

UPM

UTP

UTM

USM

TU

UM

SU

UKM

CU

UMP

32

exchange management LC inferences

UUM High sustainability and productivity in iGCP leaves room to take risks to support other programs. Potential to grow in oGTP.

USM Low conversion from meeting to open on iGTP side and from application to open on oGCP side reveals need to review sales process and education plan to develop a better sense of closure in sales.

UTP Stagnation across all programs except oGCP (only program with matches in Q3) might imply the need to invest in internal communication and driving a sense of urgency towards winter peak  goal achievement, as well as reinforcing L&D and clarity of

the why for the newie sales forces.

UMP Stagnating operations should be remedied by a clear focus on a single cash cow Exchange program (oGCP) that reflects the LC’s most comprehensive resource allocation.

UM Highest average time between oGCP application and open on EXPA. Combination of sales trainings and a more closing attitude towards EP candidates and also training for the LC on Podio management, as this indicator is currently low, are possible focuses.

UPM L&D plan for iGTP newies will be detrimental to ensure holistic growth of operations and enable the attainment of the LC’s ambitious iGTP Exchange goals for Winter peak.

UKM High drop in operational intensity from previous Quarter leads to need for instilling a sense of urgency towards winter peak achievement. Internal communication and Team Leader leadership through action and example is key to this process.

SU Solid back-office health and sustainability of iGCP projects leave room for risk-taking initiatives on oGCP side to move LC into Cluster IV.

TU iGTP performance is falling behind expected goals for Winter Peak while oGCP registers growth in performance compared to Q3 of 2014. Resource allocation after RIC will be detrimental to ensure holistic growth of the LC.

UNMC High iGTP potential coupled with extremely low average number of days between contract signing and realization leaves room for heavier investments on this focus program. Podio training for oGCP is necessary when looking at the low indicators here.

UTM Gap between iGTP performance and ambitious Winter peak goals – sales training and instilling a sense of urgency should be immediate next action steps. LC is registering one of the highest drops in performance compared to Q3 in 2014 (13 Matches in

2015 against 24 in 2014).

CU Highest national average time between open applications on EXPA for GCP EPs and Match. Focus on TN Sales with emphasis on our EYPs to avoid customer indecision and confusion with the database.

UNIMAS Great performance in oGCP has been positively capitalized for health indicators such as IXP creation through reintegration. Further capitalization and promoter showcasing canl enable exponential growth for the program.

overall customized inferences

# of applications for GCP EP

17,9% of AM Total

specialized units performance & health indicators

73 su members UNIMAP

16

USMEC 10

Pekan 5

UTHM 17

UTAr 25

11,4% of AM membership

front office (58,8%)

back office (41,2%)

UTHM 66 USMEC

91

UTAR 98

UNIMAP 12

pekan 5

# of applications

for GLP

13,4% of AM Total

Su Open/IP MA RE

UNIMAP 0 0 15

USMEC 0 0 19

UTAR 2 1 2

0 0 10

Pekan 0 0 7

UTHM 5 1 7

exchange performance

34

UTAR 91

uthm 6 pekan

1

OGCP OGCP OGCP

OGCP

OGCP

iGCP

specialized units organizational health vs. performance

UTAR

UTHM

USMEC

pekan

unimap

35

LC inferences

UNIMAP Should focus on external engagement initiatives and capitalize on good oGCP performance through experience showcasing to push for even more operations. Brand positioning and perception is a key detrimental strategy for Q4.

USMEC Should capitalize on good oGCP performance through experience showcasing and reintegration to both improve Talent Capacity and brand positioning within campus.

UTAR Focus on achieving financial self-reliance is a possibility by stabilizing sustainable iGCP realizations. Fulfills Exchange criteria to become an LC and should actively press towards this goal in short-term strategies.

PEKAN Continue investing on only oGCP as a means to achieve positive organizational health indicators and a good symbiotic relationship with home LC. All new members recruited in Q4 should be induced and integrated into Global

Citizen Outgoing-related initiatives and projects.

UTHM Can place sense of urgency on newly recruited members to overturn productivity indicators and help boost oGCP operations. Should rather place more focus on oGCP growth rather than allocating huge chunks of HR into iGCP to

secure solid program health of our cash cow oGCP.

specialized units overall customized inferences

36