Specific questions
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Specific questions

on

  • 414 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
414
Views on SlideShare
274
Embed Views
140

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0

1 Embed 140

http://www.myaiesec.net 140

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Specific questions Specific questions Document Transcript

  • 1. Present and discuss the current reality of the GCDPi area in all the LCs in AIESEC Romania inthe year 2012. When discussing refer to: what would you keep, what needs to be improved, which isthe best structure. According to Goals Ranking Report statistics available at myaiesec.net in 2012: At the table we can clearly see thatonly in 5 LCs there was growth in GCDPi in2012. Best growth was in Arad and Timisoara.Only Timisoara achieved the closest result toexpected (look: Tools: 2015 xls) (32% growth,expected: 48%). Arad and Timisoaras resultsindicate implementing good solutions. Theworst situation in reported in Iasi (78%decrease). Results of all the rest of LCs,however sometimes in plus, they reset theanxiety. What I would advice to change isdifferent depending on LC. We should beaware of the fact, that because of logistics ofmatching the rate should be about 10-15%.This is why in LCs with realised/raised ratelower than 35% I would advice to focus on implementing other projects and contacting new NGOTN takers. Other LCs should focus on improving matching area. Sometimes it is better to organizeless projects but achieve better rates, because big differences between raised and realised amount ofprojects demotivates AIESEC members, and in some situations may mean that expectations fromOCP were too high – even objectively unachievable. If we want to plan our goals for many years inthe future, if we want to achieve sustainable growth, we should focus on consequences of ourexpectations that will happen in other ELD programs, because if we will not do this, next yearconsequences of other programs will influence GCDP realizations. On the other hand, the examples of few LCs should make us believe that in other LCs biggoals are also achievable. But in order to make it happen I would insist on LCVPs to help eachother in achieving these goals. I believe that sometimes it may be better to ask for help currentLCVP from other LC, who achieves successes, than to ask for help previous LCVP from own LC,even if this person knows our market better. However combination of both opinions may be useful,helping each other by current LCVP provides positive atmosphere. Something, that I always considered as a good idea a chance that we have twice a year. I callthe idea “high standard bomb”, and it can be used only on newbies. The idea is to focus on LCCsand period just after them. By this bomb we should get newbies used to high standard environmentin LC. What is more, this idea proves older members that what theyve always been dreaming aboutis possible. Yes! I believe that inside every single AIESECer there is this high standard part, thatonly has to be activated. Answer for “best structure part” in next question Damian Gorlicki Application for the post of MCVP GCDPi, AIESEC in Romania
  • 2. As you know, the grand majority of your goals are going to be achieved by local projects. Basedon this, how do you plan to manage the situation towards the achievement of the nationalobjectives? (Be clear and specific). I would like to start answering this question from two important fundamentals. First is, thatin my opinion LCVP ICX is second most stressful position in LC (Opinion does not apply directlyto GIP ICX – in Romania in 2012, there where 10 times more GCDPi exchanges than GIPi ones.The most stressful one is LCP). Second is that I strongly believe that, because AIESEC isvolunteering organization, its structure should be formed from the bottom to the top. This is whyforming structure of each LC should be based on strong local factors with just a little MCPs andMCVPs influence. My first idea to improve this process is, unfortunately, not going to be able to show resultsduring the term 2013-2014. It is caused by the fact that dates of election processes in LCs and MCare not adapted to the idea. The idea provides: – Prolongation of time between LCP elections and LCVPs elections – Adaptation LCP, LCVPs and MCVPs election to the process – Special track for LCPs elects, before LCVPs elections, based on experienced members advices, LCPs elects to MCP elect, LCPs elects to MCVPs elects discussions at one of national conferences (November – December, possible at RYLF) – Continuation of the process after LCVPs elections, but before the start of the term, based on discussions between LCVPs elects and relevant to them MCVPs, at another national conference (possible at SprinCo) Expected effect of the process: LC structures are: – Structures created mutually by LCPs, MCP and MCVPs – Structures answering for specific needs of all people on above positions – Better communication between LCs and MC According to above idea (however implementable without implementation of above project),what I would advice to LCPs is: – Creating LCVP ICXs assistant. Depending on amount of work in the department, the assistant would be given different amount of responsibilities. The “assistant” position wouldnt be the only one taken by the person (assistant is not a member of EB, but can, and even should, be OC or OCP). Expected result: Reduction of possibility of LCVPs skip. In case of LCVPs skip, assistant automatically becomes ICX departments coo. – In big LCs, achieving high results in both GIP and GCDP: GIP ICX coo – responsible for GIP ICX matching. GIP ICX coo, however a member of ICX commission, should be in permanent contact with LCVP sales. (Optionally, Sales coo cooperating with ICX) – In small LC: LCVP Sales (corpo and non-corpo), GIPi, GCDPi jobs could be done by one person. Reason: In smaller LCs in smaller cities biggest part of companies should be already contacted and contact with them should be renewed only sometimes in order to check if some circumstances have changed. – LCPs should be aware of the fact that, according to sociological theories, working with a team of more than 6 people may generate some problems. – Report system. Every LCVP ICX will be expected to give weekly, monthly and quarterly report. Every weekly report should be sent by special google docs form. Monthly report additionally will take a form of skype conversation. Monthly report will be in fact 4weeks report because of amount of LCs. All 14 LCs will be split into 4 groups, for each of them “month” will finish in different week. Quarterly reports will be made mainly by Damian Gorlicki Application for the post of MCVP GCDPi, AIESEC in Romania
  • skype. Additionally both, MCVP and relevant LCVP will be allowed to insist skype conversation when it is needed. – Additionally I would advice to create brand new position of PR/”Culuar-meeter”. This person should have wide knowledge about what is happening in own LC, other students organizations in the city, should contact AIESEC with those organization, organizing mutual events, represents AIESEC at important events in city. Very important note!: The person should not be responsible for contacts with media. To sum up, my idea for achieving high result, being aware of the fact that these are basicallymade by LCs, I would insist to create clear canal of communication between MCVP GCDPi andeach LCVP responsible for GCDP ICX. However today different structures of LCs make MCVPnon-corpo development a lot harder, I believe that it is necessary. What is more, afterimplementation of the first idea it should become easier.3. Present the issues that AIESEC Romania has on quality, present your strategy to increase thequality and eliminate the problems of GCDPi in AIESEC Romania. Answer for this question I would like to base on my experience from internship in Romaniaand on conversations with other EPs met during summer (A lot of gROw trainers and EPs inBrasov, Craiova, Constanta, Bucharest from different projects). Main problems mentioned were about: problems with accommodation, problems withquality of accommodation, lack of work, not enough time for traveling (because of slowtransportation), there were also few opinions about expensive prices in Romania, and a lot ofnegative opinions on topic as funny, as showing some problem: not being informed about@OlympX conference before the arrival to Romania. – Accommodation: Here I have to mention that, however in my opinion quality of some flats wasnt very good – it was enough, the negative opinions were strongly connected not to the quality itself, but to being or not being informed about possibility of standard lower than expected. This means that EP hadnt been informed by sending OGX team, neither by hosting ICX team. In this situation I would advice to inform EPs about standard they should expect – believe me majority of them will not care. Another problem for few of EPs was the fact that they had to change their place several times. – Few EPs, working in external organizations like kindergartens, were complaining for lack of work. Solution: make potential EP aware (write in JD and expect) of fact that he/she has to prepare several activities relevant to working environment on his/her own. Additionally, if above idea is not implementable, EPs should be included to LC life. – Time for traveling. We all were aware that in different parts of Romania there are a lot of different, attractive things to experience and explore. Unfortunately, having only 2 days a week free it was impossible to travel to so far places. Solution: look question 4 (LC to LC foreign EP exchange) – Opinions about expensive prices were very rare and extremely subjective. From AIESECs point of view we cannot changes prices. – @OlympX – very specific problem related with quality of reception. However we can say that it is only for-fun-conference, many EPs were sad because of not being informed about this opportunity. Majority of them bought round tickets with closed date of return. Solution: appropriate MCVP should remind LCs about opportunities like this. Damian Gorlicki Application for the post of MCVP GCDPi, AIESEC in Romania
  • 4. What is your strategy for driving GCDPi growth in 2013-2014? My strategy for driving GCDPi growth will be mainly based on three initiatives that in myopinion will increase Romanian Projects attractiveness of GCDP projects and amount of raised TNsin both, GCDP and GIP areas. – LC to LC foreign EP exchange. Trying to respond to the need mentioned above, that EPs would like to have a chance to visit more places in Romania, but they dont have enough time on weekends. I would like to offer them an opportunity to take part in project in more than one LC. This initiative could be first implemented for example in these LCs where one group of gROw participants have all 10 workshops in one week. In this situation from each of participants point of view project would be delivered by one pair (eventually one) of trainers. This initiative looks even more interesting now (the end of December), when one month before gROw spring edition EPs planned arrival some LCs have problems with matching. This initiative will, of course, face some problems. Main threats I can see are: division of labor and logistics with matching. Both somehow connected. In situation of having to many EPs interested in taking part in one pair of LCs project, third LC could be added to the treaty. Above initiative, if successful could be implemented in future national projects. – Second most important idea I would like to implement is to contact an organization responsible for information about European Funds and to organize a track of workshops about possibility of connecting them with our goals. The idea does not provides organizing projects sponsored from EU Funds by AIESEC, but helping NGOs and private companies with applying for the money in order to organize opportunity for inviting EP. In this project we would have to achieve two main objectives: increase NGOs and private companies awareness about EU Funds, and provide logistical help with applications. I believe that AIESEC in Romania should implement this program exactly during 2013- 2014 term because of few main factors. First is possible Schengen Area enlargement of Romania and Bulgaria. This process will strongly increase European investors interest of these countries. Second is Romanian position in negotiations about the 2014-2020 European Budget Term. Third reason is the fact that Romania is still not using 100% of available funds. Additionally the project may increase Romanian achievements within 2015 statements (First Choice Partner) – Third of my ideas is an result of my best experience from Romania – one week in Romanian village. Together with my co-trainer William we were invited by 2 students families to their houses in Coșereni. Even if we can think that cities are the most interesting part of internship, it is totally not true. The most interesting are people and people in villages with their traditions, clothes and food are those that we should introduce to foreigners in Romania. What is more, it is no only my opinion, but similar had those, who experienced something like this. This idea is not only amazing opportunity for EPs, it is also comparatively cheap. What is more gives great opportunity to amazingly increase positive impact by delivering cross-cultural experience to these who dont have access to projects like this. Unfortunately, as everything in this World, this project has some disadvantages. Main one is, that everyone who goes for AIESEC internship does it also to visit some cities. Considering the fact that transportation from some villages is more difficult, it may Damian Gorlicki Application for the post of MCVP GCDPi, AIESEC in Romania
  • cause some problems with matching. Still I believe that for many potential EPs this could be exactly the reason they will chose Romania for!5. Taking into consideration the problems that AIESEC Romania has, how are you going to usenational initiatives in your favor? Also, specify which are the initiatives that you will implement inorder to solve the problems (new and existing initiatives)? Because in case of my ideas all questions in this part of application overlap, I somehow gavepart of answer of this question in the 3 previous points. But my previous ideas are basicallytechnical. This is why I would like to present two ideas of brand new projects that could beimplemented in LCs which would cope with all other problems and would fell strong enough tostart something new. – "Teen OC Team" – idea created under influence of thinking of “Engage and develop every young person in the world”, but however also connected with AIESEC values and 2015 Statements. The target of the project would be high school students achieving good results in school and exhibiting leadership potential. The main idea is to organize PBOX for 1 EP per group of about 10-15 high school students. The EP would lead the group in similar way as OCP leads his OC team. The students would be his OC team. The team would be responsible for diagnosing a need in local environment, prepare and implement solution responding the need. During the project students will learn how to manage project, create budget, find sponsors, work in team etc. By their help AIESEC would put next brick to make positive impact on society. Very important part of the project is building positive image of AIESEC within those who are potentially our future members. Some of participants of the project would join AIESEC already having fundamental knowledge about the organization and basic skills and experience needed by AIESEC. Additionally potentially well done project would be branded by AIESEC logo, what would our recognition in local environments. For the EP it will be great chance to develop her/his leadership, teaching and facilitating skills. But we must be aware that the preferred EP for this project is an AIESECer with leadership experience. Potentially, in case of success of the project, AIESEC in Romania could even lead introduction of new ELD program basing on the idea of the project in next middle term planning. – “Let me understand the World” - Based on economical and political awareness GCDP. AIESEC was created in need of avoiding development of negative processes leading to wars. However in Europe we dont have any wars for over a dozen years, in fact we didnt achieve the goal yet. What is more there are new kinds of wars between countries and societies. Even if we provide opportunities to meet for people from all around the world, and even if, what I strongly believe in, this opportunity guaranties that those people will not kill each other in the future, and will lead their societies to not fight with each other, all of this does not guarantee that they will not make a XXI-century-kind war. This kind of war is not about fighting to death, this war is about access to resources and considering people as kind of resource as well. This is why I am coming up with idea of creating project based on economical and political awareness. The target for the project are teenagers between 14-19 years. The project should be composed of about 8-12 workshops about economy and politics but delivered in language relevant to teenagers. It would be perfect if the workshops are lead by 2 trainers from politically and economically opposite camps. For example: USA and Pakistan etc. I am aware of the fact that 2 above project may look like too hard, like maybe even irrelevant toAIESEC. Personally I believe that such a great organization as AIESEC needs great goals, newer goals,ALMOST impossible to achieve goals! Damian Gorlicki Application for the post of MCVP GCDPi, AIESEC in Romania