Download - AIESEC in Malaysia - SONA Q3 2015 Report
SONA Q3 Report 15/16
AIESEC in Malaysia
introduction
• All information in the current document refers to the timeframe between the 1st of July and the 30th of September of 2015, more commonly known as Quarter 3 (or Q3) of 2015. • The information was provided by the 13 LCs through the AIESEC in Malaysia Q3 SONA Survey and also by the 5 SUs through the Q3 SONA for SUs Survey. • Other information sources used in the present document:
• LC XPP and Team Minimum trackers • National S&S Tracker • Monthly Finance Trackers
• The information was collected by functional area but is presented through broader organizational elements. This is because JDs are integrated in different roles from LC to LC (i.e., AIESEC in TU has a BD department whereas other LCs integrate it either in iGTP, MarComm or the LCP herself) and also because it gives you, the reader, a better big picture understanding of the state of AIESEC in Malaysia iregardless of what functional area you are currently allocated to. • The elements are the following:
• External Engagement (p.3-11) • Talent Capacity (p.12-17) • Sustainability (p.17-22) • Exchange Management (p.23-33) • Specialized Units (p.34-36)
• You should not just read and think alone about the results; • All results should be discussed in EBs – the mindset should be “how can I improve” instead of justifying the
reason why those are your results. If you justify you are not being constructive and you’re just deceiving yourself. This will not lead to growth.
• Each element should also be discussed by the teams in the functional areas which concern them. By doing this we are including all the members of AIESEC in Malaysia in the way we work in our LCs and in cultivating awareness towards the overall organizational reality.
statistical information
how is the information organized?
how to capitalize on sOna to make my lc grow?
external engagement
CU
TU
SU
UTP
USM
UM UPM
UNMC
UUM
UKM
offline (83,7%)
online (16,3%)
# of applications for EP
546 applications for am
3
external engagement
offline (41,7%) online
(58,3%)
# of applications for EP
127 applications for am
UKM
UUM TU
UTP
USM
UPM
4
external engagement
offline (67,7%)
online (32,3%)
# of applications for tmp
2031 applications for am
USM
UUM
TU
UNMC
UTM
SU
CU
UNIMAS
UTP
UM UPM UKM
5
external engagement outcampus performance
UTP 35
UPM 9
UNMC 5
UUM 2
USM 1
TU 19
UNIMAS 4
UTP 2
UKM 5
UPM 3
52 outcampus gcp ep applications
9,5% of total applications
25 outcampus members recruited
3,9% of total membership
8 outcampus gtp ep applications
6,3% of total applications
LC operations in…
UMP University Malaysia Terengganu
UKM GMI, SEGI, UniKL, UITM, MMU
SU KBU
LC operations in…
TU INTI, HELP
UNMC LimKokWing University
UNIMAS UCTS, Segi, UiTM 6
external engagement expansion
LC su target(s) engagement
USM KDU (Penang) Yet to start
UTP UPSI, UiTM UPSI – report submitted to advisor
UMP UMT (Terengganu) UMT – focus EP Reintegration
UPM - UCSI - PIC met, will proceed with
permission request and info booths
UKM GMI GMI - Application
TU HELP HELP – SU Development
UNMC UTeM UTeM – no progress
CU UMS UMS – letter sent to set up OCR
UNIMAS Swinburne, Segi Swinburne – preparing for EPRD
7
external engagement
LC # of media appearances
# of external events
social media activity
# of partners
participation in external
events
UUM 1 5 3 2
USM 1 2 0 2
UTP 0 1 0 0
UMP 0 0 Instagram 0 0
UM 0 1 Twitter, Blog 0 0
UPM 0 1 7 1
UKM 2 2 2 0
SU 0 0 0 0
TU 1 0 Blog 9 10
UNMC 1 0 1 0
UTM 0 0 1 0
CU 1 2 1 0
UNIMAS 0 1 0 1
general indicators
8
external engagement
LC # of Fb likes daily average of engaged
people
engagement rate
UUM 1287 85 0.07
USM 728 30 0.04
UTP 1153 412 0.36
UMP 1166 500 0.43
UM 2502 150 0.06
UPM 1359 391 0.29
UKM 1350 117 0.09
SU 937 56 0.06
TU 871 80 0.09
UNMC 1211 1 0.00
UTM 1079 50 0.05
CU 424 - * -
UNIMAS 1872 21 0.01
* information not provided
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
UU
M
USM
UTP
UM
P
UM
UPM
UK
M
SU
TU
UN
MC
UTM
CU
UN
IMA
S
# of FB Likes vs. Daily Average of engaged people
facebook performance
9
external engagement organizational health vs. performance
UMP
UTP TU
USM
UUM
SU
UPM
CU UKM
UM
UTM
UNIMAS
UNMC
10
external engagement LC inferences
UUM Has low efficiency in converting large number of external events into applications for Exchange programs. MRD on the other hand has had a very positive outcome. Need to refocus Mkt strategies to support GCP and improve daily engagement on Facebook.
USM Great on-campus presence for MRD can simply be re-focused to now attack oGCP recruitments. Room to improve in overall performance indicators for Facebook (both number and likes and daily engagement) and formation of strategic partnerships to
promote program growth.
UTP A lot of success with offline channels for GCP EPs and a good health in terms of FB engagement. Needs to improve on general performance indicators by diversifying Mkt strategies (organizing events, participation in other organization events under AIESEC)
to sustain high goals.
UMP Needs to focus on physical channels, where performance indicators are at a critical stage. Good Facebook engagement has not translated into any Exchange applications, which further explains the need to invest in on-campus channels
UM Has the most diversified online marketing strategies out of any LC, but most of its applications come from offline channels, hence the best bet is to improve performance indicators here (external events, etc.)
UPM Can leverage good partnership situation to engage in more external events. Can capitalize more on its current moderately good health in terms of Facebook engagement.
UKM A lot of success in engagement through online channels, especially in oGTP Marketing. Needs to capitalize on offline channels by organizing more external-oriented Exchange promotion-based events to boost GCP applications.
SU Needs to diversify Marketing strategies and improve performance indicators to sustain its moderate results under threat of stagnation.
TU Incomparable strength in the field of external relations needs to be capitalized to improve performance indicators on the MarComms side (i.e., using partners to organize meaningful external events)
UNMC Facebook engagement is at a critical stage. Less days of gap between posts and incentivizing members to share and like can improve FB exposure.
UTM Clear focus on MRD until end of Q3 needs now to be completely shifted to Winter Peak recruitments, judging from the poor performance in garnering applications for GCP.
CU Managed to run promotion for MRD and GCP simultaneously, distinguishing itself as 2nd most performant in terms of # of applications for GCP EP. Can invest in online Marketing to boost Facebook exposure.
UNIMAS Margin for improvement in overall performance indicators for offline channels (external events and engagement with other on-campus organizations) and facebook page engagement.
overall customized inferences
11
talent capacity
am has 638 members
UTP 79
USM 60
UUM 25
UNIMAS 47 CU
47
UTM 91
UNMC 29
TU 98 SU
65
UKM 22
UPM 23
UM 27
UMP 25
front office
(34,5%) back office
(65,5%)
highest front office weight
1. SU (83% vs. 17%)
2. UM (74,1% vs. 25,9%)
highest back office weight
1. UMP (56% vs. 44%)
2. UPM (52,6% vs. 47,8%)
366 members (57,4%) attended
induction during q3
TOTAL # OF LC MEMBERS
12
talent capacity
LC oGCP productivity
igtp productivity
igcp productivity
ogtp productivity
overall productivity
UUM 0,06 - 2,4 0 0,52
USM 0,07 0,5 0,1 0 0,12
UTP 0,65 0 0 0 0,25
UMP 0,43 - 0 - 0,12
UM 0,31 0 0,06 1 0,22
UPM 0,33 0,63 0,71 0 0,78
UKM 0,38 0,25 0,25 - 0,27
SU 0,13 0,13 0,17 - 0,14
TU 0,14 0,08 0,25 0 0,13
UNMC 0,88 0,5 1,5 0 0,83
UTM 0,14 0 0,27 0 0,14
CU 0,21 - 0,53 - 0,32
UNIMAS 0,28 - 0,41 - 0,32
lc productivity
National Productivity: !
0,32 oGCP
Productivity:!
0,31
iGTP Productivity:!
0,23
iGCP Productivity:!
0,51
oGTP Productivity:!
0,13 13
talent capacity team minimum fulfillment
team
76,8%
Most: UTP, UKM (100%) Least: USM (37,7%)
training
79,5%
Most: UTP (100%) Least: UKM (66,7%)
plan
79,3%
Most: UTP, USM, UKM (100%) Least: UPM (47,8%)
jd
79,4%
Most: UTP, USM, CU, UM (100%) Least: UNMC, SU, UKM (50%)
tracking & coaching
53,1%
Most: USM (77,1%) Least: CU (30%)
evaluation & reflection
49,4%
Most: UKM (100%) Least: USM (0%)
14
talent capacity general indicators
LC # of total IXPs
1. UNIMAS 31
2. USM 13
3. UMP 11
Total # of IXPs !
107
membership retention
93,4% 0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 tlp positions
vs. applicants National Average: 1,46
37 Eps recruited as members
30 tmp on exchange
40 tlp on exchange
UNIMAS 14
UMP 7
UTM 3
UNIMAS 7
CU 7
USM 7
SU 5
UNIMAS 10
UUM 6
USM 6
UNMC 6
15
talent capacity organizational health vs. performance
UNIMAS
USM
UNMC
UPM
UTP CU
UMP
UTM
SU
UUM
UM
UKM
TU
16
talent capacity LC inferences
UUM Extremely unbalanced productivity indicators between oGCP and iGCP reveal a need to focus TM/HR strategies on focusing on and supporting Global Citizen recruitments.
USM Should promote post-experience evaluation and reflection meetings and activities with members.
UTP Room for improvement in creating integrated experiences by reintegrating EPs into the organization. Outperforms other LCs in competitiveness for TLP roles but has very low efficiency indicators.
UMP Should reconsider area allocations as front office needs to achieve a manpower edge over back office areas.
UM Critical state of membership retention rate reveals need for a focus on TMP Experience delivery by supporting leadership development of TLP and providing TMP with more evaluation and reflection opportunities.
UPM Allocations of new members need to be extremely heavy on the front office side, as LC structure is currently unbalanced.
UKM Focus on L&D for both current members and incoming newies to boost productivity indicators. Team Minimums tracker reveals the need to quickly finalize JD requirements for all members and to invest in the Training component.
SU LC structure heavily implying front office allocations may jeopardize development of back-office areas. Consider moving more experienced TMP/TLP to support back office growth.
TU Good performance in recruitment in Q3 needs to now translate in an increased focus in L&D to boost low productivity indicators.
UNMC High productivity is derived from contradicting factors: moderately good performance in oGCP against fact that MRD is not over yet. Should focus on effective induction to new members to ensure fast mobilization of HR towards winter
peak operations under threat of jeopardizing productivity indicators during Q4.
UTM Lacking ability to convert HR number into operational performance. Performance across other areas reveals need to invest in internal communication to push all members to become more action-driven and kickstart operations.
CU Simultaneous performance between MRD and GCP EP recruitment allows opportunity to engage new members with operations and motivation through quick results. Focus on simplified and effective L&D processes to capitalize on
head-start towards Winter Peak achievement.
UNIMAS Leverage great performance in IXP creation to support growth in oGCP, as productivity indicators here are dropping.
overall customized inferences
17
sustainability
LC expenses (operations)
expenses (non-
operations)
revenue (exchange)
revenue (non-x)
UUM 14132,41 RM 5574,63 RM 20085 RM 100 RM
USM 2834,99 RM 17356,01 RM 2200 RM 523,2 RM
UTP 1109 RM 13194,15 RM 19800 RM 69,73 RM
UMP 1834,25 RM 10833,76 RM 600 RM 0 RM
UM --- --- --- ---
UPM 10479,7 RM 10833,59 RM 9930 RM 1596 RM
UKM 677,12 RM 8674,11 RM 7200 RM 242 RM
SU 3450,22 RM 5353,21 RM 6411 RM 842 RM
TU 13560,99 RM 7495,48 RM 27910 RM 407.4 RM
UNMC 6919,29 RM 19848,26 RM 4770 RM 5640 RM
UTM 1219,26 RM 12866,58 RM 5650 RM 144 RM
CU 5900 RM 5921,02 RM 1100 RM 400 RM
UNIMAS 0 RM 6161,47 RM 7600 RM 1110 RM
revenue and expenses
exchange (90,8%)
non-x (8,2%)
revenue streams
operations (33,1%)
cost structure
non-ops (66,9%)
18
sustainability payment times and financial health
GCP TN Takers
National Average: !
42 days Best: USM, UNMC (7 d) Worst: UTM (160 d)
GTP TN Takers
National Average: !
14 days Best: USM, UNMC (7 d) Worst: UTM (30 d)
EPs
National Average: !
3.7 days Best: UPM (1 d) Worst: UNMC, UMP (7 d)
sponsors
National Average: !
27.6 days Best: UNMC, USM (7 d) Worst: UPM (90 d)
LC total cash
cluster (Q3)
health (fcm)*
UUM 55 K IV Over
USM 20.4 K IV Under
UTP 30.6 K III Under
UMP 10 K V Under
UM 33.2 K IV Good
UPM 42.1 K IV Over
UKM 5.7 K IV Under
SU 18 K V Good
TU 21.5 K IV Good
UNMC 20.9 K IV Under
UTM 330 RM V Under
CU 7.1 K V Under
UNIMAS 12.1 K V Good
* FCM = Finance Clustering Model
19
sustainability incoming global citizen
LC income tn raising
income sponsors
income other
UUM --- --- 20030 RM
USM --- --- 2500 RM
UTP --- --- ---
UMP --- --- ---
UM --- --- 7129,7 RM
UPM 2100 RM 1000 RM ---
UKM 150 RM 28000 RM 750 RM
SU --- 1550 RM 411 RM
TU 7530 RM 500 RM 885,78 RM
UNMC 2315 RM --- 525 RM
UTM --- --- 700 RM
CU 400 RM 1100 RM ---
UNIMAS --- --- 2000 RM
expenses transport
expenses accomm.
expenses food
expenses other
5751,2 RM 3164 RM 4493,2 RM 5296,61 RM
482, 7 RM 4400 RM --- 294,46 RM
--- --- --- ---
--- --- --- 1723,4 RM
1216,7 RM 4059,8 RM 1990,5 RM ---
1093,9 RM 6840 RM 922,75 RM 5338 RM
1021 RM 4294,5 RM --- 52,75 RM
866,9 RM 463,93 RM --- ---
884,05 RM 7469,3 RM 33 RM 213,99 RM
347,8 RM 3000 RM --- ---
900 RM --- --- ---
1200 RM 4400 RM 983,8 RM 182,45 RM
7325,9 RM 6070 RM 348,6 RM 3403,4 RM
*Green = Program is self-sustainable; Yellow = Program is at or almost at a break-even point; Red = Program is currently unsustainable 20
sustainability organizational health vs. performance
UUM
UTP
SU TU
* UM not included due to lack of FIN
data
UNIMAS
UPM
USM
CU UMP
UKM
UTM
21
sustainability LC inferences
UUM Highest direct investment in operations in Malaysia and steady flow of Exchange revenue. Perfect opportunity to keep on taking investment risks to maintain exponential Exchange growth.
USM Huge discrepancy between investment on operations and expenses in non-Operations. Should review investment plan/budget to ensure more aggressive direct investments.
UTP Should conduct budget review with EB, has not directly reinvested its huge amounts of revenue into Exchange operations
UMP Needs to find alternative financing ways to support iGCP before increasing results. Should focus on oGCP operations to increase revenue from Exchange.
UM Decentralizing Finance role from LCP is the only way to move forward, connect back with the Finance network and avoid data absence.
UPM Performing moderately good in terms of Exchange revenue but overburdened by non-Operations costs, which are as high as the LCs that organized national and regional conferences. Should reassess cost structures to avoid deficit.
UKM Should conduct budget review with EB. almost no direct investment on Operations and unsustainable non-operations expenses
SU Solid financial health, can start doing small leaps of expansion by taking risks and investing directly in Exchange operations.
TU 2nd highest direct investment in operations has payed off, as it became the LC with the most Exchange revenue. Should continue on stimulating operations with direct investments.
UNMC Overburdened by non-Operations costs (NATCON), needs to sustain recovery on profitable Exchange programmes - oGCP and iGTP and adjust investments accordingly.
UTM Even with receivables from RIC, it is still in a critical position. Needs to place sustainability as iGCP’s focus and redirect investment towards oGCP. Should conduct budget review with EB. Payment time of GCP TN is way above national
average.
CU Should reduce non-operation Exchanges and focus on cash cow Exchange programmes. Investment should follow accordingly.
UNIMAS Should capitalize on its favorable financial health to provide direct investments to operations in order to keep them from stagnating.
overall customized inferences
0
10
20
30
40
USM UTP UMP UM UPM UKM SU TU UTM
application
open/IP
match
realization
Conversion Rate: !
31,3%
Conversion Rate: !
42%
Conversion Rate: !
85,7%
Top: UKM (70%) Bottom: USM (13%)
Top: TU (68,2%) Bottom: CU (7%)
Top: UTM (100%) Bottom: UTP (57,9%)
Average # of days (App -> Open/IP):
!
11,4 days
Average # of days (Open/IP -> MA):
!
17,7 days
Average # of days (MA-> RE):
!
29,3 DAYS
0
10
20
30
40
USM UTP UMP UKM SU TU CU
exchange management global citizen outgoing
23
meeting
open
match
realization
Conversion Rate: !
11%
Conversion Rate: !
40,1%
Conversion Rate: !
33,9%
Top: UTM (50%) Bottom: UPM, UTP, USM, UM, UKM (n/a)
Top: TU (100%) Bottom: UPM, UTP, UM (n/a)
Top: UKM(100%) Bottom: UTP, USM, UM, TU (n/a)
Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):
!
10,6 days
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):
!
93,6 days
0
5
10
15
USM UPM UKM TU UNMC
0 100 200 300
USM
UPM
UKM SU
TU
UNMC
UTM
exchange management global talent incoming
24
0
10
20
USM
UTP
UPM
UKM SU
TU
UNMC
UTM
meeting
open
match
realization
Conversion Rate: !
53%
Conversion Rate: !
66,1%
Conversion Rate: !
91,1%
Top: UUM, TU (100%) Bottom: USM (13%)
Top: UPM (100%) Bottom: UM, UKM (20%)
Top: USM, UMP, UM, UPM, UKM, SU, TU,UNMC, UTM (100%) Bottom: UNIMAS (50%)
Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):
!
9,8 days
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE):
!
33,5 days
0
50
100
UUM
USM
UMP
UPM
UKM TU
UNMC
UNIM
AS
exchange management global citizen incoming
25
exchange management
application
open/IP
match
realization
Conversion Rate: !
78,2%
No Mas for Q3 (0%)
Conversion Rate: !
100%
Top: UNMC (100%) Bottom: TU (62,5%)
Average # of days (IP -> MA):
!
30 days
Average # of days (MA –> RE):
!
95 days
UUM only LC with Realizations (100%)
# of people at Info Sessions:
!
11
# of people at selection meeting:
!
22
% of Podio applications from planned background:
!
56,8%
global talent outgoing
26
exchange management global entrepreneur
incoming outgoing # of meetings for GE:
!
4 # of meetings for GE:
!
10,6 days 9,5% of Total
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
USM UTP UM UPM UKM SU TU UNMC UTM
Meetings
IP
MA
RE
Meetings !
307 Open/IP
!
194 MA
!
152 RE !
90 Planned Goals for
GE Incoming for Q4
27
exchange management podio expertise
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
UUM
USM
UTP
UMP
UM
UPM
UKM
SU
TU
UNMC
UTM
CU
UNIMAS
iGCP
iGTP
oGCP
National Average for oGCP:
!
7,5 / 10
National Average for iGTP:
!
5,5 / 10
National Average for iGCP:
!
5,9 / 10 28
exchange management overall performance
232
50
71
349
10
3
38
25
81
10
20
63
0
10
169
2
OGCP
IGTP
OGTP
IGCP
app/meeting open/IP match realize
-27,5% +31,5% +122,3%
+100% +78,6% -28,6%
-7,7% +268,2% -25%
+66,7% -400% -60%
*values below final results represent growth or decrease from q3 of 2014 29
12
0 UNIMAS - 8
11
7 UUM, USM, TU - 2 UNIMAS - 4
exchange management
8
3
1
6
OGCP
IGTP
OGTP
IGCP
break match
break re
TU - 3 TU - 1
TU - 2 UM - 2
value delivery indicators
119
igcp
EPs went on a border run for
VISA extensions.
47
igCp
LC buddies were recruited
for the EPs.
76,5% EPs had full
preparation for the experience.
igcp
14
igTp
Re-Raises with previous TN
takers.
30
exchange management lead for eps implementation
Ogcp lead flow
39,9%
IgTp lead flow
igcp lead flow OgTp lead flow
Top Implementer: UUM (70%) Focuses for Q4: In Progress (7 LCs) Matched (3 LCs) Realized (3 LCs)
Top Implementer: UKM (100%) Focuses for Q4: In Progress (3 LCs) Matched (7 LCs) Realized (3 LCs)
45,4%
18,4%
Top Implementer: UUM (50%) Focuses for Q4: Application (2 LCs) In Progress (3 LCs) Marched (3 LCs)
Top Implementer: UNMC (70%) Focuses for Q4: Application (1 LC) In Progress (2 LCs) Marched (4 LCs) Realized (1 LC) Re-Integration (1 LC)
59,6%
31
exchange management organizational health vs. performance
UNIMAS
UNMC
UUM
UPM
UTP
UTM
USM
TU
UM
SU
UKM
CU
UMP
32
exchange management LC inferences
UUM High sustainability and productivity in iGCP leaves room to take risks to support other programs. Potential to grow in oGTP.
USM Low conversion from meeting to open on iGTP side and from application to open on oGCP side reveals need to review sales process and education plan to develop a better sense of closure in sales.
UTP Stagnation across all programs except oGCP (only program with matches in Q3) might imply the need to invest in internal communication and driving a sense of urgency towards winter peak goal achievement, as well as reinforcing L&D and clarity of
the why for the newie sales forces.
UMP Stagnating operations should be remedied by a clear focus on a single cash cow Exchange program (oGCP) that reflects the LC’s most comprehensive resource allocation.
UM Highest average time between oGCP application and open on EXPA. Combination of sales trainings and a more closing attitude towards EP candidates and also training for the LC on Podio management, as this indicator is currently low, are possible focuses.
UPM L&D plan for iGTP newies will be detrimental to ensure holistic growth of operations and enable the attainment of the LC’s ambitious iGTP Exchange goals for Winter peak.
UKM High drop in operational intensity from previous Quarter leads to need for instilling a sense of urgency towards winter peak achievement. Internal communication and Team Leader leadership through action and example is key to this process.
SU Solid back-office health and sustainability of iGCP projects leave room for risk-taking initiatives on oGCP side to move LC into Cluster IV.
TU iGTP performance is falling behind expected goals for Winter Peak while oGCP registers growth in performance compared to Q3 of 2014. Resource allocation after RIC will be detrimental to ensure holistic growth of the LC.
UNMC High iGTP potential coupled with extremely low average number of days between contract signing and realization leaves room for heavier investments on this focus program. Podio training for oGCP is necessary when looking at the low indicators here.
UTM Gap between iGTP performance and ambitious Winter peak goals – sales training and instilling a sense of urgency should be immediate next action steps. LC is registering one of the highest drops in performance compared to Q3 in 2014 (13 Matches in
2015 against 24 in 2014).
CU Highest national average time between open applications on EXPA for GCP EPs and Match. Focus on TN Sales with emphasis on our EYPs to avoid customer indecision and confusion with the database.
UNIMAS Great performance in oGCP has been positively capitalized for health indicators such as IXP creation through reintegration. Further capitalization and promoter showcasing canl enable exponential growth for the program.
overall customized inferences
# of applications for GCP EP
17,9% of AM Total
specialized units performance & health indicators
73 su members UNIMAP
16
USMEC 10
Pekan 5
UTHM 17
UTAr 25
11,4% of AM membership
front office (58,8%)
back office (41,2%)
UTHM 66 USMEC
91
UTAR 98
UNIMAP 12
pekan 5
# of applications
for GLP
13,4% of AM Total
Su Open/IP MA RE
UNIMAP 0 0 15
USMEC 0 0 19
UTAR 2 1 2
0 0 10
Pekan 0 0 7
UTHM 5 1 7
exchange performance
34
UTAR 91
uthm 6 pekan
1
OGCP OGCP OGCP
OGCP
OGCP
iGCP
specialized units organizational health vs. performance
UTAR
UTHM
USMEC
pekan
unimap
35
LC inferences
UNIMAP Should focus on external engagement initiatives and capitalize on good oGCP performance through experience showcasing to push for even more operations. Brand positioning and perception is a key detrimental strategy for Q4.
USMEC Should capitalize on good oGCP performance through experience showcasing and reintegration to both improve Talent Capacity and brand positioning within campus.
UTAR Focus on achieving financial self-reliance is a possibility by stabilizing sustainable iGCP realizations. Fulfills Exchange criteria to become an LC and should actively press towards this goal in short-term strategies.
PEKAN Continue investing on only oGCP as a means to achieve positive organizational health indicators and a good symbiotic relationship with home LC. All new members recruited in Q4 should be induced and integrated into Global
Citizen Outgoing-related initiatives and projects.
UTHM Can place sense of urgency on newly recruited members to overturn productivity indicators and help boost oGCP operations. Should rather place more focus on oGCP growth rather than allocating huge chunks of HR into iGCP to
secure solid program health of our cash cow oGCP.
specialized units overall customized inferences
36