sona q4 2015 report | aiesec in malaysia
DESCRIPTION
ÂTRANSCRIPT
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
80 applications for am
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%)
431 applications for am
# 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.
overall customized inferences
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.
overall customized inferences
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
Last Quarter: 93,6 Days
meeting
open
match
realization
Conversion Rate:
42,1%
Conversion Rate:
40%
Conversion Rate:
63,1%
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):
33,5 days
exchange management global citizen incoming
32
Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):
13,8 days
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):
41,3 days
Last Quarter: 9,8 Days
Last Quarter: 33,5 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.
overall customized inferences
# 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