AIESEC in Malaysia - SONA Q4 2015 Report

SONA Q4 Report 15/16

AIESEC in Malaysia

introduction

• All information in the current document refers to the timeframe between the 1st of October and the 31st of December of 2015, more commonly known as Quarter 4 (or Q4) of 2015. • The information was provided by the 13 LCs through the AIESEC in Malaysia Q4 SONA Survey and also by the 9 SUs through the Q4 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) + Outputs of AIESEC in Malaysia Member Survey (p. 18-23) •  Sustainability (p.24-29) •  Exchange Management (p.30-41) •  Specialized Units (p.42-44)

• 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

# of applications for EP

offline (67,7%)

online (32,3%)

1398 applications for am

UTP 340

(27%)

TU 230

(18%)

USM 96

(8%)

UUM 124

(10%)

UMP 53

(4%) UM 74

(6%)

UPM 78

(6%)

CU 52

(4%)

SU 76

(6%) UKM

57 (5%)

UNMC 53

(4%)

UTM 23

(2%)

Q3 + Q4 = 1944 Applications 3

external engagement

offline (67,5%)

online (32,5%)

# of applications for EP


SU 13

(18%)

UPM 25

(35%)

UTP 12

(17%)

USM 6

(8%)

UTM 7

(10%)

UUM 5

(7%) UNMC 2

(3%)

UKM 1

(1%)

Q3 + Q4 = 207 Applications 4

external engagement

offline (87,5%)

online (12,5%)


# of applications for tmp

Q3 + Q4 = 2462 Applications

UNMC 317

UMP 89

UTP 22

UTM 3

5

external engagement outcampus performance

TU 59

UNMC 80

UNIMAS 16 UMP

17

UPM 43

UNMC 7

UNIMAS 9

UTP 7

242 outcampus gcp ep applications

17,3% of total applications

23 outcampus members recruited

2,7% of total membership

23 matches and 13 realizations

xxx% of total applications

LC operations in…

UMP UMT, KPTM

UKM GMI, Segi Damansara

UTP UPSI

LC operations in…

TU INTI(IICS), Taylor’s College S Hartamas

UNMC LimKokWing, UTAR SL Campus

UNIMAS UCTS, Segi, UiTM

UNMC 6 UPM

6

UNIMAS 4

UUM 2 USM

3

UTP

TU

UPM 6

UNMC 3

UNIMAS 2

UUM

UTP

MA

RE

UUM 13

6

external engagement expansion

LC su target(s) engagement

UUM AIMST, Form 6 HS -

UTP UPSI, UiTM UiTM- Meeting to be conducted on 1/9

UMP UMT (Terengganu) -

UKM GMI No positive outcome yet

TU IICS, HELP

IICS - SU Development. Result - AIESEC approved by university admin

HELP - SU Development. Result - conducted outcampus recruitment in

new market (Taylor's College Sri Hartamas)

UNMC UTeM (Melaka) Heriot-Watt is now an SU

CU UMS UMS – letter sent to set up OCR

UNIMAS SEGI, UCSI, Swinburne Swinburne is now an SU

7

external engagement

LC # of media appearances

# of external events

social media activity

# of partners

participation in external

events

UUM 0 (-1) 1 (-4) 1 (-2) 0 (-2)

USM 0 (-1) 3 (+1) 3 (+3) 2

UTP 0 1 0 0

UMP 0 0 Instagram 0 0

UM 0 0 (-1) Twitter, Blog, Instagram

0 0

UPM 0 3 (+2) 1 (-6) 3 (+2)

UKM 0 (-2) 5 (+3) 3 (+1) 5 (+5)

SU 0 0 0 0

TU 3 (+2) 5 (+5) Instagram, Blog 8 (-1) 5 (-5)

UNMC 2 (+1) 4 (+4) Blog 1 0

UTM 0 0 2 (+1) 0

CU 0 (-1) 1 (-1) 1 3 (+3)

UNIMAS 1 (+1) 1 Instagram, Blog 0 1

general indicators

* Values between parentheses depict absolute growth from last Q 8

external engagement

LC # of Fb likes daily average of engaged

people

engagement rate

UUM 1605 (+318) 4 0.002

USM 2444 (+1716) 146 0.06

UTP 1277 (+124) 614 0.48

UMP 1504 (+338) 127 0.08

UM 2898 (+396) 137 0.05

UPM 1467 (+108) 400 0.27

UKM 1541 (+191) 100 0.06

SU 1044 (+107) 49 0.05

TU 1088 (+217) 41 0.04

UNMC 1417 (+206) 337 0.24

UTM 1241 (+162) 30 0.02

CU 494 (+70) 0,73 0.001

UNIMAS 2239 (+367) 35 0.02

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

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

* Values between parentheses depict absolute growth from last Q

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 Can diversify online communication channels. Success of YouthSpeak Roadshow appeals to the potential in doing special physical events for oGCP promotion. General overall decline in external engagement indicators demonstrates that more effort was put on

MRD as opposed to EPRD, which in turn demonstrates that more focused HR support for oGCP is needed.

USM Great increase in Facebook engagement indicators can be sustained and leveraged for oGCP conversion. Increased number of external events have paid off in terms of oGCP growth. Number of partners has been doubled and can be utilized to co-drive LC

events and overall on-campus brand perception.

UTP Number of matches for oGCP was similar to previous term despite the fact that it is the LC with the highest # of applications for Q4 – support from MarComm should be explored in terms of how to implement strategies for Application-to-In Progess conversion.

UMP Very low execution rate of physical promotion activities – LC should focus on rallying members to simply execute events.

UM Has experienced one of the most significant growth in Facebook engagement – should now focus on managing quality and consistent content for the page instead of expanding.

UPM Should engage whole LC to continue creating quality campaigns for Facebook, where the LC has seen one of the biggest engagement rates in AIESEC in Malaysia.

UKM High increase in quantity of physical promotion touchpoints has not translated into a huge growth in applications – LC should consider reviewing Marketing strategies that were applied in Q4 and identify key improvement points to increase efficiency.

SU Stagnated indicators in terms of physical promotion despite the fact that its where the LC gets most of its program applications – should focus on quantity in terms of external event creation and execution.

TU Second LC with the highest application # for oGCP, although has low conversion rates to In Progress. MarComm should play a more active role in ideating and implementing strategies to support oGCP on conversion.

UNMC Turned the tide on its Facebook engagement from the previous Quarter, should further explore growth in relevance of online communication channels by associating content with other in-campus organizations’ pages.

UTM Low Facebook engagement calls for more request on support from national side (capitalize on Q4 LC Coach) to create most suitable campaigns for UTM’s student population. Should revitalize indicators in terms of physical event creation.

CU Low penetration of online communication channels in campus translates into a need to innovate in terms of external events and partner involvement in physical promotion initiatives.

UNIMAS Is not exploring its Facebook potential – has a high audience with low engagement. Should request aid in creating attractive campaigns that appeal directly to UNIMAS’ youth needs.

overall customized inferences

11

talent capacity

am has 860 members

UTP 82

USM 53

UUM 69

UNIMAS 40

CU 47

UTM 79

UNMC 89

TU 93

SU 72

UKM 63

UPM 72

UM 56

UMP 45

back office

(39,1%) front office

(60,9%)

highest front office weight

1.  UM (69,6% vs. 30,4%)

2. SU (69,4% vs. 30,6%)

highest back office weight

1.  UTM (67% vs. 33%)

2. UNIMAS (57% vs. 43%)

368 members (42,8%) attended

induction during q4

TOTAL # OF LC MEMBERS

increased by 222 since Q3 12

talent capacity

LC oGCP productivity

igtp productivity

igcp productivity

ogtp productivity

overall productivity

UUM 0.61 - 1 0.38 0.7

USM 1.6 0 0.82 0.33 0.91

UTP 1.1 0.08 0.5 0.14 0.63

UMP 0.3 - 0.75 - 0.53

UM 0.5 0.07 0.13 - 0.29

UPM 0.37 0.15 0.63 0 0.38

UKM 0.29 0.5 0.15 - 0.24

SU 1.78 0.16 0.05 0.14 0.64

TU 0.81 0.13 0.33 0.29 0.38

UNMC 0.21 0.14 1.25 0.16 0.52

UTM 0.77 0 1.07 0.07 0.57

CU 1.53 - 0.25 - 1.06

UNIMAS 0.7 - 0.38 - 0.55

lc productivity

National Productivity:

0,57 oGCP

Productivity:

0,81

iGTP Productivity:

0,14

iGCP Productivity:

0,56

oGTP Productivity:

0,19 13

talent capacity team minimum fulfillment

team

83%

Increase from 76,8% in Q3 Most: UNMC, UNIMAS (100%) Least: UTP (63,2%)

training

76,2%

Decrease from 79,5% in Q3 Most: UKM(100%) Least: UNIMAS (50%)

plan

82,8%

Increase from 79,3% in Q3 Most: UNIMAS(100%) Least: UPM (58,8%)

jd

87,5%

Increase from 79,4% in Q3 Most: UM, UKM, CU, UNIMAS (100%) Least: UPM (63,6%)

tracking & coaching

65,9%

Increase from 53,1% in Q3 Most: UKM (85,7%) Least: UMP, UNIMAS (50%)

evaluation & reflection

51,8%

Increase from 49,4% in Q3 Most: UNMC (100%) Least: SU (16,7%) 14

talent capacity general indicators

LC # of total IXPs

1. UNMC 126

2. UTP 10

3. CU 8

Total # of IXPs

153

membership retention

90,9% 0 5

10 15 20 25 30 35

tlp positions vs. applicants National Average: 1,26

In Q3: 1,46

113 Eps recruited as members

27 tmp on exchange

13 tlp on exchange

CU 7

UTP 7

UNMC 13

UPM 3

UUM 3

UNMC 102

UTP 1

UNMC 11

Q3: 93,4%

CU 1

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 Should seek MC and external support for implementation of Evaluation and Reflection Team Minimum.

USM Exponential increase in Match efficiency from same Quarter last term reflected in good delivery of Team Minimums and higher number of internal trainings. Can allow itself to start integrating Internal Comms strategies for Team

Minimum awareness and education and higher quality trainings by involving externals.

UTP Lowest performing LC in terms of delivery on structural Team Minimum (Team). Low number of internal trainings for high number of LC members.

UMP Should invest more on MEC implementation to improve number of trainings delivered for new members.

UM Although overall Exchange performance has increased from same Quarter in the last year, growth rate has not reached the same levels as other LCs. LC should invest in involving membership with other LCs and supporting Team

Leaders in terms of Team Management education.

UPM Average low rates on Team Minimum fulfillment should be complimented with internal education and campaigns for both Team Leaders and Team Members.

UKM Should invest more on MEC implementation and bringing in learning partners or externals to improve education and number of trainings delivered for new members.

SU Good productivity from current members can be complemented with diversification of L&D strategies and allows for focus on LC upscalling through Spring MRD.

TU Despite positive variation in Matches from Q4 of previous year, LC can still improve productivity as the LC with the most members in AIESEC in Malaysia.

UNMC iGCP has consistently distinguished itself in terms of productivity and can share its project management model and training with the oGCP team.

UTM HR structure heavily focused on back office, which does not support increase in experience quality for Exchange programmes. Should invest more on MEC implementation and bringing in learning partners or externals to improve

education and number of trainings delivered for new members.

CU Great productivity indicators, but LC needs to upscale its structure through spring MRD to support a continuous and long-term potential for growth.

UNIMAS HR structure unbalanced with a high percentage of weight of back office areas. More allocations into front office are needed to support quality in experience delivery, especially for iGCP.


17

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs

18

This Quarter’s SONA includes the output of the semesterly national member satisfaction survey of AIESEC in Malaysia. The objectives of the survey are to evaluate the experience of TMP/TLP for the past 6 months (July-December) and get the new insight and perspective about how members attach to the organization better in the future.

This survey was divided into 3 big areas to be reviewed and evaluated as the output, they are: 1. Clarity on current experience and predict the re-allocation evolution if it’s needed, 2. Assessing the current team minimum implementation for TMP & TLP, 3. National TMP/TLP evolution for the next 6 month ahead.

Resource can be checked here : 1.  Survey link : http://tiny.cc/AM2015MemberSurvey 2.  Response link : click here

Only 486 members filled up the survey. It’s 56,5 (%) from the total number of members of AIESEC in Malaysia (860).

Here is the current data from each LC, (Survey was closed on 1st of January 2016):

LC # of responses

% contribution

UUM 70 14,4%

USM 63 13%

UTP 7 1,4%

UMP 45 9,3%

UM 1 0,2%

UPM 58 11,9%

UKM 22 4,5%

SU 24 4,9%

TU 25 5,1%

UNMC 43 8,8%

UTM 75 15,4%

CU 41 8,4%

UNIMAS 12 2,5%

UTM

UUM

UPM

CU

UNMC

UMP

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs

19

The respondents were dominated by TMP, new members, almost 49.4% from other respondents. AIESEC in Malaysia has 5 layering on structure; -  LCP -  LCVP -  Directors -  Senior Executive -  Junior Executive

role # of answers

% of total

Team Leader (in AIESEC for 1-5

months)

59 12,1%

Team Leader (in AIESEC for more than 6 months)

107 22%

Team Member (in AIESEC for 1-3

months)

240 49,4%

Team Member (in AIESEC for 6 months)

35 7,2%

Team Member (in AIESEC for more than 6 months)

45 9,3%

We can’t count the % of back office and front office because we need to count overall from all LCs.

department # of answers

% of total

TM 59 12,1%

FL 19 3,9%

MarComm 66 13,6%

BD/ER 3 0,6%

oGCP 126 25,9%

oGTP 22 4,5%

iGCP 128 26,3%

iGTP 44 9,1%

LCP 11 2,3%

Expansion 1 0,2%

SU 1 0,2%

SUVP 4 0,8%

iGcp

ogcp

tmp (1-3 m)

marcomm

TM

These 7 areas or issues represents team minimum implementation. These people are those who are satisfied enough with their current experience in AIESEC. The top 3 reasons are personal development due to this experience, team experience and individual responsiblity. However, education for the role is the lowest one. It is impacted by the layering that currently AIESEC in Malaysia has. Education for the role is connected with training, tracking & coaching, evaluation and reflection. Based on the this data, we realize that our LnD doens’t support for the layering. We need to review the education cycle in each of the layering, or shorten the layering to maximize the delivery of education. We need to review the induction part, LEAD and LnD in each of experience. They felt satisfied with personal development, but we don’t much give support for ongoing education.

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – satisfaction areas

20 0 100 200 300 400

area # of answers % of total

Clarity of AIESEC vision and your contribution towards it

146 42,4%

Living team experience 242 70,3%

Individual responsibility and goals 160 46,5%

Education for the role 47 13,7%

Support from AIESEC throughout XP 75 21,8%

Personal development due to this XP 291 84,6%

Professional Development due to this XP 154 44,8%

Lainnya 5 1,5%

This is the suggested area that respondents expect to improve. Answers related to a scale from 1 to 7. The top 3 are living team experience, individual responsibility and personal development due to this experience. Looking at the data and reading the opinion from the respondents, the highligh of these improvement areas are:

1.  Team, Plan and JD. For the structure of back office, many of them are not following the team minimum. And there are many unchallenging JDs, even based on the feedback, many overlapping JDs among LC (i.e. Marketing & oGCP).

2.  Not much Team Leaders know how to facilitate the team members under them. Another point is TLP engagement that was highlighted for the team experiences. That’s why tracking is okay but coaching is stuck.

3.  Good point from the feedback is that TMP said that they don’t feel ownership towards the JD & KPI that they got because they never know or get the clarity on the planning processes.

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – improvement areas

21 0 20 40 60 80

area # of answers % of total

Clarity of AIESEC vision and your contribution towards it

52 36,6%

Living team experience 72 50,7%

Individual responsibility and goals 64 45,1%

Education for the role 55 38,7%

Support from AIESEC throughout XP 39 27,5%

Personal development due to this XP 59 41,5%

Professional Development due to this XP 57 40,1%

Lainnya 9 6,3%

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – next journey

0 100 200

opportunity # of answers % of total

Leadership Positions (Directors/OCP in LC Level)

173 51,8%

Leadership Positions (Directors/Managers/EST in National Level)

68 20,4%

Organizing Committee Roles 139 41,6%

Exploring other Departments 123 36,8%

Facilitating Opportunities 157 47%

What opportunities are you looking for in the next term?

22

Are you continuing in AIESEC next term?

# of answers % of total

YES 334 68,7%

NO 152 31,3%

YES

NO

talent capacity am 2015 member survey outputs – non-retention

REASon # of answers % of total

University Graduation 34 22,4%

Low Performance 17 11,2%

Demotivation 26 17,1%

Focusing on University Studies 82 53,9%

Studying Abroad 4 2,6%

Health Problem 7 4,6%

Financial Problem 10 6,6%

Working for another club/organization 25 16,4%

Lack of Family Support 10 6,6%

Lainnya 32 21,1%

Why have you decided to leave AIESEC?

23

As usual, the biggest reason are university-related reasons (focusing on study and university graduation). More than 50% is the university study concern, however, there is an interesting point that we can see from the percentages; 11,2 % respondents think that they are low performing, that’s why they lost confidence to stay in AIESEC, and also demotivation is in 17,1% of the reasons. From this point of view, exit interview, fire fighting experience and evaluation & reflection are important to be highlighted. Exit interview is one of the methods that we can use to know the insight on how people’s experience in AIESEC and which part of our role as TLP can we improve in this area. Not only that, but fire fighting is needed as well to make sure that they got the clarity and appreciation on what they did in AIESEC. And the last one is the space for TLP and TMP have a time to get evaluation and reflection on they JD and outer journey.

sustainability payment times and financial health

GCP TN Takers

National Average:

28,5 days Last Quarter: 42 Days Best: UM (7 d) Worst: UUM (90 d)

GTP TN Takers

National Average:

17,4 days Last Quarter: 14 Days Best: USM, SU (7 d) Worst: UKM, UNMC (30 d)

EPs

National Average:

5,6 days Last Quarter: 3,7 Days Best: UUM (0 d) Worst: UTP, UMP (14 d)

sponsors

National Average:

18,7 days Last Quarter: 27,6 Days Best: USM (1 d) Worst: UMP, UKM, TU (30d)

LC current

net asset

cluster (Q4)

health (fcm)*

UUM 53,6 K III Over

USM 41,5 K IV Over

UTP 35,5 K IV Over

UMP 11 K IV Under

UM 42,4 K IV Over

UPM 59 K IV Over

UKM 42,5 K IV Over

SU 32,2 K V Over

TU 39 K IV Over

UNMC 95 K IV Over

UTM 16,3 K IV Under

CU 39,9 K V Over

UNIMAS 21,7 K IV Good

* FCM = Finance Clustering Model

24

sustainability

LC expenses (operations)

expenses (non-

operations)

revenue (exchange)

revenue (non-x)

UUM 12987.06 RM 14710.94 RM 15772.50 RM 1496.21 RM

USM 9111.18 RM 4435.35 RM 21050 RM 2975.30 RM

UTP --- --- 36900 RM 34.39 RM

UMP 2527.58 RM 1923.59 RM 9009 RM 480 RM

UM 1176.56 RM 8037.31 RM 9000 RM 1016 RM

UPM 4643.31 RM 2724.66 RM 9300 RM 600 RM

UKM 9927.06 RM 5107.63 RM 18723.11 RM 817.80 RM

SU 5097 RM 5091.09 RM 31100 RM 1801 RM

TU 2698.74 RM 9146.12 RM 14300 RM 3084.59 RM

UNMC 13956.36 RM 17357.26 RM 15300 RM 15211.38 RM

UTM 2455.87 RM 4222 RM 7300 RM 9435 RM

CU 1353.27 RM 2122.13 RM 23107 RM 50 RM

UNIMAS 6061.08 RM 7605.19 RM 13560 RM 1600 RM

revenue and expenses

exchange (85.3%)

non-x (14.7%)

revenue streams

operations (46.6%)

cost structure

non-ops (53.4%)

25

sustainability

LC Reserves - dec

UPM 41

UTP 40

UUM 39

CU 39

UKM 35

TU 24

UM 23

USM 19

SU 16

UNMC 13**

UTM 9

UMP 3

UNIMAS 2

NAF

26

q4 Profit/Loss LC

36934.39 UTP

22712.91 SU

19681.660 CU

10478.77 USM

10057.13 UTM

5539.73 TU

5037.83 UMP

4506.22 UKM

2532.03 UPM

1493.73 UNIMAS

802.13 UM

-802.24 UNMC

-10429.29 UUM

High income

Low income

sustainability incoming global citizen

LC income tn raising

income sponsors

income other

UUM 1272 RM --- ---

USM 3000 RM --- ---

UTP --- --- ---

UMP 6309 RM --- ---

UM 400 RM --- ---

UPM 2200 RM --- ---

UKM 12923.11 RM --- ---

SU --- --- ---

TU ---- --- ---

UNMC 4200 RM --- ---

UTM 2100 RM --- ---

CU 1500 RM --- ---

UNIMAS 1860 RM --- ---

expenses transport

expenses accomm.

expenses food

expenses other

--- --- --- 8471.21 RM

--- 5503 RM --- 698.30 RM

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

--- --- --- 2399.98 RM

--- --- --- 6.90 RM

--- --- --- 1926.99 RM

--- --- --- 9877.06 RM

--- --- --- 4200 RM

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

--- --- --- 11392.55 RM

--- --- --- 1313.72 RM

--- --- --- 1232.27 RM

--- --- --- 4682.08 RM

*Green = Program is self-sustainable; Yellow = Program is at or almost at a break-even point; Red = Program is currently unsustainable 27

sustainability organizational health vs. performance

UUM

UTP

SU

TU

UNIMAS

UPM

USM

CU

UMP

UKM

UTM

28

UNMC

UM

sustainability LC inferences

UUM Should not be discouraged by their loss last Quarter, as it still has a lot of investment power and so far the ROI has been consistently good, which reflects in the LC’s positive growth path.

USM oGCP clearly distinguishes itself as the bread and butter of the LC – both investments and return can be heavily relied on this programme. Should consider investments on the Quality in Experience Delivery side to ensure long-term

sustainability of programme.

UTP Did not spend any money in Q4 (according to monthly Financial Survey), so should increase investment in operations and LC development to grow outgoing exchange and quality for incoming exchange.

UMP Current financial health places a lot of pressure on obtaining partnerships/sponsors for iGCP sustainability. oGCP has the immediate task of becoming a cash cow for the LC so that recent growth in iGCP does not jeopardize its health.

UM Displays overall average/stagnating indicators – in order to push itself out of this situation, should consider targetting its investment towards supporting one specific programme.

UPM Is sitting on a lot of reserves that should be invested to drive more initiatives or projects. Investment on Exchange growth should be considered as LC is very close to jumping to a Cluster III entity.

UKM Should intensify operations investments as extreme past growth rate has slowed down significantly during the past Quarter. Is sitting on a lot of reserves that can be applied to support operational growth.

SU Continuous good financial health and jump into Cluster IV allows for more bold investments in Q1 for ROI in Q2.

TU Has a lot of room for risk-taking in the investment arena. Has both financial and HR talent capacity to push oGCP growth and experience quality.

UNMC Loss in Q4 is not highly consequential as it is connected to the very high growth in iGCP experiences delivered. Should tap into huge reserves for Investments focused on the oGCP side as this program needs to grow in order to support

iGCP.

UTM Financial investments should be fully targetted into bridging the gap between operational reality of oGCP and iGCP – oGCP needs to grow to ensure long-term sustainability of the LC.

CU Should focus on drafting an investment plan to understand how it is going to reapply its huge income from oGCP back into operations to sustain growth and quality experiences.

UNIMAS Financial health took a hit from iGCP growth in Q4. Securing project funding/sponsoring is essential to ensure long-term sustainability of LC.


application

open/IP

match

realization

Conversion Rate:

28,3%

Conversion Rate:

77,7%

Conversion Rate:

85,7%

Last Quarter: 31,3% Top: CU (66%) Bottom: TU (11%)

Last Quarter: 42% Top: UTM (92,3%) Bottom: UNMC (33,3%)

Last Quarter: 85,7% Top: UTP, UNIMAS(100%) Bottom: UTM (7,7%)

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

11 days

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

15 days

Average # of days (MA-> RE):

27,8 DAYS

exchange management global citizen outgoing

30

meeting

open

match

realization

Conversion Rate:

41,1%

Conversion Rate:

33,3%

Conversion Rate:

53,4%

Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):

17,4 days

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

82,1 days

exchange management global talent incoming

31

Last Quarter: 11% Top: UNMC (83%) Bottom: USM (10%)

Last Quarter: 40,1% Top: UTP (80%) Bottom: USM, UM, UTM (0%)

Last Quarter: 33,9% Top: UPM (150%) Bottom: USM, UM, UTM (0%)

Last Quarter: 10,6 Days


meeting

open

match

realization

Conversion Rate:

42,1%

Conversion Rate:

40%

Conversion Rate:

63,1%


33,5 days

exchange management global citizen incoming

32

Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):

13,8 days


41,3 days



Last Quarter: 53% Top: UNMC (100%) Bottom: SU, UKM (0%)

Last Quarter: 66,1% Top: UTP, UNMC (100%) Bottom: SU, UM(0%)

Last Quarter: 91,1% Top: UUM, USM, UTP, UMP, UPM, UKM (100%) Bottom: SU(5%)

exchange management

application

open/IP

match

realization

Conversion Rate:

43%

Conversion Rate:

12,5%

Average # of days (IP -> MA):

54,9 days

Average # of days (MA –> RE):

27,1 days

Last Quarter: 100% Top: UTM (100%) Bottom: all other LCs running oGTP (0%)

# of people at Info Sessions:

9

# of people at selection meeting:

30

% of Podio applications from planned background:

48,8%

global talent outgoing

33

Last Quarter: 78,2% Top: UUM (160%) Bottom: USM (0%)

Conversion Rate:

27,1% Last Quarter: 0% Top: USM (67%) Bottom: TU (0%)

exchange management incoming global entrepreneur

# of meetings for GE:

60 # of TN forms open for GE:

14

64,5% of Total iGTP

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

USM UTP UM UPM UKM SU TU UNMC UTM

Planned Meetings

Achieved Meetings

34

19,5% of Goal Achieved

MEE

TIN

GS

0

10

20

30

40

50

USM UTP UM UPM UKM SU TU UNMC UTM UUM

Planned Open

Achieved Open

OPE

N 64,5% of Total iGTP

7,2% of Goal Achieved

exchange management incoming global entrepreneur

# of Matches for GE:

2

64,5% of Total iGTP

Meetings

128 Open/IP

53 MA

57 RE

47 Planned Goals for

GE Incoming for Q1

35

Congratulations! The first ever! (UKM)

MA

TCH

ES

Planned 113,3% Growth

from last Q

Planned 278,6% Growth

from last Q

Planned 2750% Growth

from last Q

Planned Growth from 0

from last Q

Q1 PROJECTION

0

10

20

30

40

50

USM UTP UM UPM UKM SU UNMC UTM UUM

Meetings

IP

MA

RE

Planned for Q1

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:

7,8 / 10

National Average for iGTP:

6,4 / 10

National Average for iGCP:

6,6 / 10

Last Quarter: 7,5

Last Quarter: 5,5

Last Quarter: 5,9 36

23 CU - 12

10

0 UMP - 5

exchange management

6

3

1

1

OGCP

IGTP

OGTP

IGCP

break match

break re

USM, SU - 2 UKM - 1

UUM, TU, UNMC - 1 UUM - 1

value delivery indicators

27

igcp

EPs went on a border run for

VISA extensions.

122

igCp

LC buddies were recruited

for the EPs.

92% EPs had full

preparation for the experience.

igcp

7

igTp

Re-Raises with previous TN

takers.

1 UPM - 1

37

exchange management lead for eps implementation

Ogcp lead flow

69,7%

IgTp lead flow

igcp lead flow OgTp lead flow

Last Quarter: 39,9% Top Implementer: UMP, CU (100%) Focuses for Q1: Realized (9 LCs) Matched (3 LCs) Complete (1 LC)

Last Quarter: 59,6% Top Implementer: UUM, UKM, TU (100%) Focuses for Q4: Realized (9 LCs) Matched (4 LCs)

37,4%

18,4%

Last Quarter: 18,4% Top Implementer: SU (60%) Focuses for Q4: Matched (5 LCs) Application, IP, Re-integration (1 LC each)

Last Quarter: 45,4% Top Implementer: UNMC (80%) Focuses for Q4: Matched (6 LCs) In Progress (2 LCs) Realized (1 LC)

76,3%

38

exchange management overall performance

1398

369

261

63

63

17

80

33

341

40

17

177

13

8

48

1

OGCP

IGTP

OGTP

IGCP

app/meeting open/IP match realize

+536,6%

+1600%

+110,5%

+122,2% -80%

*values below final results represent growth or decrease from q4 of 2014

-17,1% +16,8%

-66% +60%

+470,1% +33,3%

+550%

39

exchange management organizational health vs. performance

UNIMAS

UNMC

UUM

UPM

UTP

UTM

USM

TU

UM

SU

UKM

CU

UMP

40

exchange management LC inferences

UUM Should push on LEAD flow implementation for oGTP to avoid more Breaks in RE. Revival of iGTP department for 16/17 is totally possible through investment in Global Entrepreneur as a programme.

USM Should continue rigid selection process for oGCP (2nd LC with highest number of rejections at selection, since it has reflected into 0 Break MAs and REs.

UTP Highest average number of days of conversion from IP to MA suggests investment in conversion strategies (TN Sales for Raised EPs, guidance from EP Buddy and deadline setting). Biggest oGCP department in Malaysia needs to be reflected by a better and more

intense education from TM side to promote Matching, as LC is approaching its RE peak in Q1.

UMP Should focus iGCP department on quality strategies for already MA and RE EPs and then focus both LC and oGCP teams on driving Summer Peak upscalling for Global Citizen Outgoing through application and application-to-In Progress conversion strategies.

UM Big discrepancy between number of meetings for iGCP and number of Opened Forms suggests more education on Sales, Negotiation and Deal Closing is needed for iGCP team. Investment in quality strategies for iGCP is needed, as reflected in the low

LEAD implementation rate.

UPM Has not been following up on high goals for Incoming Global Entrepreneur, and therefore LC should review if the program is really being supported by proper HR and financial resource allocation and number of initiatives.

UKM Should invest on LEAD flow implementation for iGTP to sustain program growth. Incoming Global Entrepreneur pioneering success has potential for growth with further investments from LC.

SU Highest number of Re-Raised in Malaysia for iGTP suggests that good partnership management strategies and upscalling existing TN takers is a good investment.

TU Should consult MC and external context to review strategies and understand how to improve oGCP application-to-In Progress conversion rate. Performance has not reached high levels of LC health yet (abundance of HR and financial resources).

UNMC High number of expected REs for iGCP for Q1 has to be reflected in targetting quality strategies (i.e., someone to manage and coordinate the 27 recruited EP Buddies for a more effective servicing strategy).

UTM Very low implementation rate of LEAD for oGCP, should really consider enforcing quality standards in strategies from oGCP team. LC is at danger of falling back into Cluster V if it does not map out how to grow in oGCP for Summer Peak.

CU Very high level of Break Matches in oGCP would suggest that a more rigid selection should be made for EPs to filter out individuals with not the right motivations. Can allow itself to start figuring out brand advocacy strategies for oGCP EPs realized in Q4.

UNIMAS Imperative to start investing resources into iGCP quality strategies. Should insist on Podio Management education for iGCP.


# of applications for GCP EP

13,8% of AM Total

specialized units performance & health indicators

138 su members UNIMAP 17

USMEC 30

Pekan 16

swinburne 7

UTAr 24

16% of AM membership

front office (61,6%)

back office (38,4%)

PEKAN 36

UNIMAP 12

heriot -watt

44

# of applications

for GLP

21,3% of AM Total

Su Open/IP MA RE

UNIMAP 15 6 0

USMEC 11 9 1

11 11 0

UTAR 3 1 2

10 10 0

UMP Pekan 0 0 0

HELP 3 1 1

INTI 2 0 0

Heriot-Watt 9 2 1

UTHM 0 6 0

11 11 5

Swinburne 5 4 4

exchange performance

42

INTI 24

UNIMAP 54

UTHM 24

OGCP OGCP iGCP

OGCP iGCP OgCP

OGCP

OGCP iGCP OGCP OGCP OGCP

swinburne 16

heriot-watt 27

help 15

pekan 11

Utar 18

uthm 16

hw 7

help 16

inti 5

specialized units organizational health vs. performance

UTAR

UTHM

USMEC

pekan

unimap

43

swinburne

inti

help

heriot-w

LC inferences

UNIMAP Should focus on conversion strategies from Application to In Progress to leverage on higher number of GCP applications. Should improve on SUEB KPI tracking.

USMEC MarComm strategies should focus on Brand Advocacy to capitalize on EP experience showcasing to improve brand positioning in an otherwise saturated market. High productivity in iGCP allows for focus in experience quality

(LEAD delivery) and maintaining and upscaling current TN takers.

UTAR Transition into LC status needs to be accompanied by more intense resource allocation into oGCP to ensure financial sustainability. HR structure is currently not optimized to support focus on oGCP.

UMP PEKAN Capitalize on UMP administration move to Pekan campus to improve university relations and support. Need to overcome the mindset of giving up on winter peak despite the lack of 6 weeks holidays.

HELP Host LC needs to focus on L&D and ensure implementation of MEC to improve extremely low productivity rates.

INTI Home LC needs to apply resources (especially in terms of HR) at INTI to ensure SU reaches a level of capacity of self-sustaining operations. Education on CoW for current members is necessary to increase oGCP productivity.

HERIOT-WATT

Can implement self-made experience showcasing with the 2 Matched EPs in Q4 to improve brand awareness and perception. Self-manage spring MRD to improve Talent Capacity for Summer.

UTHM Positive productivity and performance on iGCP side. Room for improvement in oGCP, which should be the Q1 driving focus. Start by seeking out how to focus back office areas into supporting oGCP delivery.

SWINBURNE Continue positive focus on oGCP operations. Reintegration strategies are key in ensuring good SU health and future performance.

specialized units overall customized inferences

44

Documents

AIESEC in Malaysia - SONA Q4 2015 Report