aiesec slovakia_ gip & gcdp report 2011/2012

MC + 1 introduces...

Made by Katarina Korcova & Zuzana Saladiakova

AIESEC SlovakiaAIESEC SlovakiaAIESEC SlovakiaAIESEC Slovakia

GIP & GCDP report GIP & GCDP report GIP & GCDP report GIP & GCDP report forforforfor

2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012 Incoming & Outgoing programsIncoming & Outgoing programsIncoming & Outgoing programsIncoming & Outgoing programs

2 AIESEC Slovakia

Hi Hi Hi Hi AIESEC Slovakia!AIESEC Slovakia!AIESEC Slovakia!AIESEC Slovakia!

Welcome to the last Incoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing program

MC+1 decided to create this report in order to present

programs not just on national level but on local as well. By this report, LCs have chance to

check their results in 2011/2012

also their contribution to the results of AIESEC Slovakia.

The report is again divided in

The The The The first partfirst partfirst partfirst part is general so you can find there

ProgramProgramProgramProgram (GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Commun

point of view.

The second partThe second partThe second partThe second part is focused mainly on

general performance of OGP in

The aim of the third partthe third partthe third partthe third part is to present

national and local level. Furthermore, you will find there

calls/meetings, meetings/raises

May 2012.

I hope you will find this report useful. In case you have some feedback towards it, do not

hesitate to approach one of the

programs.

Enjoy!

Katka (exMC VP ICP) & Zuska (

MC PlusOneMC PlusOneMC PlusOneMC PlusOne

IESEC Slovakia | Dvojkrížna 47, 82107 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, +421 2 45 52 61 10

Incoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing program''''s reports reports reports report for for for for whole term 2011/2012. whole term 2011/2012. whole term 2011/2012. whole term 2011/2012.

decided to create this report in order to present the reality of incoming and outgoing

just on national level but on local as well. By this report, LCs have chance to

in 2011/2012 and compare it with other LCs. What is more, LCs can see

also their contribution to the results of AIESEC Slovakia.

divided in 3 parts3 parts3 parts3 parts:

is general so you can find there general statisticgeneral statisticgeneral statisticgeneral statistics of Global Internship s of Global Internship s of Global Internship s of Global Internship

(GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Community Development Programity Development Programity Development Programity Development Program (GCDP(GCDP(GCDP(GCDP) mainly from national

is focused mainly on outgoing programoutgoing programoutgoing programoutgoing programssss. You can find ther

general performance of OGP in 2011/2012 also performance of individual LCs.

is to present performance performance performance performance of incoming programof incoming programof incoming programof incoming program

national and local level. Furthermore, you will find there interesting interesting interesting interesting

alls/meetings, meetings/raises etc. and sum up of all data gathered from O

hope you will find this report useful. In case you have some feedback towards it, do not

hesitate to approach one of the current MC VP responsible for incoming and outgoing

& Zuska (exMC VP OGP)


Dvojkrížna 47, 82107 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, +421 2 45 52 61 10

whole term 2011/2012. whole term 2011/2012. whole term 2011/2012. whole term 2011/2012.

incoming and outgoing

just on national level but on local as well. By this report, LCs have chance to

and compare it with other LCs. What is more, LCs can see

s of Global Internship s of Global Internship s of Global Internship s of Global Internship

) mainly from national

You can find there except from

individual LCs.

of incoming programof incoming programof incoming programof incoming programssss in 2011/2012 on

interesting interesting interesting interesting ratesratesratesrates such as

and sum up of all data gathered from October 2011 till

hope you will find this report useful. In case you have some feedback towards it, do not

incoming and outgoing

3 AIESEC Slovakia

The following graphs are depicting the comparison of terms

GIP and GCDP realizations.

As you can see in GIP area we dropped significantlyGIP area we dropped significantlyGIP area we dropped significantlyGIP area we dropped significantly

either sustained or grew. So this term it was really our weaker side. However, talking about

GCDP GCDP GCDP GCDP you can see that it is completely opposite. We

month.

Following graphs are showing us the

I already mentioned GIP was our weaker area and it is strongly visible here as well. The most

critical in GIP this term was matchicritical in GIP this term was matchicritical in GIP this term was matchicritical in GIP this term was matchi

months.

0

5

10

15

20

Ju

ly

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Octo

ber

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ju

ly

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Octo

ber



General partGeneral partGeneral partGeneral part

The following graphs are depicting the comparison of terms 2010/20112010/20112010/20112010/2011 and

GIP area we dropped significantlyGIP area we dropped significantlyGIP area we dropped significantlyGIP area we dropped significantly – there were only 3 months where we


you can see that it is completely opposite. We managed to growmanaged to growmanaged to growmanaged to grow in almo

Following graphs are showing us the plan vs. realityplan vs. realityplan vs. realityplan vs. reality in all raises, matches and realizations. As


critical in GIP this term was matchicritical in GIP this term was matchicritical in GIP this term was matchicritical in GIP this term was matchingngngng as we did not manage to hit our plans in any of the

Octo

ber

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apri

l

May

Ju

ne

GIP REGIP REGIP REGIP RE

GIP 2010/2011 Reality


Octo

ber

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apri

l

May

Ju

ne

GCDP REGCDP REGCDP REGCDP RE

GCDP 2010/2011 Reality




and 2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012 in both

there were only 3 months where we


in almost every single

in all raises, matches and realizations. As


our plans in any of the





4 AIESEC Slovakia

GCDPGCDPGCDPGCDP on the other side was the area that we managed to develop this year. As you can see we were very

successfulsuccessfulsuccessfulsuccessful on raisingon raisingon raisingon raising and matchingand matchingand matchingand matching

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ju

ly

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Octo

ber

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apri

l

May

Ju

ne

GIP RAGIP RAGIP RAGIP RA

05

101520253035

0

10

20

30

40

50

Ju

ly

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Octo

ber

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apri

l

May

Ju

ne

GCDP RAGCDP RAGCDP RAGCDP RA



on the other side was the area that we managed to develop this year. As you can see we were very

in last quarter what assures healthy pipelinehealthy pipelinehealthy pipelinehealthy pipeline

GIP Plan

GIP Reality0

5

10

15

20

25

Ju

ly

Au

gust

Sep

tem

ber

Octo

ber

No

vem

ber

Dec

emb

er

Jan

uar

y

Feb

ruar

y

GIP MAGIP MAGIP MAGIP MA

GIP REGIP REGIP REGIP RE

GIP Plan

GIP Reality

GCDP Plan

GCDP Reality

0

10

20

30

40

50

GCDP MAGCDP MAGCDP MAGCDP MA



on the other side was the area that we managed to develop this year. As you can see we were very

for the next term.

Feb

ruar

y

Mar

ch

Apri

l

May

Ju

ne

GIP MAGIP MAGIP MAGIP MA

GIP Plan

GIP Reality

GIP Plan

GIP Reality

GCDP MAGCDP MAGCDP MAGCDP MA

GCDP Plan

GCDP Reality

5 AIESEC Slovakia

As per final plan fulfillment, we achieved

hand, we managed not to drop in comparison with previous term. Here you c

performance was much better in GCDP area

not hit even half of the plan –

05

1015202530354045

191

74

GIP



As per final plan fulfillment, we achieved 58%58%58%58% of the plan what is a bit sad, but on the other

hand, we managed not to drop in comparison with previous term. Here you c

performance was much better in GCDP area – 80%80%80%80% plan fulfillment, while in GIP area we did

– 39%39%39%39%.

GCDP REGCDP REGCDP REGCDP RE

GCDP Plan

GCDP Reality

175

366

140

214

GCDP GIP+GCDP

Fulfillment of the plan 11/12Fulfillment of the plan 11/12Fulfillment of the plan 11/12Fulfillment of the plan 11/12



of the plan what is a bit sad, but on the other

hand, we managed not to drop in comparison with previous term. Here you can see that the

plan fulfillment, while in GIP area we did

GCDP Plan

GCDP Reality

Plan 11/12

July - June

6 AIESEC Slovakia

The highest contributor in GIP areaGIP areaGIP areaGIP area

and LC Banska Bystrica.

In GGGGCDPCDPCDPCDP LC Comenius University

Bratislava and again LC Banska Bystrica.

15%

18% 21%



GIP areaGIP areaGIP areaGIP area was LC Bratislava, followed by LC Comenius University

LC Comenius University was the one that contributed the most, followed by

LC Banska Bystrica.

33% 26% 11%

GIP RGIP RGIP RGIP Realizationsealizationsealizationsealizations 2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012

BB BA CU KE NR TT

21% 30% 15%

GCDPGCDPGCDPGCDP RRRRealizationsealizationsealizationsealizations 2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012

BB BA CU KE NR TT



LC Comenius University

was the one that contributed the most, followed by LC

11% 10% 4%

15% 10%

7 AIESEC Slovakia

Within the area of outgoing programmes

contributed towards the results of AIESEC Slovakia as well as how much they were capable

to fulfill their LC plans.

As you can see we have an LC that managed to fulfill their plan on

Moreover majority of the LCs managed to fulfill more than 50% of their plans, what is also

reflected in final results in the area of outgoing programmes. In terms of contribution

towards results in OGP in general, there are two LCs that contributed the m

Comenius University, closely followed by

LCLCLCLC

BratislavaBratislavaBratislavaBratislava

Comenius Comenius Comenius Comenius UniversityUniversityUniversityUniversity

Banská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská Bystrica

KošiceKošiceKošiceKošice

NitraNitraNitraNitra

TrnavaTrnavaTrnavaTrnava

Below you can see how the LCs as well as Slovakia stands in terms of achieving their plans in

GIP and GCDP. This term we were more successful in GCDP area fulfilling

We have three LCs that performed very well in this area

goals, LC NitraLC NitraLC NitraLC Nitra hitting it and LC

63

1721 16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

BA BB

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

OG

PO

GP

OG

PO

GP

Plan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDP



Outgoing ProgramOutgoing ProgramOutgoing ProgramOutgoing Programssss

Within the area of outgoing programmes we will start with checking how the LCs


As you can see we have an LC that managed to fulfill their plan on 100%100%100%100%



towards results in OGP in general, there are two LCs that contributed the m

, closely followed by LC Bratislava.

FulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillment towards LC towards LC towards LC towards LC

plan (2011/2012plan (2011/2012plan (2011/2012plan (2011/2012))))

Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia

realityrealityrealityreality (2011/2012(2011/2012(2011/2012(2011/2012))))

BratislavaBratislavaBratislavaBratislava 35353535%%%% 25,725,725,725,7%%%%


69,869,869,869,8%%%% 26,426,426,426,4%%%%

Banská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská Bystrica 59,559,559,559,5%%%% 15,715,715,715,7%%%%

KošiceKošiceKošiceKošice 28282828%%%% 5555%%%%

70707070%%%% 15151515%%%%

TrnavaTrnavaTrnavaTrnava 100100100100%%%% 8888,6,6,6,6%%%%

2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012 general performancegeneral performancegeneral performancegeneral performance

elow you can see how the LCs as well as Slovakia stands in terms of achieving their plans in

This term we were more successful in GCDP area fulfilling

We have three LCs that performed very well in this area – LC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC Trnava overachieving their

hitting it and LC Banska BystricaBanska BystricaBanska BystricaBanska Bystrica missing only 1 realization.

33

12 148

2

126

21

214 9

0

83

CU KE NR TT PO Skia

Plan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDP 2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012



we will start with checking how the LCs


100%100%100%100% - LC Trnava.



towards results in OGP in general, there are two LCs that contributed the most – LC

elow you can see how the LCs as well as Slovakia stands in terms of achieving their plans in

This term we were more successful in GCDP area fulfilling 66%66%66%66% of our plan.

overachieving their

missing only 1 realization.

GCDP plan

GCDP reality

8 AIESEC Slovakia

In GIP area we clearly underperformed

have two LCs that performed relatively well

Comenius University Comenius University Comenius University Comenius University missing 4 realizations

LC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC Bratislava

40

20 20156

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

BA BB CU

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

OG

PO

GP

OG

PO

GP

Plan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GI

102 95103

64

42 36

Raised Matched Realized

BA BA BA BA OGOGOGOGPPPP



In GIP area we clearly underperformed – we fulfilled our plan only on 44%44%44%44%

have two LCs that performed relatively well – LC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC Trnava missing 1 realization and

missing 4 realizations. . . .

2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012 LCLCLCLCssss performanceperformanceperformanceperformance

LC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius University

13 164 0

119

165 7 3 0

52

KE NR TT PO Skia

Plan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GI P 2011/2012P 2011/2012P 2011/2012P 2011/2012

GIP plan

GIP reality

Plan

Reality

705955

37

Raised Matched

CUCUCUCU OGOGOGOG



44%44%44%44%.In this area we

missing 1 realization and LC LC LC LC


GIP plan

GIP reality

53

37

Realized

OGOGOGOGPPPP

Plan

Reality

9 AIESEC Slovakia

LC Banská LC Banská LC Banská LC Banská BystricaBystricaBystricaBystrica

LC KošiceLC KošiceLC KošiceLC Košice

4346

3737

23 22


BB OGPBB OGPBB OGPBB OGP

36

2825

18

9 7


KE OGPKE OGPKE OGPKE OGP

4

Raised



LC NitraLC NitraLC NitraLC Nitra

LC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC Trnava

IG PrešovIG PrešovIG PrešovIG Prešov

Plan

Reality

48

302922

Raised Matched

NR OGPNR OGPNR OGPNR OGP

Plan

Reality

20

14

23

19

Raised Matched

TT OGPTT OGPTT OGPTT OGP

2 2

43

0


PO OGPPO OGPPO OGPPO OGP

Plan

Reality



30

21

Realized

NR OGPNR OGPNR OGPNR OGP

Plan

Reality

12 12

Realized

TT OGPTT OGPTT OGPTT OGP

Plan

Reality

10 AIESEC Slovakia

Raising: As you can see on the results, raising was the most successful area out of the three

We managed to achieve 76%76%76%76% of our plan, what as I already mentioned also secured very nice

pipeline for upcoming term, leaving

realizations. Most successful

plan, followed by IG Prešov, managing to hit their raising plan.

Matching: Fulfillment of plan in matches is the lowest from the three. We

from the plan we set. As mentioned in almost every report, matching was our significant

problem in the term. As you can see that are two LCs that managed to overachieve their

plans – LC Trnava and IG Presov

managing to fulfill over 50% of their matching plans.

Realization: This term we fulfilled

as successful as we hoped, it directly influenced the realizations. Therefore we were not

even capable to sustain the number of OGP realizations from last year

In terms of realizations we have one LC that hit their goals

achieved 70% of their plan – LC Nitra

309

236

Raised



As you can see on the results, raising was the most successful area out of the three

of our plan, what as I already mentioned also secured very nice

pipeline for upcoming term, leaving 61 available for61 available for61 available for61 available formsmsmsms in the system for next term

successful LC in raising was LC Trnava, that overachieved their raising

, managing to hit their raising plan.

Fulfillment of plan in matches is the lowest from the three. We

the plan we set. As mentioned in almost every report, matching was our significant


IG Presov followed by LC Nitra and LC Comenius University

ing to fulfill over 50% of their matching plans.

This term we fulfilled 57%57%57%57% of our plan for realizations. As the matching was not


in the number of OGP realizations from last year – we dropped by

In terms of realizations we have one LC that hit their goals – LC Trnava

LC Nitra.

280

245

157140

Matched Realized

Skia OGPSkia OGPSkia OGPSkia OGP

Plan

Reality



As you can see on the results, raising was the most successful area out of the three.

of our plan, what as I already mentioned also secured very nice

in the system for next term

, that overachieved their raising

Fulfillment of plan in matches is the lowest from the three. We achieved 56%56%56%56%

the plan we set. As mentioned in almost every report, matching was our significant


LC Comenius University

of our plan for realizations. As the matching was not


we dropped by 11%11%11%11%.

LC Trnava and one that

Plan

Reality

11 AIESEC Slovakia

As in Outgoing Programs also in Incoming programs we will firstly check how the LCs


to fulfill their LC plans.

LCLCLCLC

BratislavaBratislavaBratislavaBratislava


Banská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská Bystrica

KošiceKošiceKošiceKošice

NitraNitraNitraNitra

TrnavaTrnavaTrnavaTrnava

As you can see, LCs which fulfilled their plan

overachieved the plan by 35%.

more. In terms of results of AIESEC Skia from the beginning of the term, LCs which mostly

contributed to the results are LC

To sum up general performance of LCs

performed in GCDP GCDP GCDP GCDP quite wellquite wellquite wellquite well

CU) overachieved it. Although

realizations, it can be said that this area

2011/2012.

16

88 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

BA BB

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

ICIC ICIC

Plan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDP



Incoming ProgramIncoming ProgramIncoming ProgramIncoming Programssss



FulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillment towards LC towards LC towards LC towards LC

plan (2011/2012plan (2011/2012plan (2011/2012plan (2011/2012))))

Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia

realityrealityrealityreality (2011/2012(2011/2012(2011/2012(2011/2012))))

BratislavaBratislavaBratislavaBratislava 36363636%%%% 23232323%%%%


135135135135%%%% 31313131%%%%

Banská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská Bystrica 100100100100%%%% 20202020%%%%

KošiceKošiceKošiceKošice 25252525%%%% 12121212%%%%

60606060%%%% 8888%%%%

TrnavaTrnavaTrnavaTrnava 67676767%%%% 5555%%%%

As you can see, LCs which fulfilled their plan are LC BB and LC CU

the plan by 35%. LC TT and LC NR managed to fulfill the plan at 60% and

. In terms of results of AIESEC Skia from the beginning of the term, LCs which mostly

sults are LC CU with 31%, LC BA with 23% and LC BB

2011/2012 2011/2012 2011/2012 2011/2012 general performancegeneral performancegeneral performancegeneral performance

eneral performance of LCs and SKia in 2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012, you can see that LCs

quite wellquite wellquite wellquite well as most of the LCs fulfilled ¾¾¾¾ of their planof their planof their planof their plan

though MC plan was not fulfilled and there is missing 10 more

that this area can be can be can be can be identified as one of the strongestidentified as one of the strongestidentified as one of the strongestidentified as one of the strongest

10

20

84

65

10

20

6 6 4

55

CU KE NR TT Skia

Plan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDP 2011/20122011/20122011/20122011/2012





and LC CU that even

the plan at 60% and

. In terms of results of AIESEC Skia from the beginning of the term, LCs which mostly

BB with 20%.

you can see that LCs

of their planof their planof their planof their plan, even 2 LCs (BB &

MC plan was not fulfilled and there is missing 10 more

identified as one of the strongestidentified as one of the strongestidentified as one of the strongestidentified as one of the strongest in

GCDP plan

GCDP reality

12 AIESEC Slovakia

In terms of GIP, only LC BB

LC BALC BALC BALC BA with 22222222 realizations and

performance, the first 8 months

March, it moved on and LCs s

LC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC Bratislava

LC BanskáLC BanskáLC BanskáLC Banská BystricaBystricaBystricaBystrica

31

795

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

BA BB

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

ICIC ICIC

Plan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GI

54 5347

35

26

17


BA BA BA BA 11/1211/1211/1211/12 ICICICICPPPP

2023

15

29

21

15


BB 11/12 ICPBB 11/12 ICPBB 11/12 ICPBB 11/12 ICP



fulfilled the plan for more for more for more for more thanthanthanthan 50%50%50%50%.... The biggest gap records

and LC KELC KELC KELC KE with 13131313 realizations. Generally speaking

irst 8 months was really weak, as there was almost no resul

LCs started to produce some results.


LC NitraLC NitraLC NitraLC Nitra

7

16

2 2

56

3 3 1 0

20

CU KE NR TT Skia

Plan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GI P 2011/2012P 2011/2012P 2011/2012P 2011/2012

Plan

Reality

26

20

3229

Raised Matched

CU 11/12CU 11/12CU 11/12CU 11/12

Plan

Reality

9

11

5

7

Raised Matched

NR 11/12 ICPNR 11/12 ICPNR 11/12 ICPNR 11/12 ICP



The biggest gap records

. Generally speaking about GIPi'

as there was almost no results but finally in


GIP plan

GIP reality

17

23

Realized

CU 11/12CU 11/12CU 11/12CU 11/12 ICICICICPPPP

Plan

Reality

10

6

Realized

NR 11/12 ICPNR 11/12 ICPNR 11/12 ICPNR 11/12 ICP

Plan

Reality

13 AIESEC Slovakia

LC KošiceLC KošiceLC KošiceLC Košice

Raising: In terms of raising, the strongest LCs which

LC BB, LC BA did not achieved the plan but contributed to na

and LC TT that fulfilled the plan at 100%

on LCs and nationally. The strongest LC in GCDP raising was LC CU and in GIP raising LC

BA. And what is more,

Congratulation guys!!Congratulation guys!!Congratulation guys!!Congratulation guys!!

Matching: Generally, we are missing

job in comparison with 53 matches

more ☺) of the plan is LC CULC CULC CULC CU

were even 4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match.4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match.4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match.4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match.

matching was again LC CU an

Realization: Generally, there are

It means that there is quite good pipelinequite good pipelinequite good pipelinequite good pipeline

the term there were few broken matche

much. Again, most of realizations were

realizations. LC CU realized the most GCDP internships and LC BA the most GIP

internships.

3844

36

128 9


KE 11/12 ICPKE 11/12 ICPKE 11/12 ICPKE 11/12 ICP



LC LC LC LC TrnavaTrnavaTrnavaTrnava

In terms of raising, the strongest LCs which overachieved their plans

did not achieved the plan but contributed to national results with 35 raises

and LC TT that fulfilled the plan at 100%. Raises were mainly for GCDP projects organized

The strongest LC in GCDP raising was LC CU and in GIP raising LC

is more, we managed to do more than 100 raises in ICPmore than 100 raises in ICPmore than 100 raises in ICPmore than 100 raises in ICP

we are missing 4 matches to magical 1004 matches to magical 1004 matches to magical 1004 matches to magical 100 but apart of that we did great

matches of previous term. The only LC with 100% fulfillment

LC CULC CULC CULC CU. The prevalence was clearly on GCDP side. On GIP, there

4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match.4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match.4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match.4 months (from Oct to Jan) without any match. The strongest LC in

LC CU and in GIP matching LC BB.

are difference 21 internships21 internships21 internships21 internships between matches and realizations

quite good pipelinequite good pipelinequite good pipelinequite good pipeline for next term, what is really positiv

broken matches. But ultimately it did not influence

Again, most of realizations were on GCDP sideon GCDP sideon GCDP sideon GCDP side in a ratio of 55 GCDP and 20 GIP

CU realized the most GCDP internships and LC BA the most GIP

Plan

Reality

67

6

4

Raised Matched

TT 11/12 ICPTT 11/12 ICPTT 11/12 ICPTT 11/12 ICP



verachieved their plans are LC CU,

tional results with 35 raises

. Raises were mainly for GCDP projects organized

The strongest LC in GCDP raising was LC CU and in GIP raising LC

more than 100 raises in ICPmore than 100 raises in ICPmore than 100 raises in ICPmore than 100 raises in ICP so

but apart of that we did great

. The only LC with 100% fulfillment (even

side. On GIP, there

The strongest LC in GCDP

etween matches and realizations.

or next term, what is really positive even during

influence the results so

in a ratio of 55 GCDP and 20 GIP

CU realized the most GCDP internships and LC BA the most GIP

6

4

Realized

TT 11/12 ICPTT 11/12 ICPTT 11/12 ICPTT 11/12 ICP

Plan

Reality

14 AIESEC Slovakia

In the following charts you can see some indicators of perfo

from October till May. Generally,

– the first and at the same time the

the strongest month and from February till Aprilfrom February till Aprilfrom February till Aprilfrom February till April

this period, Skia managed to make

142

120

Raised

114

0

100

200

300

400

16

53

10

27

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



SlovakiaSlovakiaSlovakiaSlovakia

you can see some indicators of performance which were r

. Generally, we can say that during the term, there were

time the biggest is from October till Decemberfrom October till Decemberfrom October till Decemberfrom October till December

from February till Aprilfrom February till Aprilfrom February till Aprilfrom February till April with March as the strongest month.

this period, Skia managed to make 1168 calls1168 calls1168 calls1168 calls, 352 meetings352 meetings352 meetings352 meetings and so 120 raises120 raises120 raises120 raises

135121

96

75

Matched Realized

Skia 11/12 ICPSkia 11/12 ICPSkia 11/12 ICPSkia 11/12 ICP

Plan

Reality

114

341

135

38

141190

147

62

CallsCallsCallsCalls GIP+GCDPGIP+GCDPGIP+GCDPGIP+GCDP

39

3

1612 10 8

4 62

26

70

All meetings All meetings All meetings All meetings

1st GIP MTG

1st GCDP MTG



rmance which were recorded

that during the term, there were 2 selling waves2 selling waves2 selling waves2 selling waves

from October till Decemberfrom October till Decemberfrom October till Decemberfrom October till December with November as

as the strongest month. During

120 raises120 raises120 raises120 raises (GIP+GCDP)(GIP+GCDP)(GIP+GCDP)(GIP+GCDP)....

Reality

1st GCDP MTG

15 AIESEC Slovakia

GIP:GIP:GIP:GIP: LCs managed to go for

meetings and 50 follow up meetings

average rate between 1st and follow

there is need to experience at least

raises is 11111111. It means that for 1 raise, we need

more detailed statistics below.

GCDP:GCDP:GCDP:GCDP: LCs managed to go for

meetings and 64 follow ups. In this case

average rate between 1st and follow

meeting, there is need to experience at least

and raises is 3,3,3,3,1111. It means that for 1 r

you are interested in detailed statistics, check the charts below.

16

536

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2,7

4,4

6,5

0,6

2,3 2,0

3,3

Ratio First MTG/Follow UPRatio First MTG/Follow UPRatio First MTG/Follow UPRatio First MTG/Follow UP



LCs managed to go for 202020207777 meeting meeting meeting meeting from October till May,from October till May,from October till May,from October till May, from which

50 follow up meetings. The strongest month was November

and follow-up meeting is 3333, it means that to set 1 follow

there is need to experience at least 3333 first meetings. The average rate between meeting

It means that for 1 raise, we needed to attend in at least 11

below.

LCs managed to go for 146146146146 meetings meetings meetings meetings from October to Aprilfrom October to Aprilfrom October to Aprilfrom October to April,,,, from which

In this case March was the strongest month

and follow-up meeting is 1111,,,,20202020, it means that to set 1 follow

meeting, there is need to experience at least 2222 first meetings. The average

. It means that for 1 raise, we needed to attend at least 4 meetings

you are interested in detailed statistics, check the charts below.

5339

316 12 10 8

12

6

5

76

3 5

MeetingsMeetingsMeetingsMeetingsFollow up GIP MTG1st GIP MTG

3,3

1,6


Ratio First MTG/Follow UP

23,0

32,5

7,54,0

8,0

Ratio All MTGs/RARatio All MTGs/RARatio All MTGs/RARatio All MTGs/RA



from which 157 were 1st

November with 65 meetings. The

, it means that to set 1 follow-up GIP meeting,

rate between meetings and

11 meetings. You can see

from which 82 were 1st

was the strongest month with 40 meetings. The

, it means that to set 1 follow-up GCDP

average rate between meetings

meetings. Again, in case

8,02,6 2,6 4,3

Ratio All MTGs/RARatio All MTGs/RARatio All MTGs/RARatio All MTGs/RA

Ratio All MTGs/RA

16 AIESEC Slovakia

Finally, I would like to highlight

April 106106106106 reception activitiesreception activitiesreception activitiesreception activities

such as competitions, trainings, LC visits, etc.

mentioned period 8 networking events8 networking events8 networking events8 networking events

That’sThat’sThat’sThat’s it fromit fromit fromit from our side! We hope you our side! We hope you our side! We hope you our side! We hope you

your LCyour LCyour LCyour LC and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term.

10

2712

8

0

10

20

30

40

50

0,8

3,4

0,8 0,6 0,5

1,9

0,0

1,0

2,0

3,0

4,0





, I would like to highlight some more statistics.... LCs organized for interns from October till

reception activitiesreception activitiesreception activitiesreception activities and 44 different kind44 different kind44 different kind44 different kindssss of activitiesof activitiesof activitiesof activities supporting ICP area

such as competitions, trainings, LC visits, etc. Furthermore, LCs managed to attend in

8 networking events8 networking events8 networking events8 networking events.

our side! We hope you our side! We hope you our side! We hope you our side! We hope you found thesefound thesefound thesefound these reportreportreportreportssss uuuu

and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term.

Katka & ZuskaKatka & ZuskaKatka & ZuskaKatka & Zuska

27

4 6 2

26

75

10

4

14

11

MeetingsMeetingsMeetingsMeetings

Follow up GCDP MTG1st GCDP MTG

1,9

0,6



3,7 3,52,3 2,0

Ratio All Ratio All Ratio All Ratio All MTGs/RAMTGs/RAMTGs/RAMTGs/RA



Cs organized for interns from October till

supporting ICP area generally

Furthermore, LCs managed to attend in

uuuusefulsefulsefulseful for you and for you and for you and for you and

and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term. and we wish you all the best in your term.

Follow up GCDP

1st GCDP MTG

6,0

3,1

1,3

MTGs/RAMTGs/RAMTGs/RAMTGs/RA

Ratio All MTGs/RA

aiesec slovakia_ gip & gcdp report 2011/2012

Documents

outgoing programincoming

global commungip

outgoing programmc

report useful

results of aiesec slovakia

global communpoint of

reality of incoming

aiesec slovakiahi