1. Expansion IPB was disbanded on October 16, 2013 due to failing an internal audit with a score of E, below the minimum passing score of C. 2. An audit found issues such as a lack of mentoring, inefficient transitions, and no financial statements or controls. 3. Perspectives agreed that IPB had very low performance compared to other expansions and bad operations based on the audit results. A lack of direction in previous terms also impacted IPB. 4. While IPB had potential for programs other than AIESEC's focus on outbound programs, it was considered not relevant. The decision to disband was ultimately respected.

1. Jakarta, 20th Feb 2014
Entity Disbandment Report
!
- EXPANSION IPB !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
AIESEC INDONESIA

2. !
Disbandment
!
Date of Disbandment: 16 October 2013
Main reason of disbandment: according to compendium is because they couldn’t pass the internal
audit. The audit score was E while the minimum score is C.
!
Here are the summary findings from the audit:
! 1. Lack of Education
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
There is no mentoring programs
Inefficient Transition
There is no performance appraisal
Inappropriate talent selection
Lack of reviewing, tracking, delegating of job description
Lack in filling Minutes of Meeting
Lack in governance
No Financial Statement and lack of controlling in terms of Financial system in AIESEC Official
Expansion IPB
10. Lack in updating database
11. There is no brand filter in terms of OGX poster from Communication department
!
Perspective from Membership Subcommittee Board:
!
1. Very low on performance and bad operation
In terms of performance, though they were the oldest expansion, we can say that IPB has very low
ones, compared to the other expansion entities. No matter education or coaching their LC Sister
has been trying to give, it seemed like they’re just stuck on doing it. No significant contribution,
making the effort to try to help or fix them would just be a lot bigger and consumed more time and
energy and materials rather than the good result we wanted to see.
About operation, based on Internal Audit result we can also say that they had bad operation, and it
would not take small time just to change it because even they couldn’t do the basic stuff right.
!
2. No direction from previous term impacting the entity
Since there was no proper framework or direction or even focus for expansion in last terms 11-13,
not to mention there was never MCVP Expansion in advance, it impacted the expansion entities by
that time, especially the IPB itself and UI as LC Sister. Due to the temporary lost for the respective
manager who specifically taking care of IPB, the transition from 1213 to 1314 didn’t go smoothly.
Therefore, when it tried to change it’s already “too late” and it couldn’t be that easy and that fast as
they wanted.
!
3. IGCDP > OGCDP
!
If anything, IPB is more potential in IGCDP wise in terms of OGCDP. This was not aligned as well
since our main driver is OGCDP and all expansions are expected to focus more on that. Hence,
IPB was considered not relevant.
Perspective from LC Sister:

3. UI as LC Sister agreed with the decision. They admitted that no matter how hard they tried, they
didn’t see IPB grow or changed as they expected it could be. It just couldn’t be forced whatsoever.
!
However, UI was a little bit disapointed that in previous term, extended were allowed or several
new LC’s would’ve been disbanded too had they not been given extension. But they understood
that rules were rules, and it was explicitly stated in compendium about the criteria so they
respected the decision.
Perspective from MCVP Expansion:
!
Overall, the MCVP Expansion perspective is the same one with the ones stated by the Membership
Subcomittee. However, there are several points she likes to add in this case:
!
!
!
!
!
1. The market is just not there. Firstly, let’s understand that AIESEC Indonesia main program
focus is OGCDP. And if we speak based on data, mostly people join OGCDP program are
the students coming from economy, international relation, communication, literature, law
school; while IPB mostly are agriculture, vet, fisheries, forestry, etc. Though we know it’s
not essentially true, but one of the first reasons people interested with AIESEC and OGCDP
program is “to boost up their CV”, “because it aligns with my major and I have added value
or competitive advantage later in the future”, etc.
2. There is another similar organization “as competitor”. Based on my research, they have this
organization coming from the campus itself, where the student can go exchange too—not
just a merely exchange participant but they get the internship experience and it really aligns
with the campus and their major itself. This makes AIESEC the second option for them to
go exchange with.
3. Due to no MCVP Expansion or even MCVP OD, or any specific expansion person handling
its entities in last terms, this really brought bad impacts towards expansions or new LC’s.
Including IPB. No directions neither to respective expansion and LC Sister drove IPB from
lack of performance to low talent capacity.
In Conclusion
IPB has been disbanded since 16th October 2013 in the legislation during MBC 2013. The respective
entity was not called to reapply as Expansion Applicant due to the mentioned reasons. Based on the
MSC Meeting, it was decided that if IPB would like to reapply as expansion, it has to be done and
proposed by themselves due to prevention of dependency towards their (former) LC Sister, LC UI.
Until date (20th Feb 2014), IPB current status is Specialized Units with LC UI as LC Sister.
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
Regards,
Yuricia Vebrina Lahar
MC VP Expansion
AIESEC in Indonesia 1314