Q1 2014 national performance review

410 views
298 views

Published on

AIESEC Vietnam
Quarter 1 2014 National performance review

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
410
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Q1 2014 national performance review

  1. 1. PERFORMANCE REVIEW Organizational Development Q1 2014 | AIESEC in Vietnam 2013 - 2014
  2. 2. Table of contents 1. 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!!!
  3. 3. 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 Exchange 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 XGrowthChart IGCDP OGCDP IGIP OGIP Total X
  4. 4. 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
  5. 5. 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 Response Rate 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
  6. 6. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar) 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
  7. 7. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar) Customer Experience Management. Some experiences in Q1 The gcdp I signed up for was supposed to last Four weeks, but ended up being one week. I was told that i could not fly in on sunday and then arrive on monday, because i had to be there to start the project, so i arrived on sunday. But the entire first week there was no internship! (And no other EPS because they left the city for a trip because boredom in the residential city) the ticket costed me €100 more for nothing!! The contract stated the working times to be from 10-16h, but in fact were from 7-16.. The other EPs made my experience abroad a great one, but the project did not really contribute to that. When talking to the other EPs about the preparation, everybody was told different things, very strange when your on the same project but get told different required starting dates! Aiesec Vietnam knew for instance for a long time that the las two weeks of january, would be a public holiday, so no internship, but my contract stated that mine would last untill Jan 31st... All together, I am happy to have met the international students I have, but the internship was a big disappointment. I expected more 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 and rewarding experience. I was able to experience cultural diversity. It was great to make many global lifelong friends :) ! Furthermore, during the journey I was able to identify my weakness as well. Therefore this experience will certainly improve my personal development. Most of all, through AIESEC I was able 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 can understand and develop more myself, make a small contribution to society. I know 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 the Philippines. Their stories are so inspiring, they are my inspiration from now on. 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 interns in 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
  8. 8. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar) 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 Danang for having highest relative growth +400% LC FTU HCMC for having highest percentage of goal achievement
  9. 9. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar) Financial status
  10. 10. FURTHER INSIGHTS  IGIP, ER 3 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)
  11. 11. 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)
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. 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
  14. 14. RECOGNITION | Best Exchange Performance in Q1 - 2014 LC Total GCDP Q1 - 2014 Total GIP Q1 - 2014 Total X Q1 - 2014 Total GCDP Q1 - 2013 Total GIP Q1 - 2013 Total X Q1 - 2013 Relative Growth Q1 2014 vs Q1 2013 Goal set for Q1 – 2014 % Goal achiev ement NPS Completed <0 in 1 program? Score 1 for total results Score 2 for growth Score 3 for % goal achieve ment 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!!! 
  15. 15. 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  Q4 2013 SONA report AIESEC Vietnam: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301952  Q1 2014 SONA report AIESEC Vietnam: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301951  Results from L&D survey in Mar (analyzed by eMCVP TM Amy): http://slidesha.re/1n2I1WQ
  16. 16. The end Organizational Development Q1 2014 | AIESEC in Vietnam 2013 - 2014

×