SONA Q3 2015 Report | AIESEC in Malaysia

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

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

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