1

2013 Q1 Quality ReportQuality Report of AIESEC in Colombia

2

NPS

3

Notice

As the contract with the company stopped in the beginning of February, there are only data for Jan. and the first week of Feb.

4

National Condition - General

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunAverage NPS 60 47 28 57 59 58 40 88

Responses 139 73 68 140 167 202 91 8

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

60

47

28

57 59 58

40

88

Responses Monthly average

5

National Condition –Monthly Average NPS

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

IGIP 25 30 -10 100 29 25 30 0

OGIP -25 29 12 -50 0 22 39 0

IGCDP 64 60 50 25 79 18 31 0

OGCDP 58 44 38 50 40 67 61 0

TLP 68 33 0 76 63 89 0 0

TMP 50 57 50 57 68 65 100 88

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

25 30

-10

100

29 25 30

0

IGIP

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

-25

29

12

-50

0

22

39

0

OGIP

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

64 6050

25

79

1831

0

IGCDP

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

58

4438

5040

6761

0

OGCDP

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

50 57 50 5768 65

10088

TMP

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

68

33

0

7663

89

0 0

TLP

6

National Condition – MC term Average NPS

Program average NPS (2012-07-01 to 2013-03-31)

Program Code Response Detractor Passive Promoter NPS Trend

GIP 122 30 37 55 20 Down

GCDP 321 37 87 197 50 Same

TMP 275 21 60 194 63 Up

TLP 171 8 35 128 70 Same

Total 889 96 219 574 54 down

7

National Condition – Comment Summary

IGIPPromoter issues

Information Objectives of the program (50%) Program benefits explanation (33%) Exchange participant responsibilities & programme

policies (XPP) (17%) Communication

Communication by the Home LC (25%) Communication by the host organization (25%) Communication by the Host LC (25%) Information about the acceptance process (25%)

VISA Information about the visa process (25%) Information about the exchange conditions (25%) VISA documents processing time (50%)

Detractor issues VISA

Information about the visa process (33%) Information about the exchange conditions (33%) VISA documents processing time (33%)

Integration Integration into the local culture (33%) Integration into the local chapter (67%)

Communication Communication by the Home LC (33%) Communication by the host organization (33%) Communication by the Host LC (33%)

OGIP Promoter issues

Matching Matching process explanation (57%) Matching tools and emails training (29%) Myaiesec.net training (14%)

Information Program benefits explanation (38%) Objectives of the program (25%) Exchange participant responsibilities and

program policies (38%) Induction

Education about the AIESEC experience (50%)

Education about the AIESEC Way (33%) Education about AIESEC’s activities (17%)

Detractor issues Communication

Communication by the Home LC (25%) Communication by the host organization

(25%) Communication by the Host LC (25%) Information about the acceptance process

(25%)

Improvement!!

Matching strategies’ effect

8

National Condition – Monthly Comment Summary

IGCDP Promoter issues

VISA Information about the visa process (33%) Information about the exchange conditions (33%) VISA documents processing time (33%)

Integration Integration into the local chapter (50%) Integration into the local culture (50%)

Culture Preparation Cultural preparation meeting or event (50%) Resource/contact sharing for cultural preparation (50%)

Cross Cultural Living diverse cultures and having a multi-cultural

experience (57%) Cross-cultural working experience (29%) Awareness about local culture (14%)

Detractor issues Communication

Communication by the host LC (40%) Communication by the home LC (40%) Information about the acceptance process (20%)

Job description Job-description aligned with the TN form (50%) Job description clarity (50%)

Matching MyAIESEC.net training (40%) Matching process explanation (40%) Matching tools and emails training (20%)

OGCDP Promoter issues

Cross cultural Living diverse cultures and having a multi-

culture experience(40%) Cross-culture working experience (40%) Awareness about local culture (20%)

Personal Development Personal goal setting (75%) Personal development plan (25%)

Social Impact Visible impact of the role/responsibility (25%) Visible impact of the project/organization

(75%) Detractor issues

Support Logistic

Accommodation (40%) Pick-up (20%) Introduction to the organization/project (40%)

Integration Integration in to the local chapter (67%) Integration into the local culture(33%)

Improvement!!Mainly hosting entities’ issues

Mainly hosting entities’ issues

9

National Condition – Monthly Comment Summary

TLP Top Promoter issues

Experience Working for a team purpose

Activities to become a better leader Clarity on role and contribution to AIESEC’s

ambition Global Network

Collaborative learning environment (100%) Skill development

Education about the role Overall development

Top Detractor issues Skill development

Education about the role Activities to become a better leader

Connection to the external world Clarity on role and contribution to AIESEC’s

ambition (each issue has 1 answer)

TMP

Top Promoter issues Overall Development

Defined learning objectives Skill Development

Education about the role Global Network

Collaborative learning environment Experience

Collaborative learning environment Working for a team purpose

Top Detractor issues Activities to become a better leader

Clarity on role and contribution to AIESEC's ambition

Connection to the external world Global Network

Collaborative learning environment

As the new semester begin, there are no new survey sent out to team programs. So the results are very limited.

10

Sub-Conclusion

Incoming Programs improve a lot in VISA process.

Both GIP are providing enough and good information.

Both GCDP are providing satisfying culture related service.

Communication is still the main detracting issues for both hosting and home entities.

Team programs will not receive a lot of responses as the surveys only send out once per semester.

11

Firefighting

IGCDP OGCDP IGIP OGIP TLP TMP

Open case left 34 36 23 19 112 104

In process cases 30 8 8 5 9 6

Close case total 59 81 30 27 99 90

Promoter collected 18 40 14 12 57 29

Detractor & Passive collected

18 7 7 5 1 1

Firefighting rate (closed/request)

48% 65% 49% 53% 45% 45%

Case collection rate (collected/ closed)

61% 58% 70% 63% 59% 33%

LCs are now doing the firefighting and more cases are collected. However, as I didn’t check each case collection’s quality, not sure if all

these 200+ cases are really the report after contacting the EPs.

12

LC Name Last Login Login times

Quarterly Av. NPS

NPS Trend since July 2012

Responses % since July 2012

All open case since 12-01-01 All closed case Case collected TN Taker survey

collected

Andes 12/03/2013 26 30 up 22% 25 47 17 0

Bucaramanga 01/04/2013 65 100 up 22% 0 26 3 1

Cali 01/04/2013 22 50 up 27% 6 37 19 0

Cartagena 31/03/2013 33 50 up 21% 15 10 6 0

EAFIT 01/04/2013 39 67 up 19% 29 52 1 0

EAN 23/02/2013 Service not available, until the local committee start using NPS system

ECI 02/04/2013 24 -50 down 27% 24 2 1 0

EIA 29/03/2013 36 33 up 27% 41 7 1 0

Javeriana 02/04/2013 64 63 up 20% 39 39 20 0

Manizales 22/03/2013 38 100 up 25% 22 23 3 9

Pereira 21/03/2013 18 100 up 22% 23 2 0 0

Rosario 04/01/2013 Service not available, until the local committee start using NPS system

Santa Marta 28/03/2013 11 75 up 16% 24 3 0 0

Tolima 02/04/2013 18 100 up 18% 3 22 23 0

Uniatlantico 02/04/2013 46 -50 down 23% 0 18 0 0

Uninorte 02/04/2013 124 23 down 22% 2 90 121 0

Valledupar 30/03/2013 31 50 up 19% 10 11 2 0

Local Condition

Need to check the uploaded cases

13

ICX TN Taker feedback

14

National ConditionProgramme

Code Response Detractor Passive Promoter NPS Growth

GIP 3 2 0 1 -33 N/A

GCDP 8 0 2 6 75 N/A

Total 11 2 2 7 45 N/A

Very satisfied Satisfied Medium Disappointed Very Disappointed

IGCDPAIESEC Service 2 6 0 0 0

Trainee 4 2 1 1 0

IGIPAIESEC Service 0 0 3 0 0

Trainee 2 1 0 0 0

15

National Condition - IGIP

Promoter issues AIESEC

Provide VISA (25%) Cultural Preparation for

trainee (25%) Reasonable Price(25%)

Trainee Different perspectives and

ideas (43%) Professional Knowledge

(29%)

Detractor issues AIESEC

Professional working style (33%) Find profiles indicated and

qualified for the position (22%) Communication efficiency within

the company, AIESEC and trainees (22%)

Trainee Provide a multicultural

environment (33%) Improve English among other

employees (33%) Development of competitiveness

in business (33%)

16

National Condition - IGCDP

Promoter issues AIESEC

Reasonable price (26%) Communication efficiency

within the company, AIESEC and trainees (23%)

Professional working style (19%)

Trainee Different perspectives and

ideas (30%) Development of

competitiveness in business (26%)

Professional Knowledge (17%)

Detractor issues AIESEC

Find profiles indicated and qualified for the position (54%)

Cultural Preparation for trainee (23%)

Professional working style (15%)

Trainee Provide a multicultural

environment (31%) Professional Knowledge (23%) Improve English among other

employees (23%)

17

Sub-Conclusion

Don’t have enough data to come to a representative conclusion yet.

Based on what we have now,

IGIP TN takers’ satisfaction are strongly affected by AIESEC service

Generally, TN takers think AIESEC should improve the professional

working style and the matching process (finding right talent).

Price is the key element for TN taker satisfaction for the product

Trainees brought different perspective and ideas to the TN taker, but

not helping providing a multicultural environment in the organization

18

LC Name Needed Received % of completion NPS

Andes 0 0

Bucaramanga 1 100

Cali 0 0

Cartagena 0 0

EAFIT 0 0

EAN Service not available, until the local committee start using NPS system

ECI 0 0

EIA 0 0

Javeriana 0 0

Manizales 9 44

Pereira 0 0

Rosario Service not available, until the local committee start using NPS system

Santa Marta 0 0

Tolima 0 0

Uninorte 0 0

Uniatlantico 0 0

Valledupar 0 0

MC 1 0

Local Condition

19

NCB

20

National Condition

Consultant

N/A

Cases report

N/A

21

Conclusion LCs are now using the quality measurement tool, however, need

to check the efficiency and quality of the usage

Generally speaking, GCDP programs’ satisfaction rate are higher than GIP programs. Detail reasons need to be looked in carefully.

Effective communication is the generally issues for all programs and both Trainee and TN taker sides

For the TN taker survey, we still don’t have enough data to come to a representative conclusion yet. However based on the current data we have, we see that TN takers’ and Trainees’ satisfaction are coming from different perspectives so far didn’t see strong connections. (eg. Culture preparation)