gip&gcdp report_q4

MC PlusOneMC PlusOneMC PlusOneMC PlusOne

1 AIESEC Slovakia | Dvojkrížna 47, 82107 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, +421 2 45 52 61 10

Hi Hi Hi Hi AIESEC Slovakia!AIESEC Slovakia!AIESEC Slovakia!AIESEC Slovakia!

Welcome to Incoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing programIncoming and Outgoing program''''s reports reports reports report for Q4for Q4for Q4for Q4. MC decided to create this

report in order to present the current reality of incoming and outgoing programs not just on

national level but on local as well. By this report, LCs have chance to check their results

and compare it with other LCs. What is more, LCs can see also their contribution to the

results of AIESEC Slovakia.

The report is divided in 3 parts3 parts3 parts3 parts:

The The The The first partfirst partfirst partfirst part is general so you can find there general statisticgeneral statisticgeneral statisticgeneral statistics of Global Internship s of Global Internship s of Global Internship s of Global Internship

ProgramProgramProgramProgram (GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Commun(GIP) and Global Community Development Programity Development Programity Development Programity Development Program (GCDP(GCDP(GCDP(GCDP) mainly from national

point of view.

The second partThe second partThe second partThe second part is focused mainly on outgoing programoutgoing programoutgoing programoutgoing programssss. You can find there except from

general performance of OGP in Q4 also performance of individual LCs.

The aim of the third partthe third partthe third partthe third part is to present performance performance performance performance of incoming programof incoming programof incoming programof incoming programssss in Q4 on national

and local level. Furthermore, you will find there interesting interesting interesting interesting ratesratesratesrates such as calls/meetings,

meetings/raises etc. and GCPs of some LCsGCPs of some LCsGCPs of some LCsGCPs of some LCs.

I hope you will find this report useful. In case you have some feedback towards it, do not

hesitate to approach one of the MC VP responsible for incoming and outgoing programs.

Enjoy!

Katka (MC VP ICP) & Zuska (MC VP OGP)



General partGeneral partGeneral partGeneral part

The first part of general statistics is devoted to comparing GIP & GCDP results between

2010 and 2011.

Regarding GIP, AIESEC Slovakia is dropping and did not manage to overcome the results

from previous year in any aspects.

In terms of GCDP, we manage to overcome the results from previous year almost in all

aspects except of raises and matches in October.

8 1225

45

2 311 16

GIP RAGIP RAGIP RAGIP RA

2010

2011

8 59

22

5 3 311

GIP GIP GIP GIP MAMAMAMA

2010

2011

11 8 9

28

9 5 3

17

GIP GIP GIP GIP RERERERE

2010

2011

2110 8

39

6 1321

40

GCDP GCDP GCDP GCDP RARARARA

2010

2011

6 5 8

19

5 616

27GCDP MAGCDP MAGCDP MAGCDP MA

2010

2011



In the following graphs, you can find the comparison of plan and reality of GIP & GCDP in

Q4. Starting with GIP, the plan was not fulfilled. The gap between plan and reality in quite

high starting with gap of 27 raises, continue with gap of 29 matches and finish with gap of 31

realizations.

Continue with GCDP the fulfillment of the plan is quite better. We manage to fulfill the

plan just in one case – no of realizations in October and we overcome the plan in November

also in no of realizations.

5 3 2

106 4 4

14GCDP REGCDP REGCDP REGCDP RE

2010

2011

921

13

43

2 311 16

GIP GIP GIP GIP RARARARA

Plan

Reality

12 15 13

40

5 3 311

GIP MAGIP MAGIP MAGIP MA

Plan

Reality

20 13 15

48

9 5 317

GIP REGIP REGIP REGIP RE

Plan

Reality



In the following graph, you can find the fulfillment of the plan for term 2011/2012. The

percentage of plan fulfillment is: GIP – 29%29%29%29%, GCDP – 27%,27%,27%,27%, Together (GIP+GCDP) – 28%.28%.28%.28%.

933 26

68

6 13 2140

GCDP GCDP GCDP GCDP RARARARA

Plan

Reality

6 1230

48

5 616

27

GCDP MGCDP MGCDP MGCDP MAAAA

Plan

Reality

63

10

19

6 4 4

14

GCDP REGCDP REGCDP REGCDP RE

Plan

Reality

164202

366

48 54102

GIP GCDP GIP+GCDP

Fulfillment of the plan 11/12Fulfillment of the plan 11/12Fulfillment of the plan 11/12Fulfillment of the plan 11/12

Plan 11/12

July - Dec

5 AIESEC Slovakia

The third part is devoted to contribution of individual LCs to

Slovakia in Q4. In terms of GIP, LC BA contributed the most with 35% (6 RE) followed by

LC CU with 29% (5 RE) and LC BB with 18% (3 RE).

Regarding GCDP, the largest contributor is again LC BA with 36% (5 RE) followed by LC CU

with 29% (4 RE) and LC NR which contributed with 3 RE

18%

7% 36%


AIESEC Slovakia | Dvojkrížna 47, 82107 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, +421 2 45 52 61 10

The third part is devoted to contribution of individual LCs to the results of AIESEC


LC CU with 29% (5 RE) and LC BB with 18% (3 RE).


h 29% (4 RE) and LC NR which contributed with 3 RE – 21%.

35% 29% 6% 12%

GIP RGIP RGIP RGIP Realizationsealizationsealizationsealizations Q4Q4Q4Q4

BB BA CU KE NR TT

36% 29% 21%

GCDPGCDPGCDPGCDP RRRRealizationsealizationsealizationsealizations Q4Q4Q4Q4

BB BA CU KE NR TT


Dvojkrížna 47, 82107 Bratislava, Slovak Republic, +421 2 45 52 61 10

the results of AIESEC



12%

7%



Outgoing ProgramOutgoing ProgramOutgoing ProgramOutgoing Programssss

First of all, we would like to present you a general perspective on how is the OGP area

performing in terms of fulfilling the plan.

LCLCLCLC FulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillment towards LCtowards LCtowards LCtowards LC plan plan plan plan (July(July(July(July----December)December)December)December)

Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia reality reality reality reality (July(July(July(July----December)December)December)December)

FulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillment towards LC towards LC towards LC towards LC

plan (Q4plan (Q4plan (Q4plan (Q4))))

FulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillmentFulfillment towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia realityrealityrealityreality (Q4(Q4(Q4(Q4))))

BratislavaBratislavaBratislavaBratislava 56%56%56%56% 31%31%31%31% 63636363%%%% 25252525%%%%

Comenius Comenius Comenius Comenius UniversityUniversityUniversityUniversity

70%70%70%70% 33%33%33%33% 55554%4%4%4% 35353535%%%%

Banská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská Bystrica 100%100%100%100% 11%11%11%11% 100%100%100%100% 10101010%%%%

KošiceKošiceKošiceKošice 12%12%12%12% 3%3%3%3% 0000 0000

NitraNitraNitraNitra 88%88%88%88% 10%10%10%10% 100%100%100%100% 15151515%%%%

TrnavaTrnavaTrnavaTrnava 100%100%100%100% 6%6%6%6% 100%100%100%100% 15%15%15%15%

As you can see majority of the LCs are above 50%50%50%50% of plan fulfillment what is pretty good

sign. Here you can also see how much you are contributing towards the national numbers.

Q4 general performanceQ4 general performanceQ4 general performanceQ4 general performance

The following graphs are showing how your LC did, but also Skia performed in Q4. You can

also see the division of GIP and GCDP. It is clear that we are stronger on GCDPstronger on GCDPstronger on GCDPstronger on GCDP, what

means that we have to continue capitalizing on it, but we also have to start focusing more

on GIP as well (targeting, timing, matching).

2

0

5

1 1 1

9

1 12 2

01

7

0

2

4

6

8

10

LC BA LC BB LC CU LC NR LC KE LC TT Skia

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

OG

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

OG

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

OG

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

OG

Plan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDP Q4Q4Q4Q4

GCDP Plan

GCDP Reality

7 AIESEC Slovakia

LC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC Bratislava

LC Banská BystricaLC Banská BystricaLC Banská BystricaLC Banská Bystrica

6

14

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

LC BA LC BB

Nu

mb

er

of

GIP

OG

Nu

mb

er

of

GIP

OG

Nu

mb

er

of

GIP

OG

Nu

mb

er

of

GIP

OG

2023

86 6 5

Raised Matched Realized

BA Q4 OGPBA Q4 OGPBA Q4 OGPBA Q4 OGP

LC BA Plan

LC BA Reality

7

10

1

7

2 2


BB Q4 OGPBB Q4 OGPBB Q4 OGPBB Q4 OGP

LC BB Plan

LC BB Reality



Q4 LCQ4 LCQ4 LCQ4 LCssss performanceperformanceperformanceperformance

LC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius University

LC NitraLC NitraLC NitraLC Nitra

8

25

2

24

5

1 02

13

LC BB LC CU LC NR LC KE LC TT Skia

Plan vs. RealityPlan vs. RealityPlan vs. RealityPlan vs. Reality GIPGIPGIPGIP Q4Q4Q4Q4

LC BA Plan

LC BA Reality

20 20

13

2

8


CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4

LC BB Plan

LC BB Reality

13 13

3

8 8


NR Q4 OGPNR Q4 OGPNR Q4 OGPNR Q4 OGP




GIP Plan

GIP Reality

13

7

Realized

CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4 OGPOGPOGPOGP

LC CU Plan

LC CU Reality

3

Realized

NR Q4 OGPNR Q4 OGPNR Q4 OGPNR Q4 OGP

LC NR Plan

LC NR Reality

8 AIESEC Slovakia

LC KošiceLC KošiceLC KošiceLC Košice

Raising: In terms of raising the LCs that were doing pretty well in Q4 were

(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%

supposed to, so generally we are in the loss for the quarter.

Matching: The only LC that fulfilled the plan

you can see lack of raises have direct consequences on the matches as well, that is why we

do not have desired results. And also we are not working with the available pipeline

sufficiently. So for the upcoming quarter we need to pay attention to 2 factors:

matchability of the EPs and servicing while matching

Realization: The situation in realizations is not that dark, we have 3 LCs that

overachieved their targetsoverachieved their targetsoverachieved their targetsoverachieved their targets for the quarter

of matches reflects also on the realizations.

So as you know everything is strongly connected, so if we fail with raising

matching and realizations as well. Therefore we need

achieve the desired results.

17

6 64

0 0


KE Q4 OGPKE Q4 OGPKE Q4 OGPKE Q4 OGP

LC KE Plan

LC KE Reality

51

37

Raised



LC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC Trnava

SlovakiaSlovakiaSlovakiaSlovakia

: In terms of raising the LCs that were doing pretty well in Q4 were

(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%(100%), Nitra (62%) and Trnava (50%). However, none of the LCs raised more than they were

supposed to, so generally we are in the loss for the quarter.

LC that fulfilled the plan of matches on more than



ly. So for the upcoming quarter we need to pay attention to 2 factors:

servicing while matching.

The situation in realizations is not that dark, we have 3 LCs that

for the quarter –––– LC BB, LC TT and LC NRLC BB, LC TT and LC NRLC BB, LC TT and LC NRLC BB, LC TT and LC NR. But again, the lack

of matches reflects also on the realizations.

So as you know everything is strongly connected, so if we fail with raising

matching and realizations as well. Therefore we need to be careful in each step in order to

LC KE Plan

LC KE Reality

6

433

0


TT Q4 OGPTT Q4 OGPTT Q4 OGPTT Q4 OGP

47

33

2320

Matched Realized

Skia Q4 OGPSkia Q4 OGPSkia Q4 OGPSkia Q4 OGP

Skia Plan

Skia Reality



: In terms of raising the LCs that were doing pretty well in Q4 were Banska Bystrica Banska Bystrica Banska Bystrica Banska Bystrica

). However, none of the LCs raised more than they were

f matches on more than 50%50%50%50% was NitraNitraNitraNitra. As



ly. So for the upcoming quarter we need to pay attention to 2 factors:

The situation in realizations is not that dark, we have 3 LCs that either hit or either hit or either hit or either hit or

. But again, the lack

So as you know everything is strongly connected, so if we fail with raising, we will fail with

in each step in order to

3

Realized

TT Q4 OGPTT Q4 OGPTT Q4 OGPTT Q4 OGP

LC TT Plan

LC TT Reality

Skia Reality



January planJanuary planJanuary planJanuary plan

SlovakiaSlovakiaSlovakiaSlovakia PlanPlanPlanPlan Current RealityCurrent RealityCurrent RealityCurrent Reality

RaisedRaisedRaisedRaised 14141414 8888

MatchedMatchedMatchedMatched 27272727 6666

RealizedRealizedRealizedRealized 29292929 2222

As you can see we have planned pretty high numbers for the month, so be careful and focus

on matching your available pipeline and realizing what you have currently matched ☺

And just for you to see how we stand with our overall plan:

Plan for term 2011Plan for term 2011Plan for term 2011Plan for term 2011----2012 OGP2012 OGP2012 OGP2012 OGP

OGPOGPOGPOGP PlanPlanPlanPlan RealityRealityRealityReality

OverallOverallOverallOverall 245245245245 77777777

GIPGIPGIPGIP 108108108108 42424242

GCDPGCDPGCDPGCDP 137137137137 35353535

So you can see that half a year already passed and we are on 29% of plan fulfillment. But we

still have very potential half a year and I do believe that we can catch up with the results,

but we need to follow our plans ☺

RecognitionRecognitionRecognitionRecognition

At the end, I would like to recognize LC NitraLC NitraLC NitraLC Nitra for being very disciplined during matching,

because they managed to match 4 their GCDP EPs in December and already 1 in January match 4 their GCDP EPs in December and already 1 in January match 4 their GCDP EPs in December and already 1 in January match 4 their GCDP EPs in December and already 1 in January

from the GCDP RCTMfrom the GCDP RCTMfrom the GCDP RCTMfrom the GCDP RCTM ☺

Keep on doing a great job ☺

10 AIESEC Slovakia

Firstly, let’s check LC's fulfillment

generally.

LCLCLCLC Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards LCtowards LCtowards LCtowards LCplan (Julyplan (Julyplan (Julyplan (JulyDecember)December)December)December)

BratislavaBratislavaBratislavaBratislava 55557777%%%%

Comenius Comenius Comenius Comenius UniversityUniversityUniversityUniversity

83838383%%%%

Banská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská BystricaBanská Bystrica 75757575%%%%

KošiceKošiceKošiceKošice 26262626%%%%

NitraNitraNitraNitra 38383838%%%%

TrnavaTrnavaTrnavaTrnava 50505050%%%%

As you can see, LCs which fulfilled

and LC TT with exactly 50%. In terms of results of AIESEC Skia from the beginning of

term, LCs which mostly contributed to the

both with 16%. Regarding Q4,

Regarding general performance of LCs in Q4,

GCDP as the plan was almost fulfilled. The only LC which fulfilled the plan for 100% was

LC CU. Other LCs are generally missing one

In terms of GIP, LCs which fulfilled the plan

which didn’t plan any realization

5

1

4

00

2

4

6

8

10

BA BB

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

ICIC ICIC



Incoming ProgramIncoming ProgramIncoming ProgramIncoming Programssss

fulfillment towards their plan and results of AIESEC Slovakia

Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards LCtowards LCtowards LCtowards LC plan (Julyplan (Julyplan (Julyplan (July----December)December)December)December)

Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia reality (Julyreality (Julyreality (Julyreality (July----December)December)December)December)

Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards LC towards LC towards LC towards LC

plan (Q4)plan (Q4)plan (Q4)plan (Q4)

%%%% 44441%1%1%1% 46464646%%%%

%%%% 16161616%%%% 50505050%%%%

%%%% 9999%%%% 67676767%%%%

%%%% 16161616%%%% 0000%%%%

%%%% 9999%%%% 33333333%%%%

%%%% 3333%%%% 0%0%0%0%

As you can see, LCs which fulfilled their plan more than 50% are LC CU, LC BB, LC BA

and LC TT with exactly 50%. In terms of results of AIESEC Skia from the beginning of

term, LCs which mostly contributed to the results are LC BA with 41%,

both with 16%. Regarding Q4, LC BA, LC BB and LC CU contributed mostly to the results.

Q4 general performanceQ4 general performanceQ4 general performanceQ4 general performance

Regarding general performance of LCs in Q4, you can see that LCs are better performing

as the plan was almost fulfilled. The only LC which fulfilled the plan for 100% was

LC CU. Other LCs are generally missing one realization.

which fulfilled the plan were LC BB with 2 realizations

realization☺. The biggest gap records LC BA with

21

21

9

2

01

0

7

CU KE NR TT Skia

Plan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDPPlan vs. Reality GCDP Q4Q4Q4Q4



an and results of AIESEC Slovakia

Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment Fulfillment towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia towards Skia reality (Q4)reality (Q4)reality (Q4)reality (Q4)

55555555%%%%

18181818%%%%

18181818%%%%

0000%%%%

9999%%%%

0000%%%%

plan more than 50% are LC CU, LC BB, LC BA

and LC TT with exactly 50%. In terms of results of AIESEC Skia from the beginning of the

, LC Cu and LC KE

LC BA, LC BB and LC CU contributed mostly to the results.

better performing in

as the plan was almost fulfilled. The only LC which fulfilled the plan for 100% was

LC BB with 2 realizations and LC Trnava

with 6 realizations.

GCDP plan

GCDP reality

11 AIESEC Slovakia

Generally speaking about plan vs. reality of AIESEC Skia

realizations, what indicating a weak performance on this side

LC BLC BLC BLC Brrrratatatatiiiisssslalalalavvvvaaaa

LC BanskLC BanskLC BanskLC Banskáááá BystricaBystricaBystricaBystrica

8

22 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

BA BB

Nu

mb

er

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

N

um

ber

of

GC

DP

ICIC ICIC

19

13 13

41

6


BA Q4 BA Q4 BA Q4 BA Q4 ICICICICPPPP

11 11

3

10

32


BB Q4 ICPBB Q4 ICPBB Q4 ICPBB Q4 ICP



Generally speaking about plan vs. reality of AIESEC Skia in GIP, there is

, what indicating a weak performance on this side of incoming programs


LC NitraLC NitraLC NitraLC Nitra

23

10

17

0 0 0 0

4

CU KE NR TT Skia

Plan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GIPlan vs. Reality GI P Q4P Q4P Q4P Q4

Plan

Reality

9 9

11

9

Raised Matched

CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4

Plan

Reality

3

4

0

1

Raised Matched

NR Q4 ICPNR Q4 ICPNR Q4 ICPNR Q4 ICP



there is gap of 13

of incoming programs.


GIP plan

GIP reality

4

2

Realized

CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4CU Q4 ICICICICPPPP

Plan

Reality

3

1

Realized

NR Q4 ICPNR Q4 ICPNR Q4 ICPNR Q4 ICP

Plan

Reality

12 AIESEC Slovakia

LC KošiceLC KošiceLC KošiceLC Košice

Raising: In terms of raising, the strongest LCs which really performed in Q4 are

BB and LC TT. Raises were mainly for GCDP projects organized on LCs and nationally and

regarding LC BB also 4 GIP raises

Matching: Generally, matching in Q4 was the weakest. The only LC with 100% fulfillment of

the plan is LC CU. The matches were just on GCDP

managed to match any TN what has to be focus for Q1.

Realization: In Q4, there were just

realizations is LC BA as there were some GIP realizations and project KEMPEL

realized as well.


RaisedRaisedRaisedRaised

MatchedMatchedMatchedMatched

RealizedRealizedRealizedRealized

7

11

4

0 0 0


KE Q4 ICPKE Q4 ICPKE Q4 ICPKE Q4 ICP

39

26

Raised



LC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC TrnavaLC Trnava

In terms of raising, the strongest LCs which really performed in Q4 are


also 4 GIP raises – internships focused on IT and Language Education.

ly, matching in Q4 was the weakest. The only LC with 100% fulfillment of

the plan is LC CU. The matches were just on GCDP, in GIP we unfortunately

what has to be focus for Q1.

In Q4, there were just few realizations. The LC with the highest number of

realizations is LC BA as there were some GIP realizations and project KEMPEL


January planJanuary planJanuary planJanuary plan

PlanPlanPlanPlan Current RealityCurrent RealityCurrent RealityCurrent Reality

10101010

15151515

22222222

Plan

Reality

3

44

0

Raised Matched

TT Q4 ICPTT Q4 ICPTT Q4 ICPTT Q4 ICP

3226

1411

Matched Realized

Skia Q4 ICPSkia Q4 ICPSkia Q4 ICPSkia Q4 ICP

Plan

Reality



In terms of raising, the strongest LCs which really performed in Q4 are LC CU, LC


focused on IT and Language Education.

ly, matching in Q4 was the weakest. The only LC with 100% fulfillment of

unfortunately didn’t

few realizations. The LC with the highest number of

realizations is LC BA as there were some GIP realizations and project KEMPELEN was

Current RealityCurrent RealityCurrent RealityCurrent Reality

6666

4444

8888

1

0

Realized

TT Q4 ICPTT Q4 ICPTT Q4 ICPTT Q4 ICP

Plan

Reality

Reality



January is about realization of current running projects; Educate Slovakia which will be

realized in LC CU and LC BB and AIESEC to Kids. What is more, in January, LCs should

focus on matching GIP TN forms so we can ensure the realization in the term 11/12.

And just for you to see how we stand with our overall plan:

Plan for term 2011Plan for term 2011Plan for term 2011Plan for term 2011----2012 2012 2012 2012 ICICICICPPPP

ICICICICPPPP PlanPlanPlanPlan RealityRealityRealityReality

OverallOverallOverallOverall 121121121121 49494949

GIPGIPGIPGIP 56565656 10101010

GCDPGCDPGCDPGCDP 65656565 39393939

In the following table you can see some indicators of performance which were recorded in Q4.

Generally, there is high number of calls and meetings what indicates the strong selling wave in

most of the LCs. The meetings are divided between GIP and GCDP – in Slovakia, it still means

corporate & non-corporate sector:

GIP:GIP:GIP:GIP: LCs managed to go for 132 meeting in Q4132 meeting in Q4132 meeting in Q4132 meeting in Q4. The strongest month was November with 65

meetings. The rate between 1st and follow-up meeting is 4,54,54,54,5, it means that to set 1 follow-up GIP

meeting, there is need to experience at least 5555 first meetings. The rate between meetings and

raises is 22222222 (132/6). It means that for 1 raise, we needed to attend in Q4 at least 22 meetings which

is quite high number.

GCDP:GCDP:GCDP:GCDP: LCs managed to go for 66 meetings in Q466 meetings in Q466 meetings in Q466 meetings in Q4. Again, November was the strongest month

with 35 meetings. The rate between 1st and follow-up meeting is 1,641,641,641,64, it means that to set 1 follow-

up GCDP meeting, there is need to experience at least 2222 first meetings. The rate between

meetings and raises is 3,33,33,33,3 (66/20). It means that for 1 raise, we needed to attend in Q4 at least 4

meetings which reflects affectivity of LCs in terms of GCDP.

Other thing, I would like to highlight is number of initiatives organized for interns.number of initiatives organized for interns.number of initiatives organized for interns.number of initiatives organized for interns. LCs

organized for interns in Q4 52 52 52 52 reception activitiesreception activitiesreception activitiesreception activities that indicate that LCs are really taking care

of interns and thus ensuring the quality of internships.

OctoberOctoberOctoberOctober NovemberNovemberNovemberNovember DecemberDecemberDecemberDecember Q4Q4Q4Q4

CallsCallsCallsCalls 114 341 135 590590590590

1111stststst meemeemeemeetingtingtingting GIPGIPGIPGIP 16 53 39 108108108108

1111stststst meetinmeetinmeetinmeetingggg GCDPGCDPGCDPGCDP 10 27 4 41414141

FollowFollowFollowFollow----up up up up mtg GIPmtg GIPmtg GIPmtg GIP 6 12 6 24242424

FollowFollowFollowFollow----up up up up mtg GCDPmtg GCDPmtg GCDPmtg GCDP 12 8 5 25252525

Meetings GIPMeetings GIPMeetings GIPMeetings GIP 22 65 45 132132132132

Meetings GMeetings GMeetings GMeetings GCDPCDPCDPCDP 22 35 9 66666666

Number of initiatives Number of initiatives Number of initiatives Number of initiatives organized on LCsorganized on LCsorganized on LCsorganized on LCs

16 10 0 26262626

Number of LC2LC Number of LC2LC Number of LC2LC Number of LC2LC 1 1 0 2222



cocococo----operations setoperations setoperations setoperations set

Number of LC2MC Number of LC2MC Number of LC2MC Number of LC2MC cocococo----operations setoperations setoperations setoperations set

1 0 0 1111

Number of initiatives Number of initiatives Number of initiatives Number of initiatives organized for interns:organized for interns:organized for interns:organized for interns:

29 13 10 52525252

Number of networking Number of networking Number of networking Number of networking events attendedevents attendedevents attendedevents attended

2 0 0 2222

In the end I would like to highlight some GCPs from individualGCPs from individualGCPs from individualGCPs from individual LCs which I gathered during

individual meetings with LCs:

LC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC BratislavaLC Bratislava has developed tracking tool for management of teams and as well tracking tool of

legislation process mainly for corporate sector. For more information contact Matus Braun (LC

VP Corporate).

LC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius UniversityLC Comenius University was the fastest LC in matching of GCDP. How are they doing it? If you

have problems with matching of GCDP or want to know more contact Nada Khafajová (LC VP

ICX).

LC BLC BLC BLC Banska Bystricaanska Bystricaanska Bystricaanska Bystrica has the strongest MDM and what is more, they organized for new sellers

initiative Negotiations Meetings where they gave space for newies to experience the simulation

of the meeting with one of the experience sellers on LC and thus see the sales skills of individual

members and gaps in their knowledge. To find out more, how the MDM works and about the

initiative, contact Vlado Blazek (LC VP ICX).

LC NitraLC NitraLC NitraLC Nitra created 1 new project Paint your future! and one more initiative Ubytuj stážistu to

find free accommodation for interns coming for GCDP. If you want to know more, approach

Mata Trepakova (LC VP ICX).

TTTThat’shat’shat’shat’s it from our side! We hope you found it from our side! We hope you found it from our side! We hope you found it from our side! We hope you found in this report in this report in this report in this report all all all all necessarynecessarynecessarynecessary

information for youinformation for youinformation for youinformation for you and your LC.and your LC.and your LC.and your LC.

Katka & ZuskaKatka & ZuskaKatka & ZuskaKatka & Zuska

gip&gcdp report_q4

Documents

gip gcdp results

reality of gip gcdp

results of aiesec slovakia

aiesec slovakia dvojkrna

global commungip

outgoing programincoming

terms of gcdp

general performance