Winter Steering Team, December 2014

WST OUTPUT

CONTENTS

Letter to the Plenary

Agenda

National Assessment

Conferences

Operational Efficiency

Organizational Sustainability

To the National Plenary,

The Winter Steering Team, comprised of both current LCP’s and newly elected LCP’s for the first time, came together on December 12-14th in New York City to discuss long term national strategy and give feedback on MC Beyond’s projects and initiatives.

Together we talked about the purpose, management, and financing of conferences to discover ways to make them more strategic and sustainable. We explored ways to increase operational efficiency in exchange programs and with EXPA as well as ways to ensure organizational stability such as the regional support teams, the future of finance, branding, and member productivity.

We offer you this output to get the inside look into what we discussed and what we propose as recommendations for both the MC and the national plenary. We hope that the national plenary will read our input and take our conversations forward so that we can all work to make AIESEC US a successful and sustainable organization.

Sincerely,

The Winter Steering Team of 2014

Attila Yaman (LCPe Yale) Matt Benfield (LCPe Appalachian) Rushi Rughani (LCPe Michigan)Bjorn Mikkelson (LCP Eau Claire) Matt Chian (LCPe New York City) Samson Wu (LCP San Luis Obispo)Madison Heginbotham (LCPe Chapel Hill) Natalie Rodgers (LCP Austin) Shane Brannigan (LCPe DC)

AGENDA

NATIONAL ASSESSMENTAs preparation for the meeting, the WST contacted LCPs across AIESEC US to get an assessment on some key questions. The goal was to have an overall understanding of LC across AIESEC US and not just the members of the WST. These assessments served as input to the discussion had during the weekend. We thank the LCs that contributed. View the summary of the assessment below.

Link: bit.ly/WSTAIESECUSASSESMENT

CONFERENCES

Abbreviation: CONF

CONF: MOTIVATION

Conferences are currently very unsustainable and often mismanaged in one way or another. It is increasingly difficult to convince delegates to attend and for them to pay both travel and delegate fee costs. Furthermore we have a culture across the nation that puts most of the responsibility and liability on single LC’s even though the service they are providing is for the betterment of the whole.

Conferences are a huge part of the AIESEC experience and can be incredibly useful but we need to figure out a way for them and their operations to make sense on all scales and for all parties involved.

CONF: MAIN PROPOSALS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Logistics● Hotel and travel partnerships● MC Member for conferences● Strategic venues & locations● OC Selection for conferences

Strategy● Conference purpose● Faci preparation● Role of Meetings and Bids SC

Finances● National/Regional cost sharing or fund● Sponsorships and fundraising● Alumni travel fund for NatCo’s● Revisit caps on delegate fees

OC Education● OCP Summit● OC Guidebook

CONF: FEASIBILITY VERSUS IMPACT OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS

Hotel PartnershipsTravel PartnershipsFundraising & Sponsorships (NST)

CEEDER/MC member for conferences Strategic venuesOC GuidebookConference cost sharing structure Alumni travel fundDelegate Fee – group discounts & approval

Strategic location for national conferences

Feasibility

Imp

act

CONF: NATIONAL TIMELINE

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

OGX(RE)

iGIP(RE)

OGX(RA)

iGIP (RA)

WNC RoKS NPM SNC RoKS NPM

CONF: PURPOSE-NEEDS ANALYSIS

Things that need to happen: ● Leadership education● Functional education ● Planning sessions● Leadership development on different levels (TLs, VPs, LCPs)● Specialized summits or events● MCP elections● Legislation

CONF: SNC ANALYSIS

OGX(RE)

iGIP(RE)

OGX(RA)

iGIP (RA)

SNC

Shorter Conference● 4-6 Days ● SNC 2015 will be five days

Delegate Profile● VPs and leadership pipeline● Team Leaders● OC Positions

Focus● Strategy and Leadership Development● Reflection & GCP Sharing

CONF: WNC ANALYSIS

OGX(RE)

iGIP(RE)

OGX(RA)

iGIP (RA)

WNC

Conference● MCP Elections ● New LCP’s First Legislation● Strategy Gathering

○ (Members and Leaders > MC Support)Delegate Profile● Executive Boards

○ Require prior operations backgroundFocus● Functional Training or Strategy● Planning and Operation Knowledge● Big AIESEC US gathering

CONF: RoKS ANALYSIS

OGX(RE)

iGIP(RE)

OGX(RA)

iGIP (RA)

RoKS

Delegate Profile● New members and EB● Mandatory for EB

Focus● Education● Regional Bonding

Conference Structure● New Members Induction (Not Functional Training) ● Strategy Development for executive board● Separate Summit for Older Members (Optional)● Help determine a 90 Days Strategy

RoKS

CONF: SPRING NPM ANALYSIS

OGX(RE)

iGIP(RE)

OGX(RA)

iGIP (RA)

Delegate Profile● Local Committee Presidents● Does both MCs need to be there?

Focus● Next 90 Days Planning● GCP Sharing● Emotional Support from fellow LCPs

NPM

CONF: TOUCHPOINT ANALYSIS

OGX(RE)

iGIP(RE)

OGX(RA)

iGIP (RA)

Delegate Profile● Everyone

Potential Ideas● SoKS (Summer Kick off Seminar)● Manifest L

Planning● up to the discretion of the Regional Coordinator,

Regional Support Team and Region as a wholeDelivery● MC + RC + RST

WHATS GOING

ON?

CONF: SPRING COACHING VISIT ANALYSIS

OGX(RE)

iGIP(RE)

OGX(RA)

iGIP (RA)

Ideally right before or around the time of RoKS for the MC’s Travel Schedule

Focused Coaching: Prior analysis of what the LC needs to ensure success

Help..

CONF: RESTRUCTURING DELEGATE FEE (I)

● Delegate Fee Based on tiers○ Depending on the amount of delegates the LC brings, the delegate fee will be reduced○ Example

■ 1-4 Delegates - $229 per delegate■ 5-8 Delegates - $214 per delegate■ 9+ Delegates - $189 per delegate

○ The amount of delegates would be submitted by LCP during First Round Registration○ If the delegate drops out, the LC would be liable for the delegate fee

● How would you make it fair for smaller LC’s?○ The difference between the fees would not be big enough to be a game changer

● The OC should have discretion, should be more of a promotional factor● Would really only work at WNC, at SNC we are trying to make it smaller and more fixed on numbers

CONF: RESTRUCTURING DELEGATE FEE (II)● Delegate Fee Based on Commitment

○ Based on a minimum amount of people bringing to the conference○ SNC

■ Requiring to Submit a minimum delegate numbers■ Requiring to stick to the minimum numbers promised or pay the difference

● Hole: What keeps LCPs from Low-Balling in order to not be financially liable?○ Having the guaranteed low-ball is still helpful for budgeting and planning○ Keep in mind that most of our conference are now being re-evaluated for a new purpose

● Present Options○ Example: If we have X delegates, delegate fee will be $X, if we have Y delegates, fee will be $Y

● Legislation: ○ OC sends out a form to the LCP class, asking for the minimum number of delegates

■ 6 Months, then 2 months prior to the conference■ LCPs have 2 weeks to respond

○ From that, a budget will be created to give an estimated delegate fee. ○ The number of “estimated attendees” an LCP gives is a commitment. ○ If the number of delegates in attendance is lower than committed, LC is required for covering the cost

of the missing delegate fees.

CONF: PROPOSAL FOR MC CEED

● Conference Management● Creating an OC Guide for Conference

○ Within the guide have a heavy section for OCVP Finance■ Overlooking financial management at conferences.

● Research in the the Conference Cost Sharing topic and find data that would help to make an informed decision

○ Figured out by RoKS● If someone on the OC is removed the responsibility could go to a CEEDer● Partnership and Fundraising

○ Mandate a CEEDer who would look into the feasibility of this and “Gets it Down”

CONF: COST SHARING (I)Purpose:

Firstly to turn the culture and burden of conferences away from just the hosting LC’s and more to a state where the entire nation shares and contributes to the sustainability of what is ultimately everyone’s conference.

Secondly to help provide the OC with a standard amount of budgetable sponsorships and/or a safety measure to mitigate unforeseen losses.

Concept:

All LC’s would pay into a collective fund for National Conferences

Fund distributed to conferences in the form of a sponsorship on behalf of AIESEC US

Suggest a minimum flat rate around $100 per LC with an option to donate more (min. $3k funding)

Sponsorship package could be offered to incentivize higher donations

Could mandate the MC to match whatever the LCs contribute (total min. $6k funding)

Could drive down delegate fee and/or mitigate losses

CONF: COST SHARING (II)

Would LCs that are hosting IGs pay for the IGs as well as their own LC, would IGs not be included, or would IGs still have to pay?

Current Needs & Action Steps: ● CEEDer or group needs to research the topic and find the data that would

help to make an informed decision on best funding amount that is needed and appropriate.

● Figured out by RoKs

CONF: M&B SUBCOMMITTEEPurpose

● Reviewing the role and authority of the Meeting and Bids Subcommittee● Need to reinforce timeline and the importance of a real and good bid

○ Restructure bid as a whole? Can we boost the requirements for bids?○ Hole: Team is currently begging people to host national conferences

Accountability

● Some type of check-in is already part of the SC role, but difficult to enforce or make an impact● Suggestion to MBSC: Create a report on the state of the OC which would then be released to the national plenary. This could

allow for the plenary to decide to remove an OC member based on case. Or MBSC could offer suggestions and ideas for solutions if problems exist.

○ Hole: Would removing a person actually help progress?○ Hole: Where would responsibility go to if someone is removed? CEEDer?

Action Steps

● Consider what would report need to include? How would long would it would be? How many would there be and at what points would they be created? Does legislation need to take place?

CONF: ACTION STEPSFor the MC:

Mandate: Create Conference CEEDer Position (Sponsorships and Budgeting Audit/Review)

Mandate: Establish National Alumni Travel Funding

For the National Plenary:

Review MBSC Role

For the OCs:

Consider Delegate Fee Restructure

Proposed Legislation Changes:

Registration approvals minimum fee

Changing Sections in regards to Conference Purpose and Delegate Profile

OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY

Abbreviation: OPEF

Topic Discussed

● oGIP national projects (i.e. Shape Colombia, Teach China, & Future Colombia) and how they can be utilized more efficiently

● Shape Colombia 2015: 400 TNs in Bogota. 200 RE in mid-March & 200 RE in mid-August.

Recommendations to the MC

● Look into quarter school systems for mid-March RE● Possible CEEDer for March & August ● Training/Education for LCs with weaker oGIP operations● Solidify details of process before promotion starts● Determine which universities can send students to Colombia● Look into marketing statistics from last project

Recommendations to the National Plenary

● Expand university relations to make national projects even more effective

OPEF: oGIP

Topic Discussed● How can we mitigate the risk posed by sending EPs to possibly dangerous

countries? ● Possible Solution: Partnering with International SOS for proactive risk

management, personalized risk reports, emergency evacuations if needed, etc. at a cost of around $27 per EP

Recommendations to the MC● Get projections of costs for physical evacuations & other emergencies● Research how many universities already offer these services and how this would

work if a large amount already do

OPEF: oGCDP

OPEF: iGIP (I)Pricing: change to one-time fee charged at match, no more “sourcing” fee

● (MC) Advise LCs on how to terminate contracts if companies are “free-riding” by requesting more than 3 new shortlists since they aren’t being charged anymore

● (MC) Create updated sales folders with new pricing structure● (Plenary) Explain new pricing as a “promotional contract” when using old sales folders

Quantity discount: MC-negotiated discounts above a threshold are possible● (MC) Set threshold above which sales-people can suggest that a quantity discount is possible● (Plenary) Suggest discount possibility if company seems willing to take above the threshold but do not

promise anything● (Plenary) Bring details of the potential deal to the MC to see if company is eligible for a discount

OPEF: iGIP (II)Pre-match: should not be actively sold but permissible if potential for re-raise and position develops leadership; cost is the same but negotiable with the MC if company insists on not paying full amount

● (MC) Create guidelines on how to deal with a pre-match if a company asks● (MC) Calculate what our “sourcing” cost really is and how much of this can be made available for assisting the oGIP side of a

pre-match if company requests a discount for waiving sourcing● (Plenary) Do not sell pre-match as it is not a product, deal with it according to MC guidelines if approached by a company

about it

MC-Regional-LC co-sales: revenue and #s goes to LCs; case-by-case basis so no legislation is needed; involve LCs in sales with national partners; LCs responsible for delivery with MC/Regional-BD support

● (MC) Create criteria of what kind of companies are potential national partners and should be co-sold● (Plenary) Use MC-created criteria to determine if lead has potential for national partnership and involve MC if so

LCs selling in other markets: unresolved issues with splitting numbers, revenue, and AD work; ideal state is that all raises are handed over to Local Committee

● (MC) Create space to discuss how to handle out-of-market sales with VP-ICXs and LCPs● (Plenary) Discuss and make recommendations to the MC on how to resolve out-of-market sales

OPEF: EXPASummary

There are plenty of resources online, Sebastian has been very responsive, and the implementation checklist needs a more aggressive follow-up.

Recommendations

(MC): Provide quiklinks for easy navigating on the resource hub. Give a training session to LCPs or VPs that can be delivered to an LC as a whole (same across the board). Give more specific deadlines and mandates with aggressive follow-up and accountability. Give a functional scavenger hunt and let it be a competition between LC’s or regions. Give trainings or instructions based on functional team so members can find information on expa that pertains to them only.

(NP): Understand the importance of EXPA for membership and creating exchanges. Follow-up with members and VPs to make sure they know it and use it.

ORGANIZATIONAL SUSTAINABILITY

Abbreviation: OS

OS: ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (I)

Regional Support Teams

● Summary: RC’s would manage RST’s and hold regional summits for RST training. The MC responsible of specific functions would give support via calls. RST members would be given a form of TtT and taught how to faci in order to give better coaching.

● Recommendations:○ (MC): Make sure that teams have proper coaching to offer proper trained support and teaching. ○ (NP): Spread the word about RSTs, make sure members know functionality of it, utilize RSTs

Coaching

● Summary: MC responsible/coach was good as a direct line of communication and to help with planning, but lacked aid to LC as a whole (really only helped LCP and some VPs).

● Recommendations○ (MC): Keep the touchpoints when possible, but also provide a way to help fix specific problems that an individual

LC is facing. ○ (NP): Make sure coaching received is passed down to general members and doesn’t just stay concentrated within

star members and VP’s.

Growth

● Summary: Categorization can be good because overall struggles are similar, but you can’t always put functions in the “stages.” Can be too concrete when used as an absolute, but is helpful to have concrete steps to use as “stepping stones” to growth. Can be restricting if used improperly

● Recommendations:○ (MC): Use as a training tool and a general frame of reference rather than a box. Use as tools for RCs and RSTs as well.○ (LC): Make classifications for your LC - different functions are on different steps.

Organizational Development

● Summary: Focus programs are more of a long term solution rather than a short term one - some LC’s will struggle in the next quarter, but will eventually be able to succeed. Focus programs need to be able to collaborate, share GCPs, and have discussions. When one LC plateaus in one focus program, they will be able to move on to another, and the membership model is meant to reflect that.

● Recommendations○ (MC): Give more information on the “whys” of the focus programs, especially to elects. What does this mean on the larger scale of AIESEC

US?○ (NP): Give the most resources and people to your focus programs (they should be allocated to reflect your focus). Use other resources to

help non-focus programs grow.

Membership

● Summary: How do we handle MOA’s? Per compendium, some should be disbanded, but this would bring down national numbers. Could disband members who would benefit from it, but not take away right to do exchange, and allow to redeem selves at SNC. Many LC’s have ridden underperformance without disbandment for years.

● Recommendations:○ (MC and MSC): Compile a history of membership so currents can get an understanding of their membership histories. Analyze lower

performing members and look at their capacity. Have they begun to prove that they will grow? Also look at higher performing and evaluate○ (NP): Know your LC’s membership history. Understand that this is not a grace period, but the new model is meant to be a mindset change.

OS: ORGANIZATIONAL DEVELOPMENT (II)

Each region would take a portion of the national revenue and make their own budget. Would not change finances much, however, would make processes more efficient and effective. Similar to the way the NSF is structured and AI regional budgets.

● Fund would be overseen by the RC, but LCPs would have a say in large expenditures● A regional budget will not be considered until after the success or failure of the RST is evaluated.● If implemented, the regional budget may be an opt-in option varying from region to region● This budget would be used in areas such as coaching, summits, travel costs, regional events. (NOT RoKs)● The regional budget is different than the RoKs budget.

OS: FINANCE REGIONAL BUDGETS

The purpose of this fund would be to alleviate financial concerns of LCs distant from conferences. Where a portion of the revenue would be allocated for this fund, with the restriction of the money only being used for traveling. Based on the LC’s location and number of members being brought to the LC, there would be a certain percentage of money given to lessen the financial burden of traveling. An alternate option would be to vary the delegate fee based on the LCs travel cost to make costs equivalent across the board.

● In Brazil, they have their conferences at the same hotel yearly and charge the hosting LC a large delegate fee, while having distant LCs pay nothing for the delegate fee to make the cost similar. Although this is a great idea, option one is most ideal.

● There has been conversation to have two separate types of travel funds. 1) Need-based fund 2) Equality-Based (Distance)

● Another option is to incorporate it into the NSF; however, do we want it at the same hotel?● A fund must happen, but do you want it to be a mandate? Who do you believe should be in

charge of this? What role would you want the MC to play in this fund?

OS: FINANCE TRAVEL FUND

Updates

● There is a new program for LC finances (No more wave or intact)● LCs will be responsible for all of their own accounting● There will be a new financial year set in place to align with the MC’s year● Half year #s are to be submitted at SNC (August 1st for External Audit)● Submit final prior year #s – May 1st

● Auditors will be selected by LCPs at WNC

Ideas to fix functional knowledge issues

● Potential crash courses at WNC for LCPs● Having Consultancy spaces● Begin to speak about exchanges in terms of money in order to learn and plan accordingly● Having more finance coaching visits to the LCs in order to educate the VPFs to a larger extent● Potential conference for VPF’s (72-96hrs)● Regions would get together and potentially host a Finance Regional Conference (FoKs?) or a Finance Summit. This conference would only be for

VPFs and LCPs who are interested.● Questions arise about travel costs and funding.

Question

● How would this make national accountability change?○ If one LC does bad accounting and has bad records, auditors will see that. In the current system, it’s not as much of a problem.

OS: FINANCE LOOKING FORWARD

MC

● Regional Budget: Look into scenarios and formulas in order to learn more about areas such as: amount of money in fund, use of money, money allocation, etc.

● Travel Fund: Get projections to see what the potential allocation of funds could look like in reality. Have educational material to help VPF’s understand the details of this fund.

● Future of Finance: Look into potentially having a Finance conference and what funding would look like.

National Plenary

● Regional Budgets: Get familiar with the NSF if you are not and speak to LCPs around you to see what the interest level. If there is interest, reach out to Patrick to talk specifics.

● Travel Fund: This is not a new idea and has proved to be very effective in the past. Let the Steering team know if you are interested in this or not. If so, we can begin to take steps on it. If you have questions, do not hesitate to contact us.

○ Consider this option and speak to your members about whether or not they like this idea because this would affect them more directly than other financial decisions.

● Future of Finance:○ Prioritize finance starting now. Finance is revolutionizing and it can be used to your advantage if you get ahead of the game.

Start by spending time with your VPF to learn more about what he knows. If both of you are confused, contact Patrick or even a Professor at your university about finance.

○ Speak to your finance members to see if they would be interested to see actions such as the ones suggestion being implemented.○ As for the updates, they are happening. Do not fall behind now and get yourself up to date!

OS: FINANCE RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

● The first idea was to implement a one strike policy regarding branding issues. If an LC were to publish a marketing material with incorrect branding, this would count as their one strike. Upon receiving their first strike, the LC would have their LCVP MKT meet with the MCVP Marketing or the brand subcommittee in a coaching call to reevaluate the branding guidelines. After this, each subsequent error would incur a fine

● Branding guidelines will be passed with legislation, but the guidelines must be released well-before WNC to ensure that LCPs can review them and give feedback on the guidelines

● Create a national branding subcommittee which would handle brand violations and brand complaints. This subcommittee would also review any marketing materials submitted to them by LCs that wish to keep their marketing materials brand-aligned

● Create a standardized branding audit period

Suggestions to the MC

● Work with NP to create a one strike policy, to be legislated at WNC.● Propose the branding guidelines as legislation at WNC.

Suggestions to the NP

● Work with the MC to create a branding subcommittee with the responsibilities mentioned above.● Legislate one-strike policy.

OS: MARKETING (I)

OS: MARKETING (II)Websites and Social Media

● LC Websites will be taken offline. The only LC websites that will be permitted are standardized pages linked to the AIESEC US Website.

○ The websites will be coded so that each LC has its own partition of the server, meaning that LC Websites cannot harm others.

● Facebook Pages will continue to be permitted.○ LCs can opt in or out of having their LC participate in a general AIESEC US Facebook Page, that would feature posts

from all AIESEC US LCs.● Suggestions to the MC

○ Possible creation of a how-to guide for LCs that want to maintain their own Facebook account.○ Determine what the national Facebook Page would look like and distribute that information to the LCs.

Y2B

● Ideas○ Creation of regional Y2B’s.○ Submit a bid to host a Y2B, so that the MC knows that they are capable of securing parterns and able to host the event.

● Suggestions to the MC○ Create a “Y2B Kickstarter Platform”. This would be a how-to document from the MC on planning Y2B’s.

OS: TALENT MANAGEMENTNational Membership Standards (For individual team members)

● Summary: Want to boost accountability and quality of membership across the board and give a platform answer to “what does it mean to be in AIESEC US?” The base would then be built on by the LC’s based on their realities and expectations. Minimums aspect would be submitted with SONA and would help ensure quality membership experiences. Would need to take into account efforts, not results of a member as well as functional teams. Could also be implemented by RSTs.

● Recommendations○ (MC): Evaluate how members are already being tracked, and what they are already being

held accountable to. Would need a standard that allows for innovation, would account for self-made and managed projects, etc.

○ (NP): Begin developing a culture of tracking if not already existent.