Ap q1 2014 regional report

Page 1

Regional Report Q1 GCDP ASIA PACIFIC 1st January – 31st March 2014


% of global contribution of the region (RE) Progra m

En*ty

AI

GCDP

Rela*ve Growth

Q1 2014 Global Contribu*on Q1 2013 AbGrowth iGCDP oGCDP iGCDP oGCDP iGCDP oGCDP iGCDP oGCDP iGCDP oGCDP (%) (%) 5962 5964 100% 100% 5116 5116

846

848

17%

17%

1748 2340 Asia Pacific Central and Eastern 1656 712 Europe

29%

39%

1628 1995

120

345

7%

17%

28%

12%

1447

639

209

73

14%

11%

1327 1612

22%

27%

850

1178

477

434

56%

37%

602

182

10%

3%

590

264

12

-­‐82

2%

-­‐31%

338

751

6%

13%

345

709

-­‐7

42

-­‐2%

6%

291

367

5%

6%

256

331

35

36

14%

11%

Iberoamerica Africa Western Europe and North America Middle East and North Africa


% of global contribution of the region (RE) Middle East Western and North Europe and Africa North America 5%

Middle East and North Africa 6%

iGCDP % Contribution

oGCDP % Contribution

6%

Africa 10%

Asia Pacific 29%

Iberoamerica 22% Central and Eastern Europe 28%

Africa 3%

Western Europe and North America 13% Asia Pacific 39%

Iberoameric a 27%

Central and Eastern Europe 12%


oGCDP ENTITY AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

GCDP GCDP EP raised Q1 2014 EP Raises Q1 2013

77 15 10 270 409 845 135 10 10 0 136 0 0 8 3 48 364 8 70 134 91 18

15 9 12 293 205 654 119 1 12 0 89 1 0 0 5 235 205 12 176 37 113 16

•  Boon quarter for AP with 20% growth in raises Top 5 growing and dropping entities mentioned below

Raises

oGCDP HONG KONG INDIA Top 5 Growing SINGAPORE THAILAND AFGHANISTAN PAKISTAN TAIWAN Top 5 Dropping CHINA, MAINLAND THE PHILIPPINES SRI LANKA

204 191 159 97 62 -­‐187 -­‐106 -­‐23 -­‐22 -­‐4


oGCDP ENTITY AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

GCDP EP (Ma) Q1 2014

50 23 4 154 23 140 138 16 13 0 64 3 0 5 7 21 99 10 80 34 40 23

GCDP EP (Ma) Q1 2013

7 19 3 256 7 99 77 5 11 0 25 0 0 0 4 14 33 10 81 43 72 9

Matches have increased by 22 %, indicating delivery in GCDP on entity partnerships

oGCDP 66 SINGAPORE 61 INDONESIA 43 Top 5 Growing AFGHANISTAN 41 INDIA 39 MALAYSIA CHINA, MAINLAND -­‐102 -­‐32 THE PHILIPPINES Top 5 Dropping THAILAND -­‐9 -­‐1 TAIWAN 0 LAOS

Matches


oGCDP ENTITY AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

GCDP EP (Re) Q1 2014

34 147 4 1040 22 88 416 87 34 0 89 6 0 4 22 38 12 19 230 6 3 39

GCDP EP (Re) Q1 2013

8 105 6 1078 14 53 262 9 22 0 31 0 0 0 26 13 12 13 278 19 14 32

Realizations increased by 17% •  Highest across all regions

Realiza*ons

oGCDP INDONESIA JAPAN Top 5 Growing MALAYSIA AUSTRALIA INDIA TAIWAN CHINA, MAINLAND Top 5 Dropping THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES NEW ZEALAND

154 78 58 42 35 -­‐48 -­‐38 -­‐13 -­‐11 -­‐4


oGCDP Absolute Growth 500 400

No. Of exchanges

300 200 100 0 -100 -200 -300

CHIN HON THE AFG AUST CAM A, INDO MAL MON MYA NEW SING SRI G INDI JAPA KORE NEPA PAKIS TAIW THAIL PHILI VIETN TOTA HANI RALI BODI MAIN NESI LAOS AYSI GOLI NMA ZEAL APO LANK KON A N A L TAN AN AND PPIN AM L STAN A A LAN A A A R AND RE A G ES D

Ra

62

6

-2

-23

204

191

16

9

-2

0

47

-1

0

8

-2

-187

159

-4

-106

97

-22

2

452

Ma

43

4

1

-102

16

41

61

11

2

0

39

3

0

5

3

7

66

0

-1

-9

-32

14

172

Re

26

42

-2

-38

8

35

154

78

12

0

58

6

0

4

-4

25

0

6

-48

-13

-11

7

345


iGCDP ENTITY AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

GCDP GCDP TN raised Q1 2014 TN Raises Q1 2013

0 3 49 193 11 1365 99 0 2 1 189 0 0 13 0 43 1 52 225 103 41 98

0 1 118 396 0 1539 153 0 6 0 139 0 0 0 1 42 1 18 168 43 68 65

Raises have dropped drastically, with key players like AIESEC India and MoC consciously focussing on quality

Raises

iGCDP THAILAND TAIWAN Top 5 Growing MALAYSIA SRI LANKA VIETNAM CHINA, MAINLAND INDIA Top 5 Dropping CAMBODIA INDONESIA THE PHILIPPINES

60 57 50 34 33 -­‐203 -­‐174 -­‐69 -­‐54 -­‐27


iGCDP ENTITY AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

GCDP TN (Ma) Q1 2014

0 4 11 94 0 232 125 0 28 0 103 0 0 12 0 7 2 72 123 19 28 50

GCDP TN (Ma) Q1 2013

0 1 30 124 0 189 138 0 17 0 85 0 0 0 0 6 1 48 99 34 33 26

Matches have gone up, indicating thee efficiency has increased and entity partnerships are being prioritized

Matches

iGCDP INDIA SRI LANKA Top 5 Growing TAIWAN VIETNAM MALAYSIA CHINA, MAINLAND CAMBODIA Top 5 Dropping THAILAND INDONESIA THE PHILIPPINES

43 24 24 24 18 -­‐30 -­‐19 -­‐15 -­‐13 -­‐5


iGCDP ENTITY AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

GCDP TN (Re) Q1 2014

0 3 91 175 0 412 256 0 31 0 124 1 0 15 0 20 4 276 127 84 71 58

GCDP TN (Re) Q1 2013

0 3 96 182 0 463 248 0 20 0 138 0 0 0 1 21 1 187 116 40 91 21

Realizations have gone up by 7 % again indicating that the efficiency has risen and even though raises reduced drastically due to increased efficiency realizations have gone up.

iGCDP 89 SRI LANKA 44 THAILAND 37 Top 5 Growing VIETNAM 15 NEPAL 11 KOREA -­‐51 INDIA -­‐20 THE PHILIPPINES -­‐14 Top 5 Dropping MALAYSIA CHINA, MAINLAND -­‐7 -­‐5 CAMBODIA

Realiza*ons


i GCDP Absolute Growth 150 100 50 Axis Title

0 -50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300

CHIN HON THE AFG AUST CAM A, INDO MAL MON MYA NEW SING SRI G INDI JAPA KORE NEPA PAKIS TAIW THAIL PHILI VIETN HANI RALI BODI MAIN NESI LAOS AYSI GOLI NMA ZEAL APO LANK Total KON A N A L TAN AN AND PPIN AM STAN A A LAN A A A R AND RE A G ES D

Ra

0

2

-69

-203

11

-174

-54

0

-4

1

50

0

0

13

-1

1

0

34

57

60

-27

33

-270

Ma

0

3

-19

-30

0

43

-13

0

11

0

18

0

0

12

0

1

1

24

24

-15

-5

24

79

Re

0

0

-5

-7

0

-51

8

0

11

0

-14

1

0

15

-1

-1

3

89

11

44

-20

37

120


Over all Inferences GCDP Incoming ¤  Raises dropped drastically compared to 2013, however matches(10%) and realizations (7%) went up, which indicates higher efficiency within the region. even though entities like MoC, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines had dropped in raising entities like Thailand Taiwan Malaysia Sri Lanka Vietnam caught up and a more balanced contribution is seen in Q 1 for iGCDP. Outgoing ¤  Boon Quarter for AP with great growth seen in raises(20%) matches(22%) and realizations(17%). Refer to Top 5 list in excel for entity contributions in ra/ma/re


Completed iGCDP Net Promoters Score (AP)

NPS

46 % of Promoters

% of Passive

% of Detractor

57%

31%

12%

Response/ realisation

Total Responses

65%

1136


Completed oGCDP Net Promoters Score (AP)

NPS

45 % of Promoters

% of Passive

% of Detractor

57%

31%

12%

Response/ realisation

Total Responses

71%

1660


Overall GCDP Self-Select Issues (Level 1): AP Top Promoters Issues Self-select Issue 1

Total Count 41

Logistical Support"

2 Job-description clarity and alignment"

39

3 Support "

34

Top Detractors Issues Self-select Issue 1 2 3 4

Total Count

VISA

48

Job-description clarity and alignment

42

Communication

25

Logistical support

25

*For the duration of 01/01/2014 to 31/03/2014


Regional Report Q1GIP ASIA PACIFIC 1st January – 31st March 2014


% of global contribution in 4 programmes of the region Progra m

En*ty

iGIP (%)

oGIP (%)

iGIP

Rela*ve Growth

oGIP

iGIP

oGIP

1369 1367 100% 100% 1221 1221

148

146

12%

12%

431

172

32%

13%

461

159

-­‐30

13

-­‐7%

8%

267

380

20%

28%

255

343

12

37

5%

11%

297

367

22%

27%

188

300

109

67

58%

22%

32 Africa Western Europe and 296 North America Middle East and 46 North Africa

59

2%

4%

22

33

10

26

45%

79%

289

22%

21%

257

306

39

-­‐17

15%

-­‐6%

100

3%

7%

38

80

8

20

21%

25%

Iberoamerica

oGIP

AbGrowth iGIP

Asia Pacific Central and Eastern Europe

iGIP

Q1 2013 oGIP

AI

GIP

Q1 2014 Global Contribu*on


% of global contribution in 4 programmes of the region Middle East and North Africa 3%

Western Europe and North America 22%

iGIP % Contribution

Middle East and North Africa 7%

Asia Pacific 13%

Asia Pacific 31%

Western Europe and North America 21% Central and Eastern Europe 28%

Africa 2% Africa 4% Iberoamerica 22%

oGIP % Contribution

Central and Eastern Europe 20%

Iberoamerica 27%


oGIP oGIP ENTITY AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

EP raised Q1 2014 EP Raises Q1 2013 1 5 3 8 4 3 139 260 49 63 202 165 31 34 12 0 11 8 0 0 10 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 22 40 42 15 5 1 49 33 19 1 36 28 25 13

2014 Q1

2014 Q1

Eps (Ra) Eps (Ra) Marke*ng Teaching 0 0 0 1 0 2 82 39 33 9 86 36 19 2 10 2 8 1 0 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 7 2 25 2 2 2 38 8 7 8 21 7 15 9

7% drop in raising within the region •  Big drops from MoC, India, Pakistan compared to 2013 •  54 % raises in marketing segment •  20 % raises in teaching segment •  26% raises in all other segments


oGIP oGIP

2014 Q1

2014 Q1

ENTITY

AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

Eps (Ma) EP (Ma) Q1 2014 EP (Ma) Q1 2013 Marke*ng 1 4 0 4 4 1 0 0 0 48 40 29 5 5 4 32 21 8 21 12 13 11 1 9 6 4 2 0 0 0 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 5 5 2 3 2 2 1 1 0 16 16 9 7 0 6 11 10 4 6 12 3

Eps (Ma) Teaching 1 2 0 16 0 13 7 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 4 5 1

Matching performance has gone up by 20 % indicating increased efficiency •  52% of those matched being marketing EP •  31 % being teaching EP •  17% other segments •  This indicates that by specifying the product clearly within the subproducts can increase efficiency •


oGIP oGIP ENTITY

AFGHANISTAN

EP (Re) Q1 2014 EP (Re) Q1 2013 EP (Re) Q1 Goal 1 2 0

Overall realizations increased by 7% in the regions •  However when compared to the market place only 64 % of the goals for Q1 were met •  48 % EP realized in Marketing •  90% of marketing goals as per M.P. were met this quarter •  28% EP realized in Teaching •  73 % goal achievement for teaching this quarter •

Eps (Re)Q1 2014 Eps (Re)Q1 2014 Eps (Re)Q1 2014 Eps (Re)Q1 2014 Marke*ng Marke*ng Goal Teaching Teaching Goal 0 0 1 0

AUSTRALIA

13

6

4

1

0

6

4

CAMBODIA

1

0

1

0

0

0

0

CHINA, MAINLAND

42

62

52

26

9

12

11

HONG KONG

3

3

9

2

5

0

0

INDIA

40

19

79

11

24

11

30

INDONESIA

9

14

23

5

16

4

7

JAPAN

15

5

43

10

9

1

5

KOREA

9

5

6

6

6

2

0

LAOS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

MALAYSIA

2

3

6

2

0

0

0

MONGOLIA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

MYANMAR

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NEPAL

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NEW ZEALAND

3

4

1

0

0

2

1

PAKISTAN

5

3

3

3

0

1

0

SINGAPORE

3

1

3

2

3

0

0

SRI LANKA

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

TAIWAN

12

14

10

10

7

3

3

THAILAND

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

THE PHILIPPINES

8

6

13

3

5

5

6

VIETNAM

6

11

11

2

8

1

0


iGIP iGIP

2014 Q1

2014 Q1

ENTITY

AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

TN raised Q1 2014 TN Raises Q1 2013 TNs (Ra) Marke*ng TNs (Ra) Teaching 0 5 0 0 4 3 1 0 5 9 2 2 177 249 30 118 33 51 13 12 873 994 457 194 10 37 4 5 58 52 25 5 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 13 21 12 2 4 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 5 19 4 0 38 21 25 1 28 30 22 4 18 16 8 4 7 12 4 2 10 25 8 0 15 1 8 7

Dropped in raising by 19% compared to 2013 Q1 •  48% Marketing TNs raised •  28% Teaching TNs raised •  7 entities increased in raising and the rest were wither stagnant or have declined •  More raising is highly required for the growth of iGIP within the region •


iGIP iGIP

2014 Q1

2014 Q1

ENTITY

AFGHANISTAN AUSTRALIA CAMBODIA CHINA, MAINLAND HONG KONG INDIA INDONESIA JAPAN KOREA LAOS MALAYSIA MONGOLIA MYANMAR NEPAL NEW ZEALAND PAKISTAN SINGAPORE SRI LANKA TAIWAN THAILAND THE PHILIPPINES VIETNAM

TNs (Ma) TN (Ma) Q1 2014 TN (Ma) Q1 2013 Marke*ng 0 0 0 4 1 1 4 3 0 63 80 17 7 14 2 184 196 92 18 36 6 38 27 22 2 3 0 0 0 0 13 16 10 4 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 3 8 8 4 18 16 13 16 7 7 8 4 7 7 8 5 11 6 4

TNs (Ma) Teaching 0 0 4 36 3 40 14 5 2 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 6

Matching again has declined by 5 % •  This is a result of the decline in raises in Q1 2014 •  48 % marketing and 28 % teaching TNs matched •


iGIP iGIP ENTITY

AFGHANISTAN

TNs (Re)Q1 2014 TNs (Re)Q1 2014 TNs (Re)Q1 2014 Eps (Re)Q1 2014 Marke*ng Goal Teaching Teaching Goal TN (Re) Q1 2014 TN (Re) Q1 2013 TN (Re) Q1 Goal Marke*ng 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

AUSTRALIA

6

7

9

2

2

0

0

CAMBODIA

6

4

14

1

0

5

10

CHINA, MAINLAND

71

70

75

15

18

37

42

HONG KONG

11

9

12

4

1

3

1

INDIA

190

217

614

82

189

35

127

INDONESIA

36

42

64

9

23

29

41

JAPAN

21

42

53

13

12

6

6

KOREA

2

2

1

0

1

2

0

LAOS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

MALAYSIA

8

11

9

4

5

1

0

MONGOLIA

5

3

20

2

0

4

20

MYANMAR

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NEPAL

0

0

2

0

0

0

2

NEW ZEALAND

2

1

2

0

0

0

0

PAKISTAN

3

3

15

2

0

0

12

SINGAPORE

11

9

29

5

12

0

0

SRI LANKA

16

18

21

12

15

1

0

TAIWAN

13

0

14

6

10

2

0

THAILAND

8

7

17

7

14

0

3

THE PHILIPPINES

9

6

12

6

5

0

0

VIETNAM

13

8

15

5

4

7

7

7% decline in overall realizations •  5 entities have declined, however the T3/2 have not grown as expected •  M.P. Goal achievement for the quarter is only 43% •  56 % in marketing and 48% in teaching M.P. Goal achievement until now •


Over all Inferences iGIP ¤  Declined quarter for AP in iGIP. Drop in raise(19%) match (5%) realizations (7%). Except Taiwan and Vietnam all entities in the negative. Nepal and Myanmar not starting any operations in GIP till now. Raising needs to be done more strongly and still needs to be prioritized in Q2 oGIP ¤  Raising (7%) in oGIP has decreased, however matching (20%) has gone up indicating a certain level of efficiency leading to a growth in realizations (7%) as well. Marketing remains the prominent segment from where most of AP’s Eps come from . Finding supply for AP EP still a struggle with most AP entities.


Completed iGIP Net Promoters Score (AP)

NPS

35 % of Promoters

% of Passive

% of Detractor

55%

25%

20%

Response/ realisation

Total Responses

47%

204


Completed oGIP Net Promoters Score (AP)

NPS

38 % of Promoters

% of Passive

% of Detractor

62%

14%

24%

Response/ realisation

Total Responses

34%

58


Overall GIP Self-Select Issues (Level 1): AP Top Promoters Issues Self-select Issue

Total Count

1 JD alignment and Clarity

39

2 VISA

31

3 Communication

24

Top Detractors Issues Self-select Issue

Total Count

1

VISA"

36

2

JD alignment and clarity"

26

3

Communication"

17 *For the duration of 01/01/2014 to 31/03/2014


Turn static files into dynamic content formats.

Create a flipbook
Issuu converts static files into: digital portfolios, online yearbooks, online catalogs, digital photo albums and more. Sign up and create your flipbook.