This document provides a summary of quarterly review data from 19 entities submitting to SOLA. It includes data on team purpose, organization culture, understanding of leadership models, team member engagement, leadership development implementation, and financial analysis. The data is presented primarily through charts and graphics measuring metrics like attendance, implementation, bottlenecks, retention rates, and more.

1. quarterlyreviewdata is recapped from 19 Entities that are submitting sola

2. please sit on Entity based

3. low performance
in quarter 3

4. 5%
95%
Yes No
Team Purpose is measured by clear MoS?
3bottleneck
leadership body
clarity of purpose
member engagement
Organisation Culture
LC believe that this is their
organisation culture
integrity
collaborative
family
however
behavioural change
action-oriented
positivity
collaborative
solution-driven
leadership
behaviour

5. LCP understanding of LDM
team leaderLCEB
suggestion
16%
84%
how do lcP do bring back to LC?
finance, please re-
e v a l u a t e y o u r
investment for strategic
meeting, ensure bring
back will be high quality
47% 53%
63%
37%
47% 53%
team member
LC Management System
32%
68%
Weekly Bi-weekly
ideal: weekly EB meeting
11%
56%
22%
11%
100% >90% >80% <80%
ideal: 100% attendance
weekly meeting agenda
should include:
check in
progress
bottleneck
synergy
What’s next
LEAD
6%6%
53%
35%
Monthly Quarterly
Bi-Quarterly Never
ideal: monthly lc meeting
recognition:
surabaya, unsoed,
ipb, pu, uns, ui
lead
functional report
reward & recognition
what’s next?
opportunity fair
confirmation
LC meeting agenda
should include:
external perspectives
collaboration spaces
group discussion
make lc meeting attendance
as requirement for your
individual membership
criteria
suggestion

6. Team Minimum Implementation
26%
74%
sensing of lcp36%
64%
41%
59% 49% 51%
team plan jd train coach
track
eval
reflect
26%
74%
41%
59%
Strategies to growoGIP
top 2
strategies
ir
promotion
sub-product focus?
iGIP
top 3
strategies
process optimisation
re-raising
quality maintenance
sales intensity?
oGCDP
top 3
strategies
marketing opt.
ir
synergy
attraction? virtual promotion?
iGCDP
top 3
strategies
IR
focus on project
re-raising
time constrain?

7. bottlenecks
oGIP
top 5
bottleneckstimeline
matching
market penetration
national support
member capacity
iGIP
top 4
bottlenecks market penetration
member capacity
ir co-delivery
legality
oGCDP
top 6
bottlenecks
iGCDP
top 5
bottlenecks
late in timeline
member capacity
financial support
expa utilisation
team management
marketing strategy
member capacity
ir co-delivery
customer engagement
synergy
competitor

8. bottlenecks
sales intensity & effectivity
top 3
bottlenecks
market difficulties
member capacity
team minimum virtual marketing
top 3
bottlenecks
content matrix
channel
messageraising more right EPs
top 3message
synergy between ogx and marketing
translation in marketing strategy
LC to LC partnership
top 3slow response
promise delivery
brand

9. bottlenecks
matching opportunities
top 3Expa
ir co-delivery
aligning supply & demand
matching EPs
Expa
picky eps
top 2
membership
top 3engagement
L&D delivery
motivation

10. Team Review
32%
68%
Team Review
No Team Review
How? 32%
45%
23%
Team Days Meeting
Individual
LC Accountability
37%
63%
Yes
No
ideally, there should be
team review held with
complete eb team.
accountability to local plenary and to
external body (boa) must be done to make
them understand overall operation and
to get external perspectives on what
should be improved.

11. VALUABLE BRAND
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
UB Binus UMM UNHAS UA UI Surabaya
47%
85%
29%33%
50%
100%
45%
Good case
practice
re-raised igip
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
UPNVY UB PMBS Unila Binus IPB UGM UMM UNDIP UNHAS UA UI Surabaya
100%100%
75%
42%
75%
60%
100%
80%
100%
80%
33%
100%100%
Good case
practice
re-raised igcdp
Good case
practice
Good case
practice
Good case
practice
Good case
practice

12. VALUABLE BRAND
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
UB Binus UA UI Surabaya
100%
90%85%
25%
50% Good case
practice
partners retained igip
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
UPNVY UB PMBS Unila Binus IPB UGM UMM UNDIP UNHAS UA UI Surabaya
70%
20%
65%
100%
0%
80%
100%
70%
25%
80%
33%
80%
50%
?
partners retained igcdp
Good case
practice
Good case
practice
Good case
practice

13. VALUABLE BRAND
external acknowledgement
>
0
2.5
5
7.5
10
Unsoed IPB UGM UMM UNDIP UNS UA UI Surabaya PMBS
1
333
1
10
21
3
1
Good case
practice
0
0.175
0.35
0.525
0.7
UB Unila UMM UNHAS
50%
25%
70%
37%
partners retained non-exchange
Good case
practice

14. >
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Team Minimum Team Plan JD Training Tracking Evaluation
0.39
0.5630.49
0.733
0.630.685
0.532
team minimum implementation
bottlenecks
holiday
education delivery
team ownership
0.5
0.7
0.9
oGCDP iGCDP oGIP iGIP
0.7580.696
0.80.819
standards implementation
bottlenecks
adaptation in local level

15. >
LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
Unsoed UPNVY UB PMBS Unila Binus IPB UGM UMM PU UNDIP UNHAS UNS UA UI Surabaya
0.9
0.75
0.9430.9630.93
0.8
0.949
0.65
0.897
0.5
0.2
0.8
1
0.6
0.7
0.5
retention rate
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Unsoed UPNVY UB UNEJ Unila Binus IPB UGM UMM PU UNDIP UNHAS UA UI Surabaya
0.609
0.10.001
0.310.326
0.0080.10.046
0.41
0.020.050.070.080.1
0.73
re-integration
Good case
practice
Good case
practice

16. trivialfact
309offline
18.96%oGCDP Raise
37.57%iGCDP Raise
42.57%oGIP Match
58.02%iGIP Realised

17. we believewe achieve#
45 days

18. talentreview

19. customer experiencereview

20. Financial Analysis
based on SOLA Q3 and MMC
Submission