SONA AIESEC in Malaysia
15/16
Q3 Report
introduction statistical information • 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
how is the information organized? • 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)
how to capitalize on sOna to make my lc grow? • 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.
external engagement UUM UNMC
CU
USM
TU
# of applications for EP
SU UKM
UPM UM
546 applications for am
UTP
online (16,3%) offline (83,7%) 3
external engagement TU
UUM USM UTP
UKM
127 applications for am
# of applications for EP
UPM offline (41,7%)
online (58,3%) 4
external engagement UNIMAS UUM
CU UTM UNMC
USM
# of applications for tmp
TU SU UKM 2031 applications for am
online (32,3%)
UTP UPM
UM
offline (67,7%) 5
external engagement outcampus performance
UNMC UUM USM 5
2
UTP
1
2
UNIMAS 4
UPM
UPM
9
UKM UTP
5
TU
35
3
19
52 outcampus gcp ep applications
25 outcampus members recruited
8 outcampus gtp ep applications
9,5% of total applications
3,9% of total membership
6,3% of total applications
LC
operations in…
LC
operations in…
UMP
University Malaysia Terengganu
TU
INTI, HELP
UKM
GMI, SEGI, UniKL, UITM, MMU
UNMC
LimKokWing University
SU
KBU
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 general indicators LC
# of media appearances
# of external events
# of partners
participation in external events
UUM
1
5
3
2
USM
1
2
0
2
UTP
0
1
0
0
UMP
0
0
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
9
10
UNMC
1
0
1
0
UTM
0
0
1
0
CU
1
2
1
0
UNIMAS
0
1
0
1
social media activity
Blog
8
external engagement facebook performance
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
2000 1500 1000 500 0 UNIMAS
412
CU
1153
UTM
UTP
UNMC
0.04
TU
30
SU
728
UKM
USM
2500
UPM
0.07
UM
85
UMP
1287
3000
UTP
UUM
engagement rate
USM
# of Fb likes
UUM
LC
daily average of engaged people
# of FB Likes vs. Daily Average of engaged people
9
external engagement organizational health vs. performance
TU UTP UPM UNIMAS
USM SU
CU
UUM
UKM
UNMC
UM UTM
UMP
10
external engagement overall customized inferences 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 oncampus organizations) and facebook page engagement.
11
talent capacity TOTAL # OF LC MEMBERS
front office (34,5%)
UNIMAS UUM 47
CU
25
USM
47
60
UTP
UTM
back office (65,5%)
79
91
UMP 25
UNMC
UM
29
TU 98
SU 65
UKM 22
UPM
27
highest front office weight
highest back office weight
1. SU (83% vs. 17%) 2. UM (74,1% vs. 25,9%)
1. UMP (56% vs. 44%) 2. UPM (52,6% vs. 47,8%)
23
am has 638 members
366 members
(57,4%) attended induction during q3
12
talent capacity lc productivity 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
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
76,8%
79,3%
79,4%
team
plan
jd
Most: UTP, UKM (100%) Least: USM (37,7%)
Most: UTP, USM, UKM (100%) Least: UPM (47,8%)
Most: UTP, USM, CU, UM (100%) Least: UNMC, SU, UKM (50%)
79,5%
53,1%
49,4%
training
tracking & coaching
evaluation & reflection
Most: UTP (100%) Least: UKM (66,7%)
Most: USM (77,1%) Least: CU (30%)
Most: UKM (100%) Least: USM (0%)
14
talent capacity general indicators
membership retention 93,4%
UNIMAS USM 7 7
CU 7
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
5
37 Eps recruited as members
National Average: 1,46
UMP 7
UNIMAS 14
SU
tlp positions vs. applicants
UTM 3
30 tmp on exchange
UNIMAS 10
Total # of IXPs
UUM 6
!
107
USM
UNMC 6
40 tlp on exchange
6
LC
# of total IXPs
1. UNIMAS
31
2. USM
13
3. UMP
11
15
talent capacity organizational health vs. performance
UNMC UPM TU
UUM
UNIMAS
UM USM
UKM
SU CU
UTP
UTM UMP
16
talent capacity overall customized inferences 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.
17
sustainability revenue and expenses LC
expenses (operations)
expenses (nonoperations)
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
non-x (8,2%)
exchange (90,8%)
revenue streams
non-ops (66,9%)
operations (33,1%)
cost structure
18
sustainability payment times and financial health LC
total cash
cluster (Q3)
health (fcm)*
UUM
55 K
IV
Over
GCP TN Takers
EPs
National Average:
National Average:
USM
20.4 K
IV
Under
42 days
3.7 days
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
!
Best: USM, UNMC (7 d) Worst: UTM (160 d)
GTP TN Takers
!
Best: UPM (1 d) Worst: UNMC, UMP (7 d)
sponsors
National Average:
National Average:
14 days
27.6 days
!
Best: USM, UNMC (7 d) Worst: UTM (30 d)
!
Best: UNMC, USM (7 d) Worst: UPM (90 d)
* FCM = Finance Clustering Model
19
sustainability incoming global citizen LC
income tn raising
income sponsors
income other
expenses transport
expenses accomm.
expenses food
expenses other
UUM
---
---
20030 RM
5751,2 RM
3164 RM
4493,2 RM
5296,61 RM
USM
---
---
2500 RM
482, 7 RM
4400 RM
---
294,46 RM
UTP
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
UMP
---
---
---
---
---
---
1723,4 RM
UM
---
---
7129,7 RM
1216,7 RM
4059,8 RM
1990,5 RM
---
UPM
2100 RM
1000 RM
---
1093,9 RM
6840 RM
922,75 RM
5338 RM
UKM
150 RM
28000 RM
750 RM
1021 RM
4294,5 RM
---
52,75 RM
SU
---
1550 RM
411 RM
866,9 RM
463,93 RM
---
---
TU
7530 RM
500 RM
885,78 RM
884,05 RM
7469,3 RM
33 RM
213,99 RM
UNMC
2315 RM
---
525 RM
347,8 RM
3000 RM
---
---
UTM
---
---
700 RM
900 RM
---
---
---
CU
400 RM
1100 RM
---
1200 RM
4400 RM
983,8 RM
182,45 RM
UNIMAS
---
---
2000 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 SU
* UM not included due to lack of FIN data
TU
UNIMAS
UPM
UUM
UKM UTP USM
UTM
UMP
CU
21
sustainability overall customized inferences 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.
exchange management global citizen outgoing
application
!
Conversion Rate:
11,4 days
!
31,3% Top: Bottom:
open/IP
40 30
UKM (70%)
USM (13%)
20 10
Conversion Rate:
0
!
USM UTP UMP
42% Top: Bottom:
match
UM UPM UKM
SU
TU
UTM
Average # of days (Open/IP -> MA):
TU (68,2%)
!
CU (7%)
17,7 days 40
Conversion Rate:
30
85,7%
20
!
realization
Average # of days (App -> Open/IP):
Top: Bottom:
UTM (100%) UTP (57,9%)
10 0 USM
UTP
UMP
UKM
SU
TU
CU
Average # of days (MA-> RE): !
29,3 DAYS
23
exchange management global talent incoming !
!
11% 10
Conversion Rate:
5
40,1%
0
!
USM
Top: TU (100%) Bottom: UPM, UTP, UM (n/a)
UKM
TU
UNMC
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE): !
93,6 days
Conversion Rate: !
UTM
UNMC
TU
Top: UKM(100%) Bottom: UTP, USM, UM, TU (n/a)
300 200 100 0 SU
33,9%
realization
UPM
UKM
match
15
UPM
open
Top: UTM (50%) Bottom: UPM, UTP, USM, UM, UKM (n/a)
10,6 days
USM
meeting
Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):
Conversion Rate:
24
exchange management global citizen incoming !
!
53%
Conversion Rate: !
66,1%
match
Top: Bottom: (20%)
0
UPM (100%)
UM, UKM
Average # of days (Contract signed -> RE): !
33,5 days
Conversion Rate: !
realization
91,1%
100
Top: USM, UMP, UM, UPM, UKM, SU, TU,UNMC, UTM (100%) Bottom: UNIMAS (50%)
50 0 UUM USM UMP UPM UKM TU UNMC UNIMAS
open
10 UNMC UTM
USM (13%)
20
TU
Bottom:
(100%)
UPM UKM SU
UUM, TU
USM
Top:
9,8 days
UTP
meeting
Average # of days (Meeting -> Open):
Conversion Rate:
25
exchange management global talent outgoing
application
open/IP
match
Conversion Rate: !
78,2% Top: (100%) Bottom:
UNMC TU (62,5%)
!
56,8% # of people at Info Sessions: !
11
No Mas for Q3 (0%)
# of people at selection meeting:
Conversion Rate:
Average # of days (IP -> MA):
!
100%
realization
% of Podio applications from planned background:
UUM only LC with Realizations (100%)
!
22 !
30 days Average # of days (MA –> RE): !
95 days
26
exchange management global entrepreneur incoming
outgoing
# of meetings for GE:
# of meetings for GE:
4
10,6 days
!
!
9,5% of Total 80 70 60 Meetings
50 40
IP
30
MA
20
RE
10 0 USM
UTP
Planned Goals for GE Incoming for Q4
UM
UPM
UKM
SU
TU
UNMC
UTM
Meetings
Open/IP
MA
RE
307
194
152
90
!
!
!
!
27
exchange management podio expertise UNIMAS
National Average for oGCP:
CU
!
7,5 / 10
UTM UNMC TU SU
iGCP
UKM
iGTP
UPM
oGCP
UM
National Average for iGTP: !
5,5 / 10
UMP UTP
National Average for iGCP:
USM
!
5,9 / 10
UUM 0
2
4
6
8
10
12
28
exchange management overall performance app/ meeting
open/IP
match
realize
OGCP
232
50
71
349
IGTP
10
IGCP
3
OGTP
38
-27,5%
+31,5%
+122,3%
25
20
10
+78,6%
+100%
-28,6%
81
+268,2%
63
-25%
169
10
0
2
+66,7%
-400%
-7,7%
-60%
*values below final results represent growth or decrease from q3 of 2014
29
exchange management value delivery indicators
OGCP IGTP IGCP
OGTP
break match
break re
12
0
UNIMAS - 8
8
1
TU - 3
TU - 1
11
7
UUM, USM, TU - 2
UNIMAS - 4
3
6
TU - 2
UM - 2
igcp
igcp
119
76,5%
EPs went on a border run for VISA extensions.
EPs had full preparation for the experience.
igCp
igTp
47
14
LC buddies were recruited for the EPs.
Re-Raises with previous TN takers.
30
exchange management lead for eps implementation Top Implementer: UNMC (70%)
Top Implementer: UUM (70%)
39,9%
Focuses for Q4: In Progress (7 LCs) Matched (3 LCs) Realized (3 LCs)
45,4%
Ogcp lead flow
IgTp
Top Implementer: UKM (100%)
59,6%
igcp
Focuses for Q4: In Progress (3 LCs) Matched (7 LCs) Realized (3 LCs)
lead flow
Focuses for Q4: Application (1 LC) In Progress (2 LCs) Marched (4 LCs) Realized (1 LC) Re-Integration (1 LC)
lead flow Top Implementer: UUM (50%)
18,4%
Focuses for Q4: Application (2 LCs) In Progress (3 LCs) Marched (3 LCs)
OgTp lead flow 31
exchange management organizational health vs. performance
TU
UUM
SU
UNMC
CU
UM
USM UPM
UKM
UNIMAS
UTP
UMP UTM
32
exchange management overall customized inferences 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.
specialized units performance & health indicators
UTHM UNIMAP
11,4% of AM membership
16
17
Pekan
USMEC
5
back office (41,2%) front office (58,8%)
10
UTAr
exchange performance
73 su members
25
Su
Open/ IP
MA
RE
UNIMAP
0
0
15
OGCP
USMEC
0
0
19
UTAR
2
1
2
OGCP OGCP
0
0
10
iGCP
Pekan
0
0
7
OGCP
UTHM
5
1
7
OGCP
UNIMAP 12
# of applications for GLP
UTHM 66
pekan
pekan 1
uthm 6
91
5
13,4% of AM Total
USMEC
# of applications for GCP EP
UTAR 98
17,9% of AM Total
UTAR 91
34
specialized units organizational health vs. performance
UTAR UTHM
USMEC unimap pekan
35
specialized units overall customized inferences 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.
36