Central and Eastern Europe
Volume 6 15th of January 2013
Newsletter Content
Special Edition
1. CEE Performance Report for 2012
1. CEE Performance Report for 2012 2. Opportunity Corner 3. Recognition
Henry Ford once said “Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.�
We need learn a lot from this saying. We have yet to prove that we, as a region are a successful region, that we are putting all our efforts, our knowledge and our resources together so that we can become a better organization in Central and Easter Europe. This newsletter contains the CEE Performance Report for 2012. You will find tables, graphics and analysis on all of the 6 programs that CEE currently is running (A. Team Member Program, B. Team Leader Program, C. Incoming GCDP, D. Outgoing GCDP, E. Incoming GIP, F. Outgoing GIP). The analysis part contains information, hypothesis and analysis regarding the data that we have collected from myaiesec.net. I hope you will use this Report with wisdom and consideration so we can work better for 2013 and become one of the best GNs in the organizations and deliver the best of experienced for our members.
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
2010
A. Team Member Program Subregion
2010 } 2011
Ukraine
Russia
1369
1394
1.8%
1764
26.5%
Ukraine
1682
1354
-19.5%
1384
2.2%
Hungary
790
6.8%
Slovakia
-14.8%
572
21.4%
-3.1%
293
-27.5%
1978
Czech Rep.
492
740
50.4%
Hungary
553
471
Slovakia
417
404
-14.4%
1535
East Europe
900
1350
1800
0
750
1500
2250
3000
0
750
1500
2250
3000
0
200
400
600
800
0
375
750
1125
1500
0
100
200
300
400
Romania Bulgaria
Romania
2389
2741
Bulgaria
458
489
6.8%
944
93.0%
Moldova
229
181
-21.0%
234
29.3%
14.7%
1488
-45.7%
Moldova
Serbia
Former Yugoslavia
Croatia
Serbia
297
457
53.9%
701
53.4%
Croatia
312
401
28.5%
433
8.0%
Bosnia - Herz.
29
32
10.3%
216
575.0%
Macedonia
Macedonia
106
85
-19.8%
65
-23.5%
Slovenia
Slovenia
86
53
-38.4%
28
-47.2%
Albania
Albania
0
0
0.0%
11
100.0%
CAC + Turkey
Bosnia - Herz.
Turkey 1361
1104
Armenia
47
58
23.4%
99
70.7%
Azerbaijan
33
76
130.3%
61
-19.7%
Georgia
83
26
-68.7%
51
96.2%
Kyrgyzstan
39
22
-43.6%
42
90.9%
Kazakhstan
126
81
-35.7%
30
-63.0%
18
4
-77.8%
3
-25.0%
-18.9%
381
-65.5%
Armenia Azerbaijan Georgia Kyrgyzstan Kazakhstan Tajikistan
Baltics Estonia
Estonia
318
212
-33.3%
225
6.1%
Latvia
112
125
11.6%
140
12.0%
Latvia
Lithuania
142
134
-5.6%
127
-5.2%
Lithuania
13008 12622
-3.0%
11617
-8.0%
Total CEE
450
Poland
-22.4%
2310
Tajikistan
0
Czech Rep.
Central Europe
Turkey
2012
Russia
} 2012
Russia & Ukraine
Poland
2011
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
OVERALL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS If we look overall at the evolution of the performance of the TM Program, one key remark is that, for the pat 3 years, CEE has declined in performance, having -8% decline from 2011 to 2012, the largest drop from previous years. Looking at the evolution of the performance of each country, one conclusion that we can have is that most of the big countries have decreased their performance on this program, leading to the overall drop in numbers, as the big countries being the top contributors for the domestic programs as well.
Top 3 Performers on TMP Country
2012
1 Russia
1764
2 Poland
1535
3 Romania
1488
% of CEE Re
41.21%
Looking over the smaller countries, we can see an overall improvement in performance for these countries, which means that there are more and more activities and projects for the smaller contributors in the GN, which balance out the big drop in performance of the bigger countries. The top performing countries in the GN for the TM Programs are: Russia, Poland and then Romania. Russia has significantly increased it’s performance on this side, whereat Romania dropped almost half of their 2011 performance. Contribution to Global Performance on TMP 2010
24.5%
2011
20.7%
2012
14.6%
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
GLOBAL CONTRIBUTION Looking at the graph, we can clearly see that one effect of the drop in numbers is the drop in contribution as well. In 2010, CEE was contribution with almost ¼ (one quarter) of the global numbers. In 2010, our contribution has dropped to around 15%.
The global performance has exponentially grow because of the accelerated growth from AP and IGN of this program. We are loosing our competitively and our knowledge regarding the delivering and performance of this program. CEE
Rest of the GNs
HR DISTRIBUTION
TMP-TLP Ratio
Looking over the TMP-TLP Ratio, we can see that the number of TM Experiences liked to a TLP, in 2010 was 3.7. This meant that 1 TLP was generating 3.7 TMP, or in a basic comparison, 1 TL was working with almost 4 people.
Year
Ratio
2010
3.74
2011
3.09
2012
2.33
In 2012, this number dropped, showing that only 1 TL was leading only 2 people and ⅓.
Formula
This in term affects the quality of the TMP experience. With less people in the team, the quality of the team experience decreases. CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
TMP/TLP
2010
B. Team Leader Program Subregion
2010 } 2011
Ukraine
Russia
337
574
70.3%
805
40.2%
Ukraine
485
477
-1.6%
576
20.8%
225
450
675
900
0
175
350
525
700
0
175
350
525
700
0
75
150
225
300
0
75
150
225
300
0
25
50
75
100
Poland
Poland
510
658
29.0%
684
4.0%
Hungary
Czech Rep.
192
253
31.8%
324
28.1%
Slovakia
Hungary
160
143
-10.6%
232
62.2%
Slovakia
82
138
68.3%
133
-3.6%
East Europe
Romania Bulgaria
Romania
593
682
15.0%
575
-15.7%
Bulgaria
121
163
34.7%
317
94.5%
Moldova
109
77
99
28.6%
-29.4%
Moldova
Serbia
Former Yugoslavia
Croatia
Serbia
154
211
37.0%
300
42.2%
Croatia
113
110
-2.7%
137
24.5%
Bosnia - Herz.
30
29
-3.3%
92
217.2%
Macedonia
55
40
-27.3%
51
27.5%
Slovenia
Slovenia
53
35
-34.0%
29
-17.1%
Albania
Albania
0
0
0.0%
15
100.0%
CAC + Turkey
Bosnia - Herz. Macedonia
Turkey 197
201
261
29.9%
33
-17.5%
53
60.6%
Armenia
40 34
27
-20.6%
32
18.5%
Kazakhstan Georgia
30
16
-46.7%
29
81.3%
Kyrgyzstan
11
17
54.5%
28
64.7%
Azerbaijan
19
10
-47.4%
24
140.0%
6
7
6
-14.3%
2.0%
16.7%
Armenia Kazakhstan Georgia Kyrgyzstan Azerbaijan Tajikistan
Baltics Estonia
85
81
-4.7%
83
2.5%
Lithuania
27
58
114.8%
69
19.0%
Latvia
39
39
0.0%
34
-12.8%
3482
4079
Total CEE
0
Czech Rep.
Central Europe
Tajikistan
2012
Russia
} 2012
Russia & Ukraine
Turkey
2011
17.1%
4988
22.3%
Estonia Lithuania Latvia
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
OVERALL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS If we look overall at the evolution of the performance of the TL Program, we can say that the performance of CEE as a region, has been increasing steadily, from one year to the other, having an average of 20% Top 3 Performers on TLP growth.
Country
2012
1 Russia
805
2 Ukraine
576
3 Poland
684
% of CEE Re
41.40%
Looking at the performance of each individual country, we can see that 80% of the countries in CEE have improved their TLP performance compared to 2011. This means that we are offering more and more TL experiences and increasing the number of positions we have opened for our members. In 5 countries that have not increased in performance, are, almost all of them smaller countries, expect Romania. Because of this it has not effected the overall growth of TLP in CEE.
The top performing countries in the GN for the TM Programs are: Russia, Ukraine and then Poland. Russia as well as had a 40% growth from 2011, which means that both their TMP and TLP programs are increasing together.
GLOBAL CONTRIBUTION Looking at the graph, we can clearly see the steady growth of the program across the 3 last years. The downside is that the rate of growth for the global performance is much higher that the CEE one.This in term affects the contribution of CEE to the global performance. In 2010 we where contribution with almost 20% of the global numbers. For 2012, we have dropped the contribution to only 14.8%.
Contribution to Global Performance on TLP 2010
18.5%
2011
17.2%
2012
14.8%
0
10000
20000
CEE
30000
40000
Rest of the GNs
This can be linked with overall performance of the GN on the international program. Although we are growing the TLP, we are not growing it the rate of the global demand, so we are loosing contribution to all other program as well.
Deviation from Ideal TLP Capacity Year
No of TMPs
Ideal No
Deviation
2010
13008
10446
2562
2011
12622
12237
385
2012
11617
14964
-3347
Ideal Ration: 1TLP to 3 TLPs
HR DEVIATION If we can state that the ideal ration for every 1 TLP is 3 TMPs, that we can analyze what is the deviation that we have based on this ration. For 2010, we have 2562 more TPMs than we needed based on the ration. Which means that TLs where working with more people in the organization. For 2012, there is a gap of 3347 TMPs for the TLPs that we realized. This in term means that we have less people than ideal to run our operations and programs. This needs to improve in order to more relevant and more qualitative domestic experiences.
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
2010
C. Incoming GCD Program Subregion
2010 } 2011
Ukraine
Russia
583
1007
72.7%
771
-23.4%
Ukraine
406
539
32.8%
651
20.8%
Poland
421
610
44.9%
863
41.5%
Hungary
101
146
44.6%
349
139.0%
Czech Rep.
21
251
1095.2%
315
25.5%
Slovakia
23
33
43.5%
83
Romania
171
298
74.3%
276
Bulgaria
91
87
-4.4%
90
3.4%
Moldova
16
27
68.8%
60
122.2%
151.5%
East Europe
825
1100
0
225
450
675
900
0
75
150
225
300
0
75
150
225
300
0
25
50
75
100
0
10
20
30
40
Poland
Czech Rep. Slovakia
Romania
Moldova
215
72.0%
Croatia
73.3%
38
46.2%
Bosnia - Herz.
13
44.4%
16
23.1%
Slovenia
3
12
300.0%
10
-16.7%
Macedonia
17
8
-52.9%
4
-50.0%
Albania
0
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
44
125
Croatia
15
26
Bosnia - Herz.
9
Slovenia
184.1%
CAC + Turkey
Turkey 884
1184
33.9%
433
15
27
80.0%
40
48.1%
Armenia
3
0
-100.0%
13
100.0%
Azerbaijan
2
0
-100.0%
5
100.0%
Kyrgyzstan
1
4
300.0%
5
25.0%
Georgia
0
3
100.0%
4
33.3%
Tajikistan
7
15
114.3%
4
-73.3%
-63.4%
Kazakhstan Armenia Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan Georgia Tajikistan
Baltics Lithuania
4
15
Estonia
8
Latvia Total CEE
550
Serbia
Serbia
Kazakhstan
275
Bulgaria -7.4%
Former Yugoslavia
Turkey
0
Hungary
Central Europe
Albania
2012
Russia
} 2012
Russia & Ukraine
Macedonia
2011
275.0%
33
120.0%
8
0.0%
15
87.5%
9
2
-77.8%
2854
4440
55.6%
4 4297
100.0% -3.2%
Lithuania Estonia Latvia
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
OVERALL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS If we look overall at the evolution of the performance of the IGCDP we can see that CEE has slightly dropped in performance in 2012, having almost 4200 experiences delivered. Overall, over 70% of the countries in the GN have registered growth for 2012. But because of Russia and Turkeys drops, which have been the major contributors of iGCDP in the region, this has lead to the overall drop for the GN. Hungary, Slovakia & Moldova have had over 100% growth on this program for 2012.
Top 3 Performers on iGCDP Country
2012
1 Poland
863
2 Russia
771
3 Ukraine
651
% of CEE Re
53.18%
The top performing countries are Poland, Russia and then followed by Ukraine. The performance of these 3 countries combined reach more that ½ (53%) of the Regions overall performance for 2012. Contribution to Global Performance on iGCDP 2010
32.9%
2011
32.4%
2012
24.4%
0
5000 CEE
10000
15000
20000
Rest of the GNs
GLOBAL CONTRIBUTION Looking at the graph, we are lacking behind the overall growth of the global performance on this program. Although between 2010 and 2011 both the growth and the contribution maintained. In 2012, because of our overall drop, we have have dropped in overall contribution to 24%.
This is due to the fact that Turkey has changed national strategy, focussing on GIP and cutting a lot of their IGCDP projects. This is a very good example how the strategy of a major contributor can change the outcome of the performance for the whole GN. This doesn’t mean it is a good or a bd thing, as long as the decision in dropping the projects is based on healthy and sustainable reasons for the organization.
HR DISTRIBUTION Having in view the number of TMP and TLP that we delivered, we have decided to look over the contribution of these programs to the delivery of the iGCD Program.
HR contribution to iGCDP Year
TMP+TLP
iGCDP
Ratio
2010
16490
2854
5.78
We can clearly see a growth in efficiency from 2010 2011 16701 4440 to 2012. If we define efficiency as total number of domestic programs contributing to the iGCDP 2012 16605 4297 realization, we can state that in 2012, 3.86 TMP +TLPs where contributing to 1 iGCDP in CEE,which Formula: (TMP+TLP)/iGCDP is almost half compared to 2010. This is a very good sign as it is the highest efficiency ration among all the 4 international programs. CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
3.76 3.86
2010
D. Outgoing GCD Program Subregion
2010 } 2011
Ukraine
Russia
209
503
140.7%
505
0.4%
Ukraine
243
244
0.4%
333
36.5%
558
54.6%
476
-14.7%
Hungary
Czech Rep.
88
224
154.5%
274
22.3%
Slovakia
Hungary
39
50
28.2%
163
226.0%
Slovakia
64
68
6.3%
109
60.3%
East Europe 92
167
81.5%
178
Bulgaria
72
102
41.7%
87
-14.7%
Moldova
39
24
-38.5%
29
20.8%
6.6%
0
150
300
450
600
0
50
100
150
200
0
50
100
150
200
0
75
150
225
300
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
Moldova
Macedonia
124
202.4%
158
27.4%
2
19
850.0%
33
73.7%
Slovenia
Slovenia
14
23
64.3%
30
30.4%
Croatia
Croatia
4
31
675.0%
28
-9.7%
Bosnia - Herz.
Bosnia - Herz.
1
14
1300.0%
19
35.7%
Albania
Albania
0
0
0.0%
1
100.0%
CAC + Turkey
Turkey
Turkey
119
220
84.9%
244
Kazakhstan
115
114
-0.9%
72
-36.8%
Georgia
103
91
-11.7%
66
-27.5%
Kyrgyzstan
35
33
-5.7%
39
18.2%
Azerbaijan
25
12
-52.0%
33
175.0%
Tajikistan
2
6
100.0%
11
83.3%
Armenia
23
13
-43.5%
6
10.9%
-53.8%
Kazakhstan Georgia Kyrgyzstan Azerbaijan Tajikistan Armenia
Baltics
Total CEE
600
Romania
41
Latvia
450
Serbia
Former Yugoslavia
Lithuania
300
Bulgaria
Romania
Estonia
150
Poland
361
Macedonia
0
Czech Rep.
Central Europe
Serbia
2012
Russia
} 2012
Russia & Ukraine
Poland
2011
Lithuania
25
39
56.0%
43
10.3%
5
10
100.0%
26
160.0%
Estonia
15
7
-53.3%
14
100.0%
Latvia
1736 2696
55.3%
2977
10.4%
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
OVERALL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Top 3 Performers on oGCDP Country
2012
1 Russia
505
2 Poland
476
3 Ukraine
333
% of CEE Re
44.14%
If we look overall at the evolution of the performance of the oGCDP we can see that CEE has slightly increased in performance in 2012, having almost 3000 experiences delivered. Still the increase in only 0f 10%, which is small compared to the 55% growth of the previous year. Overall, 80% of the countries in the GN have registered growth for 2012. But no significant growth coming from the larger countries. I do want to acknowledge Hungary, Azerbaijan and Lithuania for their excellent growth. The top performing countries are Russia, Poland and then followed by Ukraine. The performance of these 3 countries combined reaches 44.1% of the Regions overall performance for 2012.
GLOBAL CONTRIBUTION Although we have register a slight increase in performance, the rate of growth for the other GNs is much higher for this program. This in term has affected our contribution rate. In 2010 we where providing over 21% of the global results on oGCDP. For 2012 our contribution Contribution to Global Performance on oGCDP has declined to around 17%. We have been pioneers of the GCDP recruitment for some time now, but data show that we are beginning to loose track of this program and cannot keep up with the global growth. As well, we do not have clear directions of GNs in which our GCDP EPs are used.
2010 21.2% 2011
20.6%
2012
16.9%
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
CEE Rest of the GNs If Sub-regions like CAC and the former Yugoslav countries can start to increase their realization rate for the GCDP recruitments (as they have started to do for the past 2 years) and if we, as a region, can start to implement oGCDP projects, then both our performance and our contribution can align to the global trend.
HR contribution to oGCDP Year
TMP +TLP
oGCDP
Ratio
2010
16490
1736
9.50
2011
16701
2696
6.19
2012
16605
2977
5.58
Formula: (TMP+TLP)/oGCDP
HR DISTRIBUTION Having in view the number of TMP and TLP that we delivered, we have decided to look over the contribution of these programs to the delivery of the oGCD Program. We can clearly see a growth in efficiency from 2010 to 2012. If we define efficiency as total number of domestic programs contributing to the oGCDP realization, we can state that in 2012, 5.5 TMP+TLPs where contributing to 1 oGCDP in CEE. This can be still improved, because it still quite a large number.
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
2010
E. Incoming GI Program Subregion
2010 } 2011
Ukraine
Russia
70
78
11.4%
77
-1.3%
Ukraine
54
70
29.6%
68
-2.9%
230
246
7.0%
252
2.4%
Hungary
91
94
3.3%
121
28.7%
Czech Rep.
98
56
-42.9%
71
26.8%
Slovakia
43
22
-48.8%
34
54.5%
East Europe 42
35
-16.7%
28
-20.0%
Bulgaria
15
5
-66.7%
10
100.0%
Moldova
3
0
-100.0%
3
100.0%
40
60
80
0
75
150
225
300
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
0
12.5
25
37.5
50
0
10
20
30
40
0
7.5
15
22.5
30
Poland
Czech Rep. Slovakia
Romania
Moldova
Serbia
Former Yugoslavia
Croatia
9
5
-44.4%
49
880.0%
Croatia
27
15
-44.4%
36
140.0%
Bosnia - Herz.
Slovenia
10
4
-60.0%
3
-25.0%
Slovenia
Macedonia
0
1
100.0%
1
0.0%
Macedonia
Albania
0
0
0.0%
0
0.0%
Albania
Bosnia - Herz.
7
0
-100.0%
0
0.0%
CAC + Turkey
Turkey 271
326
Kyrgyzstan
0
Kazakhstan
20.3%
312
-4.3%
9
100.0%
9
0.0%
5
1
-80.0%
8
700.0%
Azerbaijan
2
6
200.0%
7
16.7%
Tajikistan
1
0
-100.0%
3
100.0%
Armenia
1
0
-100.0%
0
0.0%
Georgia
2
0
-100.0%
0
0.0%
Kazakhstan Armenia Azerbaijan Kyrgyzstan Georgia Tajikistan
Baltics Lithuania
22
13
-40.9%
20
Estonia
13
9
-30.8%
5
-44.4%
Latvia
2
3
50.0%
0
-100.0%
1018
998
-2.0%
1117
Total CEE
20
Bulgaria
Romania
Turkey
0
Hungary
Central Europe
Serbia
2012
Russia
} 2012
Russia & Ukraine
Poland
2011
53.8%
11.9%
Lithuania Estonia Latvia
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
OVERALL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS If we look overall at the evolution of the performance of the iGIP we can see that CEE has slightly increased in performance in 2012, having around 1120 experiences delivered. The increase in only of 12%, but it is still good, having in view that we dropped in 2011 with 2%.
Top 3 Performers on iGIP
Overall, there is no clear growth pattern amongst the countries. The only sub-region that has overall growth is Central Europe. With this being said, we also want to acknowledge Serbia and Kazakstan for their outstanding growth on the iGIP side.
Country
2012
1 Turkey
312
2 Poland
252
3 Hungary
121
% of CEE Re 61.32% The top performing countries are Turkey, Poland and then followed by Hungary. The performance of these 3 countries combined reaches an amassing 61.3% of the Regions overall performance for 2012.
GLOBAL CONTRIBUTION Contribution to Global Performance on iGIP 2010
22.5%
2011
20.7%
2012
21.4%
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
For the iGI Program, we can clearly see that this program has no significant growth in performance, neither at CEE level, nor at Global level. Our contribution has maintained at around 21% of the global realizations on iGIP. This means that we are still a large contributor and there is still a lack of focus both in CEE and in the global network for the increase of performance for this particular program.
Looking over the last programs, it is clear that neither the domestic programs or CEE Rest of the GNs the GCDP programs have a clear focus in the GN. This is something to be very concerned about, because we are not growing, pioneering or innovating around any particular program and our growth as a GN is driven by the capacity of a small number of MCPs that, unfortunately, change from one year to the next.
HR DISTRIBUTION Having in view the number of TMP and TLP that we delivered, we have decided to look over the contribution of these programs to the delivery of the iGI Program.
HR contribution to iGIP Year
TMP+TLP
iGIP
Ratio
We can clearly see a growth in efficiency from 2010 to 2012, although it is not very significant. If we define efficiency as total number of domestic programs contributing to the oGCDP realization, we can state that in 2012, 14.8 TMP+TLPs where contributing to 1 iGIP in CEE. This is a huge number and it needs to be drastically improved.
2010
16490
1018
16.20
2011
16701
998
16.73
2012
16605
1117
14.87
Formula: (TMP+TLP)/iGIP
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
2010
F. Outgoing GI Program Subregion
2010 } 2011
Ukraine
Russia
261
286
9.6%
261
-8.7%
Ukraine
198
194
-2.0%
190
-2.1%
72.5
145
217.5
290
0
125
250
375
500
0
50
100
150
200
0
20
40
60
80
0
25
50
75
100
0
10
20
30
40
Poland
-15.8%
Hungary
90
9.8%
Slovakia
8.8%
81
30.6%
18.6%
50
-39.8%
407
392
-3.7%
330
Czech Rep.
88
82
-6.8%
Hungary
57
62
Slovakia
70
83
East Europe
Romania Bulgaria
Romania
174
140
-19.5%
128
Bulgaria
70
56
-20.0%
48
-14.3%
Moldova
15
13
-13.3%
5
-61.5%
-8.6%
Moldova
Serbia
Former Yugoslavia
Croatia
Serbia
43
46
7.0%
75
63.0%
Croatia
21
30
42.9%
24
-20.0%
Slovenia
20
22
10.0%
23
4.5%
Macedonia
9
14
100.0%
11
-21.4%
Bosnia - Herz.
Bosnia - Herz.
3
3
0.0%
10
233.3%
Albania
Albania
0
0
0.0%
0
Slovenia Macedonia
0.0%
CAC + Turkey
Turkey 113
122
8.0%
99
-18.9%
12
100.0%
12
0.0%
Kazakhstan
21 8
5
-37.5%
9
80.0%
Azerbaijan Armenia
1
2
100.0%
5
150.0%
Kyrgyzstan
3
1
-66.7%
5
400.0%
Georgia
3
3
0.0%
3
0.0%
Tajikistan
2
2
0.0%
1
-50.0%
Kazakhstan Azerbaijan Armenia Kyrgyzstan Georgia Tajikistan
Baltics Lithuania
Lithuania
29
31
6.9%
37
19.4%
Estonia
25
25
0.0%
15
-40.0%
Estonia
Latvia
17
21
23.5%
9
-57.1%
Latvia
1658 1647
-0.7%
1521
Total CEE
0
Czech Rep.
Central Europe
Turkey
2012
Russia
} 2012
Russia & Ukraine
Poland
2011
-7.7%
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
OVERALL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS Top 3 Performers on oGIP Country
2012
1 Poland
330
2 Russia
261
3 Ukraine
190
% of CEE Re
51.35%
If we look overall at the evolution of the performance of the oGIP we can see that CEE has decreased in performance in the last 3 years. In 2012 we have just managed to do a little over 1500 oGIP numbers, which is still a drop of almost 8% compared to the previous year. ½ (half) of all countries have registered a drop in their performance. Smaller countries have managed to achieve grater performance. For this I would like to mention Bosnia Herzegovina, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan for their high performance growth for 2012.
The top performing countries are Poland, Russia and then followed by Ukraine. The performance of these 3 countries combined reaches an over ½ (51.3%) of the Regions overall performance for 2012. Contribution to Global Performance on oGIP
GLOBAL CONTRIBUTION
For the oGI Program, we can clearly 2010 32.8% see that this program has drop in 2011 30.2% performance, at CEE level and at Global level. Although this drop has 29.1% 2012 occurred, we have still maintained our contribution of around 30% of 0 1500 3000 4500 6000 the global realizations on iGIP. This means that we are still a largest CEE Rest of the GNs contributor for the global network and this is the program that we are most proficient in. Still, the drop in number and the lack of a clear focus for this program is putting our position at risk and in a few years we will not remain the major contributors of oGIP for the global organization.
HR DISTRIBUTION HR contribution to oGIP Year
TMP+TLP
oGIP
Ratio
2010
16490
1658
9.95
2011
16701
1647
10.14
2012
16605
1521
10.92
Formula: (TMP+TLP)/oGIP
Having in view the number of TMP and TLP that we delivered, we have decided to look over the contribution of these programs to the delivery of the iGI Program. We can clearly a drop in efficiency from 2010 to 2012, although it is not very significant. If we define efficiency as total number of domestic programs contributing to the oGCDP realization, we can state that in 2012, 10.9 TMP+TLPs where contributing to 1 oGIP in CEE. Tis number is quite large and the more troubling fact is that it is growing.
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
OVERALL CONSIDERATIONS A general Picture for CEE Year
TMP+TLP
GCDP
GIP
Total X
2010
16490
4590
2676
7266
1.72
2.27
2011
16701
7136
2645
9781
2.70
1.71
2012
16605
7274
2638
9912
2.76
1.68
AI ‘12
113013
35245
10463
45708
3.37
2.47
GCDP-GIP
Ratio
Program
Ratio
When we look over the achievements of CEE as a region in the past year and as well looking over some of the program ratios, we can establish some general conclusions regarding the program health and performance: • In terms of general performance, we are stagnating as a region on both domestic programs and international programs. We do not have any growth for the domestic programs overall (-0.57%), and for the international ones, we have just surpassed 2011 with 1.34% more realizations; • Looking over the last programs, it is clear that neither the domestic programs or the GCDP programs have a clear focus in the GN. This is something to be very concerned about, because we are not growing, pioneering or innovating around any particular program and our growth as a GN is driven by the capacity of a small number of MCPs that, unfortunately, change from one year to the next. • In terms of the GCDP-GIP Ratio - this ratio can determine the balance between GI and the GCD Programs. This is important to establish because it may contribute to the financial sustainability of the organization. As neither of the programs of financially interdependent (even though the business model ideally says that they should be) in a lot of CEE countries, and as well other GNs, the GCDP financing still relies on the GIP incomes. • For CEE, for the year 2012, we have have had 2.76 GCDPs realized for every 1 GIP (and this number has been increasing for the past 3 years). Which is not good, considering that 1 GIP can sustain a maximum of 2 GCDPs (optimal in some cases). This puts a lot of financial strain on the organization, because a lot of money that are coming from GIP are being used for the GCDP programs, which in itself is not a sustainable strategy, especially because of the lack of funds to invest in members and infrastructure. An optimal ratio would be around 1.5 GCDPs for every 1 GIP • On global level, we can clearly see that the ratio is even more unbalanced. We are realizing 3.37 GCDPs for every 1 GIP. This is clearly very financially unsustainable for the organization and it can present a lot of risks • In terms of the Program Ration. This determines how many domestic programs contribute to the international ones; in other terms, we could call it the membership efficiency ratio, which measures how efficient our TMP+TLPs are in delivering the Exchange Programs.
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
• For CEE, for the year 2012, 1.68 domestic programs where contributing to the realization of 1 international program. This ratio is not very good because it indicates that it takes too much HR to realize on international program. An ideal ratio would be to have a 0.5 domestic programs realize 1 international programs. Which in other words would mean that 1 of your HR units are producing 2 of your product units. This should be a target that we all should set as Region to establish more efficient ways to realize the exchanges or with the same HR, realize more; • On global level, the situation is worse. We have 2.47 domestic programs that are contributing to 1 international programs. In other word 10 TMP+TLPs contribute to 4 international programs. That is a lot of HR that is working to bring on the organizational results Overall, in my personal opinion as a CEE Coordinator, I believe that AIESEC, both in CEE on the global level, should start to reconsider this approach to programs and growth. On the long term it is not helping us focus and remember that the experience of our members should come above everything else. If we start to have more of a member centric experience, rather that a program centric experience, we will realize that we need to focus more on the what is between the programs and the member experience, rather that how to deliver more programs in a shorter amount of time. AIESEC is relevant through it’s people and the people that live the AIESEC XP, not through its programs. If starting from this year we start focusing on the members, and not the programs, on their learning and their experience, in my own opinion, I believe that we will have a stranger, more preferment and much more relevant organization.
Estonia Latvia
Russia
Lithuania
Poland Ukraine
Czech Rep Slovakia Slovenia
Kazakstan
Hungary Romania
Croatia
Serbia
Bulgaria
Black Sea Georgia
Bosnia & Hrz.
Kyrgyzstan
Azerbaijan Turkey
Albania Macedonia
Tajikistan Armenia
Moldova
Report designed and Edited by: Michael Omescu, CEE Coordinator 12-13
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
2. Opportunity Corner A. CEEDs Opportunity
Period
AIESEC Azerbaijan • We are looking for a CEEDer with EB or MC experience preferably. • Background: exchange management, organizational management, strategic planning and goal setting. • Job role: working with a new elected EB in a February - April very young LC in Ganja, support recruitment 2013 and exchange campaigns, support AIESECers in Ganja to organize their first project: Global Village. • Conditions: living in a host family, local transportation costs covered, fee for National conference in March covered.
More info
More info: • Job role: working with a new elected EB in a very young LC in Ganja, support recruitment and exchange campaigns, support AIESECers in Ganja to organize their first project: Global Village. • Conditions: living in a host family, local transportation costs covered, fee for National conference in March covered.
AIESEC Armenia • AIESEC in Armenia needs CEEDer for Expansion and LC development. All interested candidates are welcome to write to MCVP TM Tatevik Sedrakyan of AIESEC in Armenia.
More info: E-mail: tatev.sedrakyan@aiesec.net Facebook: www.facebook.com/ tatevik.sedrakian
AIESEC Albania February • MC TM CEED opportunity for February March. March 2013
More info: contact: lodian.naci@aiesec.net
B. Conferences Opportunity AIESEC Armenia • National Leadership Development Seminar (NLDS) is the largest conference AIESEC in Armenia organizes every year. • The objective of the conference is creating an environment where young people from different countries will be able to experience leadership and self-discovery. • This year the conference will take place in March and the Chair of the conference is going to be the amazing Dey Dos. You can keep in touch and get regular updates here:
Period
More info Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/ nlds.armenia
This year the conference will take place in March
Web: http://nlds-armenia.com/ FACI application package you can download here: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/ viewfile.do?contentid=10241797 You can REGISTER here: http://nlds-armenia.com/register/
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
Opportunity
Period
AIESEC Bulgaria • We are looking for international faci, • LEAD+ITtT conference • AIESEC in Bulgaria welcomes potential: delegates (from all over :) and FACI team! • LEAD tracks for newly-elect EBs; TTT track for developing training and facilitating skills!
8-10 of March near Sofia, Bulgaria
AIESEC Bulgaria • Have you already decided your next step in AIESEC? If not then apply for your local committee EB or for a middle manager position and get kick start in your position 18-21 of April with global knowledge and friends thank to 2013, Estonia CEELDS 2013 in Estonia • Registration for CEELDS 2013 will be opened soon, stay tuned.
More info Application for international delegates: https://docs.google.com/a/aiesec.net/ spreadsheet/viewform? formkey=dHpiYzZjR3l1cC1SUWNiRUs 5YVBxVXc6MQ#gid=0 Promotional video: http://www.youtube.com/watch? v=pZETa51foBo More info: 1st delegate booklet: http://www.scribd.com/doc/ 117680712/DelegateBooklet-no1 Facebook: CEELDS 2013 Wiki: http://www.myaiesec.net/ content/viewwiki.do? contentid=10239545 Or contact CC VP delegates: eliis.siitas@aiesec.net
C. TLPs Abroad Opportunity
Period
More info
AIESEC Azerbaijan • Application for MCP of AIESEC in Azerbaijan is opened!
Deadline for MCP position: Jan. 22, 2013 MCP strategy presentation and interview - Jan. 24-25, 2013 Deadline for MCVP position: Feb. 5, 2013
AIESEC Russia • AIESEC Russia MC 13/14 applications are opened!!! • Our facebook page: http:// www.facebook.com/mc1314russia
Official wiki: DDL to apply is 20th Jan, http://www.myaiesec.net/content/ 14-00 GMT. viewwiki.do? contentid=10240342#show
Details: http://www.myaiesec.net/ content/viewfile.do? contentid=10244495
CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
Opportunity
Period
More info
AIESEC Slovakia • MC VP in Slovakia, 1st round. All positions are opened for internationals. DDL 17th of January.
DDL 17th of January
More information about accommodation, working place, JDs, applications you can find here: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/ viewwiki.do?contentid=10240208
AIESEC Armenia • The MC applications for AIESEC in Armenia are open! We will be very happy to have responsible candidates for this challenging 2013-2014 term
The DDL is January 15th.
The application package is here: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/ viewwiki.do?contentid=10240677
AIESEC Georgia • AIESEC Georgia MC 13-14 applications are now open • Looking forward to International Applicants AIESEC Hungary
http://www.myaiesec.net/content/ viewfile.do?contentid=10242815
DDL 22nd of January ‘13
http://bit.fy/wannabemc
3. CEE Recognition A. Members Tatevik Durgaryan (LCVP OGX of AIESEC Yerevan, AIESEC Armenia), and the whole OC of FLY project for their great job. The project was very successful and AIESEC in Armenia's MC is very happy to have such dedicated and responsible people in the entity.
B. Local Committees LC Kyiv, AIESEC Ukraine: • Q3-Q4 2012 realized 94 Incoming GCDP TNs and by that overachieved 11-12 term result. LC Lviv, AIESEC Ukraine: • made 280% Growth in Outgoing GCDP realizations since 1st July 2012 in comparison with the same period results in 2011. CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013
LC Bratislava, AIESEC Slovakia: • achieving 200% of their goals for Q4. LC University of Georgia, AIESEC Georgia: • for raising first TNs and creating amazing ICX project: Bridge to the future for February-March realization LC Varna, AIESEC Bulgaria: • for the successfully run Winter oGCDP recruitment with over 70 applicants and 38 Raises!
C. Entities AIESEC Georgia: • For expanding in new city and new university, Now AIESEC Georgia has 2 LCs and one expansion. Special thanks to MC VP Expansion Tsia Bodokia for her hard work. AIESEC Bulgaria: • For hosting CEE TM Summit in the period 10-13 of January! AIESEC Estonia: • For having 155,6% growth in matching and 100% growth in raising during Q4. Extra recognition for 292% growth in raising focus program GCDP during Q4. Good luck of having greatest winter peak in AIESEC in Estonia history so far. AIESEC Estonia: • For grown in Raising of GIP TNs in Q4 by 335% and in Matching by 227%, comparing to the previous year.
Thank you for reading the CEE Newsletter! Contacts:
Follow us on Facebook and twitter:
Maggie Jing Ma maggiem@ai.aiesec.org AI VP Country Development
Michael Omescu michael.omescu@aiesec.net CEE GN Coordinator
F T
We are always looking for interesting and useful information to be added to the next CEE eNewsletter.
Submit any questions or feedback to editor Michael Omescu via email to michael.omescu@aiesec.net
Martin Tyser martin.tyser@aiesec.cz CEE GN Chair CEE Newsletter | Volume 6 | 15th of January 2013