Q1 2014 national performance review

PERFORMANCE REVIEWOrganizational Development

Q1 2014 | AIESEC in Vietnam 2013 - 2014

Table of contents1. 1. Overall performance | Jul 2013 – now

2. 2. Overall performance | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)

3. 3. Further insights

4. 4. Goal Q2 2014 | Get ready for summer peak!!!

5. 5. Good cases practices sharing

6. 6. Recognition | Best Exchange Performance in Q1 2014

7. 7. Reference links

• Notice:

• All data is taken from SONA, myaiesec.net and Customer Gauge. Some data maybe wrong due to invalid SONA data from LCs.

• Take the review as reference for some insights you might find useful.

• Pay attention to red or big blue numbers!!!

OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Jul 2013 – now

National performance based on MC term (Jul-Jun). Period: 01.07.2013 – 10.04.2014

2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014

IGCDP 69 247 247 223

OGCDP 115 151 205 193

IGIP 25 47 41 42

OGIP 20 19 39 29

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Exch

ang

e

Quality KPI NPS Completed % Promoters Completed

Response Rate Completed

Cases closed/ cases open (all status)

IGCDP 46 58% 66% 28/1

OGCDP 26 44% 61% 28/0

IGIP 40 53% 46% 4/0

OGIP 50 67% 54% 3/0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

X G

row

th C

har

t

IGCDP

OGCDP

IGIP

OGIP

Total X

OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Jul 2013 – now

National performance based on MC term (Jul-Jun). Period: 01.07.2013 – 10.04.2014

HN

20%

FTU HN

22%

DN

5%

HCM

18%

FTU HCM

31%

RMIT

4%

LCs contribution

in total X

HN

18%

FTU HN

26%

DN

2%

HCM

29%

FTU

HCM

20%

RMIT

5%

OGCDP

HN

22%

FTU HN

15%

DN

6%HCM

9%

FTU

HCM

43%

RMIT

5%

IGCDP

HN

39%

FTU HN

25%

DN

14%

HCM

7%FTU

HCM

11%

RMIT

4%

OGIP

HN

12%

FTU HN

31%

DN

0%

HCM

31%

FTU

HCM

26%

RMIT

0%

IGIP

OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)

National performance in Q1

IGCDP OGCDP IGIP OGIP Total

Goal Q1 - 2014 86 68 24 15 193

Achieved 59 37 12 6 114

0

50

100

150

200

250

Quality KPI

NPS Completed

% Promoters Completed

ResponseRate

Completed

Cases closed/ cases open(all status)

IGCDP 41 54% 62% 15/1

OGCDP 57 60% 60% 3/0

IGIP 50 50% 20% 0/0

OGIP 50 75% 44% 2/0

HN

18%

FTU HN

26%

DN

4%

HCM

23%

FTU HCM

25%

RMIT

4%

LCs contribution

in total X

HN

8%

FTU HN

37%

DN

0%

HCM

37%

FTU

HCM

18%

RMIT

0%

OGCDP

HN

24%

FTU HN

17%

DN

7%

HCM

15%

FTU

HCM

34%

RMIT

3%

IGCDP

HN

33%

FTU HN

33%

DN

17%

HCM

0%FTU

HCM

0% RMIT

17%

OGIP

HN

10%

FTU HN

40%

DN

0%

HCM

30%

FTU

HCM

20%

RMIT

0%

IGIP


Customer Experience Management

100

100

33

35

100

0

78

80

0

0

0

60

0

50

50

100

100

0

60

35

0

0

75

0

OGIP

IGIP

OGCDP

IGCDP

NPS Completed

RMIT FTU HCM HCM DN FTU HN HN

33

0

60

100

100

0

86

40

0

0

0

100

0

50

64

25

100

0

69

69

0

0

42

0

OGIP

IGIP

OGCDP

IGCDP

Response Rate Completed

RMIT FTU HCM HCM DN FTU HN HN


Customer Experience Management. Some experiences in Q1 The gcdp I signed up for was supposed to last Four weeks, but ended upbeing one week. I was told that i could not fly in on sunday and then arriveon monday, because i had to be there to start the project, so i arrived onsunday. But the entire first week there was no internship! (And no otherEPS because they left the city for a trip because boredom in the residentialcity) the ticket costed me €100 more for nothing!! The contract stated theworking times to be from 10-16h, but in fact were from 7-16.. The otherEPs made my experience abroad a great one, but the project did not reallycontribute to that. When talking to the other EPs about the preparation,everybody was told different things, very strange when your on the sameproject but get told different required starting dates! Aiesec Vietnam knewfor instance for a long time that the las two weeks of january, would be apublic holiday, so no internship, but my contract stated that mine wouldlast untill Jan 31st... All together, I am happy to have met the internationalstudents I have, but the internship was a big disappointment. I expectedmore of it, also because of the price I had to pay to enroll in aiesec.

Eline from Netherlands | Host LC: FTU HCMC

I really had an awesome time and it was truly the most meaningful andrewarding experience. I was able to experience cultural diversity. It was greatto make many global lifelong friends :) ! Furthermore, during the journey Iwas able to identify my weakness as well. Therefore this experience willcertainly improve my personal development. Most of all, through AIESEC I wasable to make the most memorable memories :) !!!

Yeonjoon Lee from New Zealand | Host LC: FTU HCMC

Cultural Preparation-Sending materials to share about culture would be really helpful because doing research on your own does not really give you a definite answer as to how their culture really is.Another thing, its really important for the LC to get involved with the EP's, not just one person, who is not even reliable.The TNs that are raised are a fraud. You come to a country only for you to come and do nothing because the job you interviewed for is not there.Just to add more, I think its high time people start being honest about their exchange experiences, to avoid repetition of same mistakes from LC's.

Kesego from Bostwana | Host LC: Hanoi

GCDP is really a good opportunity for young people as me to experience. I canunderstand and develop more myself, make a small contribution to society. Iknow the meaning of the youth. Thank you Aiesec, thank you GCDP!

Thanh Hien from FTU HN | Host country: China

I'm glad that I was lucky enough to meet those interns and AIESECer in thePhilippines. Their stories are so inspiring, they are my inspiration from nowon. I have set my goal and I know how I am going to achieve that goal.THanks to them. I also learn a lot about their culture. I lived with 15 internsin one house from all over the world. I know what they eat, how they talk,what is their tradition ect....Overall, taking this internship was amazing

Ngoc Co from HCMC | Host country: The Philippines


LC performance in Q1

We got +63.5% relative growth for this Q1 compared to Q1-2013 (0% growth in 2 GIP programs and 63.5% growth in 2 GCDP programs) and NPS completed status over 30 in 3 programs (except for OGCDP). Thank you all LCs for contributing to the winter and spring peaks

Recognition time!

Please pay attention to your CEM implementation during matching and realization time!!!

CEM wiki: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewwiki.do?contentid=10275681

NPS system guide: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10276278

Quality standards: MCVPs X with OD have finalized the standards to deliver the high-quality experience. Each EP/ TN will be checked and stored based on the quality standards checklist. Please approach your MCVPs for guidance how to implement this

LC FTU HN for having biggest contribution to total Q1 results

LC Danangfor having highest relative growth +400%

LC FTU HCMC for having highest percentage of goal achievement


Financial status

FURTHER INSIGHTS

IGIP, ER3 break matches & realizes last quarter: FTU HN, HCM, FTU HCM

LC HCM was the only LC successfully re-raised 7 TNs from 2 GIP TN Takers

Total sales people in all LCs: 37

Sales people delivered results: 15 (41%)

• IGCDP

Only 1 LC with below 0 NPS in realized status: LC HN (-33)

50%

0%0%12%

25%

13%

Break match/ realize IGCDP

HN (4)

FTU HN (0)

DN (0)

HCM (1)

FTU HCM (2)

RMIT (1)

0%8%

24%

24%

44%

0%

TNs raised from NPO team

HN (0)

FTU HN (2)

DN (6)

HCM (6)

FTU HCM (11)

RMIT (0)

FURTHER INSIGHTS

OGCDP

LC HCMC has highest number of returnees in LC: 14

• CEM

LC FTU HN is the only LC conducted CEM education for all LC members last quarter. Will other LCs do the same?

28%

41%

4%2%

23%

2%

OGCDP AF

HN (163)

FTU HN (238)

DN (20)

HCM (13)

FTU HCM (134)

RMIT (13)

19%

24%

1%24%

22%

10%

OGIP AF

HN (54)

FTU HN (71)

DN (2)

HCM (70)

FTU HCM (65)

RMIT (28)

GOAL Q2 2014 | Get ready for summer peak!!!

60

60

8

19

45

41

26

26

26

30

30

26

41

76

93

22

18

15

Raise

Match

Realize

IGCDP

HN FTU HN DN HCM FTU HCM RMIT

20

16

1

12

10

5

6

4

2

10

9

5

11

10

8

0

0

0

Raise

Match

Realize

IGIP

80

77

21

100

80

30

60

46

25

151

95

72

143

131

57

10

4

5

Raise

Match

Realize

OGCDP

28

9

0

12

6

9

25

15

5

20

5

14

33

19

5

8

5

5

Raise

Match

Realize

OGIP

GOOD CASES PRACTICE SHARING

We run Talent Coordinator Model which is held by TM. TM Function will have coordinators to date with members to see if having any problems and then report the input to TLs/Managers for them to have direction to lead and develop their members.

AIESEC FTU HN

Create Alumni Board to support EB and LC: long-term engage with a sustainable pool of alumni

Building synergy map of all functions

Building JD for Quality Management board of OGX

Initiating IR team for all X functions (progress: in research)

AIESEC HCMC

“Share to be shared” project to boost up the pro-active learning attitude in members

AIESEC HN

IGIP: Engage BoA in specific training (hard knowledge) for sub-market such us IT, instead of getting refferral or market inside only

Move from Traditional Sales to B2B sales

Utilize linkedin to approach directly decision maker, link to Job Group related to sub-market, connect AIESEC alumni as well as find BoA

AIESEC FTU HCMC

RECOGNITION | Best Exchange Performance in Q1 - 2014

LC TotalGCDP Q1 -2014

TotalGIPQ1 -2014

Total XQ1 -2014

TotalGCDPQ1 -2013

TotalGIPQ1 -2013

Total XQ1 -2013

RelativeGrowthQ1 2014 vs Q1 2013

Goal set forQ1 –2014

% Goal achievement

NPS Completed<0 in 1 program?

Score1 for total results

Score 2 for growth

Score 3 for % goal achievement

Final score(1+2+3)

HN 17 3 20 13 6 19 +5.3% 38 53% No 6.67 0.13 8.17 14.97

FTU HN

24 6 30 9 2 11 +172.7% 53 57% No 10.00 4.32 8.78 23.10

DN 4 1 5 1 0 1 +400% 12 42% No 1.67 10.00 6.74 18.13

HCM 23 3 26 8 5 13 +100% 53 49% No 8.67 2.5 7.61 18.78

FTU HCM

27 2 29 21 4 25 +16% 45 64% No 9.67 0.4 10.00 20.07

RMIT 3 1 4 1 1 2 +100% 0 0% No 1.33 2.5 0.00 3.83

Criteria for Quarterly Best Exchange Performance:

No drop in exchange results compared to same quarter last year

No program has NPS completed < 0 in the quarter

Scoring: based on 3 elements: total results, relative growth, % goal achievement. In each element, LC with highest result gets 10 points, other LCs get points based on % of highest LC. Points for each element will be sum up for final score

So let’s say congratulations to AIESEC FTU HN for gaining Best Exchange Performance in Quarter 1 – 2014!!!

REFERENCE LINKS

CEM Wiki: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewwiki.do?contentid=10275681

CEM system guide: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10276278

All LCs plans Feb 2014: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301974

Q3 2013 SONA report AIESEC Vietnam: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301972



Results from L&D survey in Mar (analyzed by eMCVP TM Amy): http://slidesha.re/1n2I1WQ

The endOrganizational Development

Q1 2014 | AIESEC in Vietnam 2013 - 2014

Q1 2014 national performance review

Data & Analytics

Transcript of Q1 2014 national performance review