Summer Steering Team Recommendations

Contents

Letter to AIESEC US | 3

Global Information System | 4-5

Coaching Model | 6-7

Membership Model | 8-19

LCP Call Input | 20-21

Dear Generation 2014,

From June 28-29, the Summer Steering Team met in New York to give input on the legacy project plans of MC 14.15, the launch of the Global Information System across AIESEC US, the evolution of the MC-LC coaching model, and the update of the AIESEC US membership model - all while collecting input from the LCPs of AIESEC US. Through conversations with the LCPs of AIESEC US and with each other, we created recommendations for the National Plenary and the MC on the most effective ways to empower AIESEC US to deliver on our promises.

It’s been 5 years since the Revolution and AIESEC US has come a long way. The organization has continued to develop over the years thanks to the previous leaders and teams who dedicated themselves to impacting young people in the United States. After all the efforts put into re-establishing this organization we have yet to achieve our potential and the dreams we have for AIESEC US. We’ve been good, but we can’t settle for good; we must aspire to be great. We must stand together with the humility to see our organization the way it currently is, the courage to dream big, the boldness to take ownership for the organization, accept change, and dare to transform.

We hope that you take our input into consideration moving forward and help us continue these discussions to further develop AIESEC US.

Sincerly,The 2014 Summer Steering Team

Alex Robinson (AIESEC Chapel Hill), Samson Wu (AIESEC SLO), Ling Li (AIESEC Yale), Harrison Kao (AIESEC San Diego), Jimmy Ngo (AIESEC Baruch), Natalie Rodgers (AIESEC Austin), and Bjørn Mikkelson (AIESEC Eau Claire)

Letter to AIESEC US

Global Information System

What is it?

A new platform with a new customer flow: Sign-up → Apply → Match → Realize → Completed → Re-Integrated(no more “Raise” stage). EPs can apply to TNs as soon as they sign up. Every stage is trackable, which means more data. The CRM will be included, planning and tracking elements, a library of resources that doesn’t require a specific keyword search. The GIS will be replacing myaiesec.net from August onward.

Every LC should have one GIS manager to help with implementation.

Resources:Test out the functionality of the site here: https://auth.aiesec.org/users/sign_in

Find more info here: http://issuu.com/aiesecinternational/docs/gis_guide_-_testing_the_new_system

Check out what it looks like and find updates here: aies.ec

GIS Recommendations

MC 14-15 AIESEC US

● Provide education on general system functions

● Further explore how the GIS customer flow will affect our processes and operations

● Provide continuous change management support for implementation

● Subscribe to GIS newsletter for updates

● Watch online videos● Become a user to test the site● Think about how recruitment and

exchange will be affected by the new customer flow of the GIS

● Give feedback● Ask questions to Steering Team,

Niels, and Sebastian● Find a GIS manager in your LC

Coaching Model

What is it?

Each MC member will be responsible for directly coaching 2-3 LCPs, each with different realities. This MC coach will make 2 physical coaching visits per year. This MC coach will also be helpful in transition between EBs.

Regional Coordinators will coordinate regional teams of NST coaches who will provide support to and coach VPs of a particular region. RCs will still be responsible for RoKs. It is intended that NST regional coaches will be the FACIs at that region’s RoKS for stronger connection.

All in all, increased connection between the national and local levels and higher regional and functional collaboration.

Coaching Model Recommendations

MC 14-15 AIESEC US

● Ensure tracking and accountability for MC, RCs, and NSB

● Provide TtT training to all NSB members at NSBC

● Create on-boarding strategy to ensure LCVP buy-in and trust of NST coaches

● Promote it to your EBs● Plan for constant coaching and

regional collaboration for LCPs and VPs

● Continue to promote TtT and NSB to members

● Consider RC after LCP term● Plan to budget for 2 coaching visits

per year from the MC Coach

Initial Reasoning● We want to transform our organization but first we

need to transform the way we govern our organization.

● How can we transition into a membership model that is focused on sustainability and growth instead of achieving the minimum?

Initial Proposed Model (NPM)● We incorporate a tier model.

● We identify the indicators for sustainability and growth.

● We increase the standards we set for ourselves as

an organization.

Membership Model

Current Model Pros Current Model Cons

Standard across all LCs All or nothing in terms of LC status

Easy to maintain membership status without

growing

Does not represent the health of an LC or tell the

full story

Achieving full membership does not always mean

becoming a sustainable LC

Our national membership does not safeguard AIESEC US’ global

membership

Initial Proposed Model (NPM)Criteria Member Full Member MOA Time allocation

University Registration YES YES 6 months

3 BoD/BoA members YES YES 12 months

SONA Submission YES YES Automatic upgrade if other criteria is met

Conference attendance YES YES

Positive Bank account YES YES 6 months

Reserves X amount X amount

Audit ? ? ?

Growth %, Absolute, + growth %, Absolute, + growth

Exchange ___ ICX, ___ OGX ___ ICX, ___ OGX 12 months

Reasoning behind revisions to the NPM proposal:

1) Taking into consideration the voices of the LCPs present at Steering Team, phone conversations that we conducted with other LCPs throughout the weekend, and Feedback from NPM we believe that the initial proposed model was not the most optimal model for the current state of AIESEC US.

2) As a sign of sustainability and as a safety measure, we determined that a full member would be required to have a flat $3000 in reserves, which would be enough to safeguard against most emergency expenses.

3) Additionally, we removed the growth aspect of the model, changing it to a “market-based” model to encourage LCs to capitalize on their strengths and facilitate more exchanges as a nation. (See University vs. City slide 11)

4) The new criteria values were based in part off of global standards, national goals, and what can be seen as reasonable growth to expect based on LCs’ previous results

Revised Membership Model

LC Type ICX (current)

OGX (current)

ICX (proposed)

OGX (proposed)

City (16) 41 292 64 64

University (14)

13 325 n/a 420

University vs. City● Based on our initial assessment of market size, of the current 30 LCs, there are 16 City LCs with a stronger potential

in ICX and 14 University LCs with a stronger potential in OGX. The criteria for allocating city and university LCs will be determined by Dom and Angie.

● From the performance of the past 4 quarters, the university LCs were achieving <1 TN per LC, but are still devoting a lot of effort and resources towards ICX. If they reallocated their efforts to OGX, they would be able to grow substantially in OGX and contribute more experiences to the national plenary while still remaining members of AIESEC US.

● There are no restrictions on running both exchange programs.● The decision to make the ICX requirement 4 was based on the minimum ICX required for the 16 City LCs to achieve

the 60 TNs required for AIESEC US to maintain global membership. The decision to make the OGX requirement 30 was based on the number of University LCs already performing at around 30 exchanges per year or with the potential to perform at that level.

Membership Model

IG

Disbandment

OE GM

MoA

FM

Host Required

Only GM, FM, MoA are considered entities on myaiesec.net

1 year maximum.Achieve GM or FM

requirement in 1 year -> automatic upgrade.

Failure to achieve criteria in 1 year ->

automatic disbandment.

Failure to achieve FM criteria leads to downgrade to GM (given GM criteria are met)If GM criteria are not met,

automatic downgrade to MoA

No time limit for GM or FM

Membership Model

Criteria General Member Full Member MOA Time allocation

University Registration YES YES 6 months

3 BoD/BoA members YES YES 12 months

SONA Submission YES YES Automatic upgrade if other criteria is met

Conference attendance YES YES

Positive Bank account YES YES 6 months

Reserves N/A 3000

Exchange (City) 4 ICX (min. 2 accounts); 4 ICX (min. 2 accounts); 30 OGX

12 months

Exchange (University) 30 OGX 4 ICX (min. 2 accounts); 30 OGX

12 months

Breakdown

IG OE MoA GM FM

MCP Voting & MC VoC

NO NO NO YES YES

Voting at legislation

NO NO NO NO YES

Host conferences

NO NO NO YES YES

Host other entities

NO NO NO NO YES

IG OE MoA GM FM

Current RealityEntity OGX ICX Needed for GM Needed for FM

Appalachian 37 0 ✔ (University) OR 4 ICX (City) 4 ICX

Arizona State 15 0 15 OGX OR 4 ICX 15 OGX AND 4 ICX

Austin 25 5 ✔ (City) OR 5 OGX (University) 5 OGX

Baruch 64 2 ✔ (University) OR 2 ICX (City) 2 ICX

Chapel Hill 41 1 ✔ (University) OR 3 ICX (City) 3 ICX

Colorado 7 2 23 OGX OR 2 ICX 23 OGX AND 2 ICX

Cornell 14 0 16 OGX OR 4 ICX 16 OGX AND 4 ICX

Dallas 2 0 28 OGX OR 4 ICX AND 2 OGX 28 OGX AND 4 ICX

Denver 9 2 21 OGX OR 2 ICX 21 OGX AND 2 ICX

Eau Claire 15 0 15 OGX OR 4 ICX 15 OGX AND 4 ICX

Georgia (UGA) 37 0 ✔ (University) OR 4 ICX (City) 4 ICX

All numbers based on last 4 quarters

Current RealityEntity OGX ICX Needed for GM Needed for FM

Georgia State 9 2 21 OGX OR 2 ICX 21 OGX AND 2 ICX

Georgia Tech 16 8 ✔ (City) OR 14 OGX (University) 14 OGX

Houston 13 0 17 OGX OR 4 ICX 17 OGX AND 4 ICX

Illinois 17 1 13 OGX OR 3 ICX 13 OGX AND 3 ICX

Indiana 12 2 18 OGX OR 2 ICX 18 OGX AND 2 ICX

Madison 33 1 ✔ (University) OR 3 ICX 3 ICX

Miami Florida 19 0 11 OGX OR 4 ICX 11 OGX AND 4 ICX

Michigan 31 4 ✔ (Both) ✔

Northern Illinois 2 3 28 OGX OR 1 ICX AND 2 OGX 28 OGX AND 1 ICX

Northwestern 7 5 23 OGX OR (City)✔ 23 OGX

Ohio State 0 0 30 OGX OR 4 ICX AND 4 OGX 30 OGX AND 4 ICX

All numbers based on last 4 quarters

Current Reality

Entity OGX ICX Needed for GM Needed for FM

Purdue 23 0 7 OGX OR 4 ICX 7 OGX AND 4 ICX

San Jose 20 8 10 OGX OR (City)✔ 10 OGX

San Luis Obispo 33 2 ✔ (University) OR 2 ICX 2 ICX

Seattle 42 1 ✔ (University) OR 3 ICX 3 ICX

Texas A&M 5 2 25 OGX OR 2 ICX 25 OGX AND 2 ICX

Washington DC 23 1 7 OGX OR 3 ICX 7 OGX AND 3 ICX

Yale 45 2 ✔ (University) OR 2 ICX 2 ICX

All numbers based on last 4 quarters

SNC 14

Timeline:

Membership Model

WNC 15SNC 15WNC 14

Model SNC 14 WNC 14 SNC 15 WNC 15

Current Membership based on current model

Membership based on current model

N/A N/A

New New model passed and we start tracking

Continue tracking Membership based on new model (last 4 quarters)

Membership based on new model

As seen in the Current Reality data, not many members would currently qualify for GM/FM. This is due in part because the last four quarters have been driven by the 2:2 standard. Thus the new model will go into effect officially SNC 2015, taking into account the next four quarters and giving LC’s time to transition.

Membership Model Recommendations

MC 14-15 AIESEC US

● Consider different types of support that LCs will need in each proposed state

● Possibly incorporate discussions of model with LCPs throughout the summer.

● To the MSC: Consider which upgrades/downgrades/disbandments should be “automatic” under the new model.

Why: We did LCP call input because LCPs have the most insight and knowledge about their LC reality and LC history.

We reached out to a total of 27 LCPs, and a total of 20 LCPs shared their inputs. LCP input link: Here

Summary: ● iGIP was the most common focus programme and few LCs had no clear focus.● Most LCPs had minimal knowledge of Gen 2015.● The most common positive comment about the mindset of their LC from LCPs was that they had

motivated members that believed in AIESEC‘s value and loved AIESEC’s purpose. ● The most common negative comment about the mindset of their LC from LCPs was that there was a

lack of education, lack of connection to the bigger picture, and lack of connection to the global mindset of AIESEC.

● The average scale of GIS knowledge was around 5 out of 10. All the LCP said the major challenge GIS will be uniform education among LCs and long-term transition.

● Almost all the LCPs were fully aware of quality standards for exchange.

LCP Call Input

Summary (continued): ● For the minimum exchange criteria as a general member, the average number suggested was 2 ICX and

6 OGX.● For the minimum exchange criteria as a full member, the average number suggested was 4 ICX (with

minimum 2 different accounts) and 15 OGX.● Other criteria LCPs said should be considered in the membership model was 1) growth potential of LC

2) TMP and 3) financial health.● Most LCPs said no change is needed for the price of oGCDP, oGIP, and iGIP.● About 85% of LCPs said membership criteria should not be based on LCs’ market.● Regarding the coaching model, most LCPs want the MC to be more proactive, more accessible, and to

provide more follow up.● The general expectation for MC 14.15 is to have more MC-VP connections, keep LCPs in the loop on

all major discussions, and manage a great SNC.● The expectation for summer steering team is high transparency and to play a mediator role between LCs

and the MC.

LCP Call Input

- The Summer Steering Team 2014

Thank you!