Italy, com area sona q3 analysis, 2010

768 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Italy, com area sona q3 analysis, 2010

  1. 1. Communication Area Analysis & Report AIESEC Italy Q3 2010 SONA Q3, 2010 Evgenia Berestneva, MCVP IM [All data in this report is based on SONA filled by LC; real data, that can be checked in myaiesc.net and other resources can be different]
  2. 2. Human resources 11LCs out of 17 [65%] have Com responsible in EB 1LC out of 17 [6%] has 2 different ppl responsible For Com and IM in EB Suggestion: if you want to have VPCom and VPIM in EB, contact Milano Cattolica to get GCPs on structure and JD
  3. 3. External Events 9LCs out of 17 [53%] didn’t participated in external events as representative of youth leadership organization 4LCs out of 17 [24%] Participated in more than 1 external event as representative of youth Suggestion: Milano Cattolica (7 events), Pavia (3), Torino (2), Venezia (2) can share on how to participate in external events
  4. 4. Alumni Involvement 6LCs out of 17 [35%] Have 0-1 alumni involved in their activities 3LCs out of 17 [18%] Have more than 6 alumni involved in LC activities Suggestion: Napoli Parthenope (14 alumni), Torino (9), Pavia (6) can share strategy of Alumni Management in LC
  5. 5. Web-page development 6LCs out of 17 [35%] Have <500 visitors on LC web-page in 3 months 4LCs out of 17 [24%] Don’t have counter on web-page Suggestion: 1) Catania, Genova, Napoli Federico II, Venezia – contact Alessio Esposito (NCC Web-Manager) or MCVPIM to get support with installation of counter on web-page 2) Milano Cattolica (1350), Trento (1000), Torino (895) have the highest measurements – get to know what did they do for it
  6. 6. Social Media 7LCs out of 17 [41%] Don’t have twitter account or have 0 followers 6LCs out of 17 [35%] Don’t have fan-page Suggestion: Palermo, Roma Sapienza, Roma Tre, Torino, Trieste, Venezia can share GCPs on promotion of fan-page
  7. 7. Media Appearances 5LCs out of 17 [29%] Have 0 media appearances 2LCs out of 17 [12%] Have more than 10 media appearances Suggestion: contact Torino (18), Napoli Federico II (15-20) to know the strategy for big number of media apperances
  8. 8. Teams allocation My@net 8LCs out of 17 [47%] Have <50% members allocated in teams in My@ 2LCs out of 17 [12%] Have 100% of members allocated In teams in myaiesec.net Suggestion: contact Ancona and Genova to know strategy to achieve 100% allocation of members in teams in myaiesec.net
  9. 9. Internal Com & Knowledge Management 13 LCs out of 17 [76%] Don’t have functional wiki in myaiesec.net in 8LCs out of 17 [47%] <50% members use my@net email 0LCs out of 17 [0%] Have internal com policy
  10. 10. Office Infrustructure 3LCs out of 17 [18%] Don’t have internet in the office 7LCs out of 17 [41%] Have <50% provision of PC in office
  11. 11. Com claster allocation SONA 2010 has aim to track not only organizational performance, but also “health” of each area. Health rate for each question in the area is from 0 to 4 (4=max). Since there are 6 main questions in Com area, max score = 24. You can see here table for “health points” allocation: Health score 0 1 2 3 4 # of external events participated 0 1-2 3 4-5 6 # of alumni involved in activities 0 1 2 3-4 5 # of unique visitors on web-page 0-300 301-550 551-850 851-1000 >1000 # of media appearances 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20 % of M allocated to teams in My@ 0-10 11-40 41-60 61-80 81-100 # of functional area wiki 0 1-3 4 5 6
  12. 12. Com claster allocation Since maximum total score for Com area = 24, To allocate LCs in clasters in communication area, we accept that: 1Claster: 17-24 points 2 Claster: 9-16 points 3 Claster: 0-8 points
  13. 13. Com claster allocation Com area claster allocation based on Q3 results 1 Claster 2 Claster 13-Torino 11-Milano Cattolica 10-Pavia 3 Claster 8-Genova 8-Napoli Parthenope 8-Palermo 7-Venezia 7-Bolzano 7-Roma Tre 6-Ancona 6-Napoli Federico II 6-Trieste 5-Roma Sapienza 5-Trento 4-Pisa 3-Catania 1-Bari 0% of LCs - 1st Claster 18% of LCs – 2nd Claster 82% of LCs – 3rd Claster
  14. 14. Com claster allocation There is no big difference in results between LCs that have and don’t have Com responsible in EB INTERESTING FACT [ ]

×