Clustering Strategy Czech Republic 2010 Meeting with MC

Objectives• Knowledge about

clustering • We decided to have this

strategy in our plan • Focus of the clusters:

▫ X + L ▫ TD + X ▫ X

• Presentation of the options for our clustering strategy

• Define witch is the proposal that is more align with our MC priorities

• Analyze the processes that are going to be align with the clusters

• Questions and Answers about the process

Facts

Proposal 1. Performance – Membership

• Pro: ▫ Short term clusters (one

year) ▫ Enable the entities in the

2010▫ 3 clusters + extensions ▫ Clear competition

between los clusters ▫ Customized TM processes

in the LCs ▫ Push the coach to:

High Performance Creating Capacity Starting the Growth

• Contra:▫ We will need to think

again about the clusters the next year

▫ Can change in a big way the performance of the LCs

▫ Is really simple, we don’t are taking into account the market

Russia- Colombia

Proposal 3. Cities Relevance – Results • Pro:

▫ Long term strategy ▫ We will take advantage

for the external environment

▫ Our strategy is going to be base in the connection with the city

▫ Bigger use of the 3rd sector, Government

▫ Bigger opportunities in Bigger LCs

• Contra: ▫ Minimum opportunities

for small LCs?▫ No competition for

growth just because mindset

▫ Do we really need to have a long term strategy in clusters?

▫ Can be irrelevant this segmentation?

▫ Pilsen?

Proposal 2. Based on issues • Pro:

▫ We will generate culture to move forward the stuck LCs

▫ We will challenge them base on percentage no numbers

▫ 3 Clusters: Growing LC Decreasing Performance Membership Focus

▫ Using strategies to overcome the current issue

▫ Short term results and strategies

• Contra: ▫ Our support is just base

on issues?▫ How we are going to

support them in exchange if we are focus in their issues?

▫ Is a 6 months strategy, so we will need to revaluate the clusters again

▫ The support the same cluster needs is different

OTHER OPTIONS Canceled

Proposal A. Results- X pipeline• Pro:

▫ Will be based in the current reality of the LCs

▫ We will take advantage of Q3 and Q4 for the incoming term

▫ Customized support to use what we have in the platform for exchange

▫ 3 clusters + Extentions

• Contra: ▫ We will need to think

again about the clusters the next semester

▫ Can change in a big way the performance of the LCs

▫ Is really simple the proposal, we don’t are taking into account the market

▫ Just 2 LCs in the performance cluster

Russia

Proposal B. Size of the LCs (# Members) – Results • Pros:

▫ Long term strategy ▫ 3 clusters + expansions ▫ Membership focus to

enable exchange ▫ Every person counts in

our structures▫ Focus in membership

efficiency

• Contra: ▫ LCs in the cluster can

stop the growth of others?

▫ Do we really need to have a long term strategy in clusters?

▫ Just 2 LC in the big performance cluster

South Cone – Brasil

Proposal C. Based on goals for 2010 • Pro:

▫ We are basing this cluster strategy in the goals

▫ We will track their results and based our strategies on the numbers

• Contra: ▫ We knows who is going to

be the best LC . ▫ Praha is going to be in

one cluster alone▫ 5 LCs in the same cluster

with different realities, no customized support for them.

▫ Which is the type of culture that we want to create?