presentation sona q1
TRANSCRIPT
SONA Q4 :January- March
“Health + Performances = Success"
PARAMETERs:
PERFORMANCEs: - Exchange
- Exchange + Leadership - Leadership Role - Members - n° of member for each X realized
HEALTH : - corporate relation
- Exchange - Communication - Talent Management - Finance - Organizational Structure
Modality of Evaluation:
1. Each Parameter has a score
2. I define the total score for performance and health
3. I calculate an average between performance and health
4. The average is the indicator for the status of each LC
LC’s SITUATION for Q1
RANKING Q1
Ranking od LCs ( Jan- March)
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Serie1
What is the “indice”
It is the indicator of the best situation that each area has to have in the Best LC.
In this way you can understand in which situation are your areas comparing these
with the “ indice”
ANCONA
Ancona
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cus
tom
erR
elat
ion
Exch
ange
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stru
ctur
e
Com
mun
icat
ion
Fina
nce
Tale
ntM
anag
emen
t
indi
ce
Serie1
BARI
Bari
012345
Cus
tom
erR
elat
ion
Exc
hang
e
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Str
uctu
re
Com
mun
icat
ion
Fin
ance
Tal
ent
Man
agem
ent
indi
ce
Serie1
BOLZANO
Bolzano
012345
Custo
mer
Rela
tion
Exchange
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Str
uctu
re
Com
munic
atio
n
Fin
ance
Tale
nt
Managem
ent
indic
e
Serie1
CATANIA:
Catania
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Serie1
GENOVA
Genova
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exch
an
ge
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l
Str
uctu
re
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
MILANO CATTOLICA
Milano Cattolica
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exch
an
ge
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l
Str
uctu
re
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
NAPOLI FEDERICO II
Napoli Federico II
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Custo
mer
Rela
tion
Exchange
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Str
uctu
re
Com
munic
atio
n
Fin
ance
Tale
nt
Managem
ent
indic
e
Serie1
NAPOLI PARTHENOPE
Napoli Parthenope
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Serie1
PALERMO
Palermo
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cus
tom
erR
elat
ion
Exc
hang
e
Org
aniz
atio
nal
Stru
ctur
e
Com
mun
icat
ion
Fina
nce
Tale
ntM
anag
emen
t
indi
ce
Serie1
PAVIA
Pavia
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exch
an
ge
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l
Str
uctu
re
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
PISA
Pisa
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exc
ha
ng
e
Org
an
iza
tion
al
Str
uct
ure
Co
mm
un
ica
tion
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
ROMA SAPIENZA
Roma Sapienza
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exch
an
ge
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l
Str
uctu
re
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
ROMA TRE
Roma Tre
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exc
ha
ng
e
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l
Str
uctu
re
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
TORINO
Torino
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exch
an
ge
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l
Str
uctu
re
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
TRENTO
Trento
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
rR
ela
tion
Exc
ha
ng
e
Org
an
iza
tion
al
Str
uct
ure
Co
mm
un
ica
tion
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
tM
an
ag
em
en
t
ind
ice
Serie1
TRIESTE
Trieste
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
rR
ela
tion
Exc
ha
ng
e
Org
an
iza
tion
al
Str
uct
ure
Co
mm
un
ica
tion
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
tM
an
ag
em
en
t
ind
ice
Serie1
VENEZIA
Venezia
00,5
11,5
22,5
33,5
44,5
Cu
sto
me
r
Re
latio
n
Exch
an
ge
Org
an
iza
tio
na
l
Str
uctu
re
Co
mm
un
ica
tio
n
Fin
an
ce
Ta
len
t
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
ind
ice
Serie1
CLUSTERs Q1
Explenation:
In order to allocate each LC in clusters I took in consideration the average of each LC based on performance and health.
In the next slide you can discover the average of each LCs.
Average = (Perf. + Heal.) / 2
Average of LCs:
LC name PERF. HEALTH TOT
Ancona 2,2 1,75 1,975
Bari 1,8 1,98 1,89
Bolzano 0,4 1,18 0,79
Catania 1,6 1,63 1,615
Genova 1 2,28 1,64
Milano Cattolica 1,2 2,2 1,7
Napoli Federico 2 1 1,4 1,2
Napoli Parthenope 1,8 2,6 2,2
Palermo 1,4 1,97 1,685
Pavia 1 1,75 1,375
Pisa 0,2 0,8 0,5
Roma Sapienza 0,8 1,56 1,18
Roma Tre 1,8 2,32 2,06
Torino 1,6 2,04 1,82
Trento 0,8 1,54 1,17
Trieste 0 1,3 0,65
Venezia 1,4 2,13 1,765
1st Cluster
15 X 3 x+l 8 LR
40 M 18-24 H
AVERAGE
< 2,30
Also for Q1 none LC is in this cluster
You have last quarter in order to achieve this cluster….
2nd Cluster
8X 2X+L 6 LR
30 M 12-17 H
AVERAGE
1,51 – 2,30
LC:
-Ancona
-Bari
-Napoli Parthenope
-Palermo
-Roma Tre
-Torino
-Catania
-Venezia
-Milano Cattolica
3th Cluster
5 X 1 X+L 2 LR
15 M 6-11 H
AVERAGE
1 – 1,50
LCs
Napoli Federico II
Pavia
Roma Sapienza
Trento
Genova**
Clarification
*For Pisa, Bolzano and Trieste: their performance in this quarter have an average of “Zero” so they can not be ranked in any cluster
** For Genova, in according with the average it has to be in the second cluster, but also if Genova in this quarter realized nice internal activities, like PBoX and events, the organization of these was not focused on EXCHANGE that is the core activity of AIESEC.
CONGRATULATION TO:
Catania
Venezia
Milano Cattolica
For their new position in Cluster 2
Italians Do it Better…
For each question you can contact Silvia, MCVP LCD & Project
Good Work…