Date post: | 13-Dec-2014 |
Category: |
Business |
Upload: | ricardo-vitorino |
View: | 151 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Organizational Analysis
December 2013
Planning for 2015
What is the content of this document?
• External Analysis of AIESEC in Portugal and sources of information used;
• Internal Analysis of AIESEC in Portugal resources;
• Results Evolution from the last 4 years
External Analysis
PESTL Analysis
• Analyzes 5 different influence factors: – Political – Economical
– Socio-cultural
– Technological – Legal
• Main Output: Top external trends that affect our organization
PESTL
PESTL
Sources of information
Political Factors
• http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/index_pt.htm
• ODCE Annual Report
Economical Factors • http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in-your-
country/portugal/index_en.htm
• http://www.ine.pt/xportal/xmain?xpid=INE&xpgid=ine_publicacoes&PUBLICACOESpub_boui=157543613&PUBLICACOESmodo=2
• http://www.bportugal.pt/pt-PT/OBancoeoEurosistema/ComunicadoseNotasdeInformacao/Paginas/combp20130326.aspx
PESTL
Sources of information Socio-Cultural Factors • http://www.sescsp.org.br/online/artigo/
5648_CRISE+INVERTE+FLUXO+MIGRATORIO#/tagcloud=lista
• http://www.ilo.org/global/about-the-ilo/newsroom/news/WCMS_212848/lang--en/index.htm
• http://www.11changes.com/the-11-changes/the-war-for-talent.html
• http://www.slideshare.net/fullscreen/trendwatching_com/trendwatchingcoms-10-crucial-consumer-trends-for-2013/5
• http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tracking_global_trends/$FILE/Tracking%20global%20trends.pdf
• http://www.voluntariado.pt/preview_documentos.asp?r=1954&m=PDF
Technological Factors • http://arquiteturadeinformacao.com/2011/07/24/o-que-e-o-
zero-moment-of-truth/
• http://www.11changes.com/the-11-changes/education-redefined.html
• http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterhigh/2013/10/14/gartner-top-10-strategic-technology-trends-for-2014/
• http://www.alibabaoglan.com/blog/gartners-technology-predictions-2014-2015-2016/
• http://www.baselinemag.com/it-management/ten-tech-trends-that-will-change-it-in-2013/
External Analysis 5 Forces of Porter • Analyze what is the influence in the market of 5 different forces:
– Competitors Rivalry – Consumers’ Power – Suppliers’ Power – Threat of new entrants – Threat of substitutes products
• 3 different industries were analyzed: – Exchanges for Portuguese Students – International Interns for Portuguese Companies – Social Projects with International Volunteers
• Main Output: Attractiveness of each market
5 Forces of Porter
Exchanges for Portuguese Students (OGX)
5 Forces of Porter
Exchanges for Portuguese Students (OGX)
5 Forces of Porter
Exchanges for Portuguese Students (OGX)
5 Forces of Porter
Exchanges for Portuguese Students (OGX)
Exchanges for Portuguese Students (OGX)
Since there are not many restrictions or costs associated with this kind of XPs there is high probability to have more organizations working in it
Due to the high number of choices available the customers have much power to influence how the market is shaped
We did not consider suppliers because organization create independently what they offer to students
Many substitutes (national internships, academic years abroad) are available with lower prices and/or better financial support conditions
High number of organizations working with this kind of experiences with high differentiated offer
5 Forces of Porter
International Interns for Portuguese Companies (GIPi)
5 Forces of Porter
International Interns for Portuguese Companies (GIPi)
5 Forces of Porter
International Interns for Portuguese Companies (GIPi)
5 Forces of Porter
International Interns for Portuguese Companies (GIPi)
International Interns for Portuguese Companies (GIPi)
Besides the importance of brand identification, all other factors contribute to a high level of this threat since there are few restrictions in entering the market
Customers have a high power of influencing the market since the differentiation of the experience between different organizations is not relevant and they attribute a lot value for quality
We did not consider suppliers because organization create directly the experience with the final customers
Portuguese interns subsidized by the government constitute one our biggest threats
Although there is not a high number of competitors, having a low differentiated product makes a fierce competition through price
5 Forces of Porter
Social Projects with International Volunteers (GCDPi)
5 Forces of Porter
Social Projects with International Volunteers (GCDPi)
5 Forces of Porter
Social Projects with International Volunteers (GCDPi)
5 Forces of Porter
Social Projects with International Volunteers (GCDPi)
Social Projects with International Volunteers (GCDPi)
Having no cost nor legal restrictions in this area, the threat of new entrants is high. What prevents, to some extent, new entrants is the fact that projects are highly differentiated
The clients power is not very distinctive, because there is a high differentiation between projects. However, there no relevant costs associated with change and quality play a big role.
We did not consider suppliers because organization create directly the experience with the final customers
There is a vast number of organizations who develop social projects without providing the international component
There are few organizations that work with a similar framework as ours, increasing rivalry, but being a highly differentiated market contributes for a less competitive situation
Market Attractiveness
Social Projects with International Volunteers: 1,3 *
Exchanges for Portuguese Students: 1,2*
International Interns for Portuguese Companies: 0,9*
* On a scale from 1 to 5
Internal Analysis
MOST Analysis
• Existence, Clarity and Implementation of our Mission, Objectives, Strategies and Tactics
Main Output: Are our MOST adequate and impact the organizational performance.
MOST Analysis M
issi
on
What? Clarity Communication Organizational Commitment
OUR ESSENCE & PROGRESS""Peace and fulfillment of humankind's
potential" (AIESEC provides its members with an integrated leadership development experience
comprised of leadership opportunities, international internships and participation in a global learning
environment)"
&"
Engage and develop every young person in the world."
We have clear and defined Mission for the Organization.
Yes
In some cases our mission is confused by the BHAG, mostly in 1st line
members or 2nd line members less experienced."
The information is available online in wikis and documents, inter/national
conferences and local events."
Members who attend international conferences are more aware. Members who don't attend national conferences
have a lower awareness, understanding and commitment.
Our members agree, are committed and very supportive with the Mission."
Some members believe in the mission but don't have it as the main person
driver to work in the organization. Some members are motivated by
"mastery" - the possibility of developing soft skills/ personal
development/ CV. "
A few percentage challenges the Mission or, even, don't believe on it.
MOST Analysis What? Clarity Communication
Organizational Commitment
Obj
ectiv
es
At international level we have MoS for 2014 and 2015."TMP 126.000 & 155.000"
TLP 42.000 & 52.000"GIP 13.000 & 17.000"
GCDP 30.000 & 38.000"Quality NPS"
There are no objectives for Quality."
Measures of Impact "Midterm Ambition Statements:"
- Our growing physical and virtual reach makes us the most credible and diverse global youth voice."
- We are recognized across serctors as the first-choice partner for our ability to develop responsible and entrepreneurial."
- Our collaborative environment empowers every member to live a high-quality AIESEC experience, creating a cross-generational
positive impact on society.
Yes, by knowing the MoS per year we can plan how much we want to
do as well."
We can also create KPIs and milestones or images that
demonstrate this. Even tough the MoS achievement should by itself
demonstrate the Objectives achievement
The information is available online in wikis and documents, inter/national conferences and local
events."
EBs and most experienced 2nd line members are aware of the MoS and Statements but dont
know it by heart.
AIESEC in Portugal is poorly committed with the
International Objectives. "
LCs are strongly committed with local short-term
objective.
At national and local level we have MoS only for 13.14. We have goals for Quality
Stra
tegy Midterm Ambition Statements:"- Our growing physical and virtual reach makes us the most
credible and diverse global youth voice."- We are recognized across serctors as the first-choice partner for
our ability to develop responsible and entrepreneurial. "- Our collaborative environment empowers every member to live a
high-quality AIESEC experience, creating a cross-generational positive impact on society.
The information is available online in wikis and documents, inter/national conferences and local
events."
Most of our membership dont see it has a strategy to follow even tough they might do it
some times.
There is implementation of some of the strategies, but not oriented towards the
goal achievement of 2015
MOST Analysis What? Clarity Communication
Organizational Commitment
Tact
ics
Growing Physical and virtual reach"Expanding our Operations"
1. MC/LC expansions"2. Market penetration"
3. Specilized Units"EwA"
1. Micro experiences"2. Public Relations"
3. Marketing
Yes. The tactics are very clear. It states the focus that the organization should have
Our membership is aware of these strategies and have
access to all this information.
Yes. Not aligned with the strategy from 2015 but as parts of own local strategy.
Our ability to develop responsible and entrepreneurial leadership"Talent Capacity"
1. TMP&TLP driving GIP & GCDP"2. Integrated XP"
Programme Development"1. Programme Packaging into Sub Products"
2. Programme Innovation
Our collaborative environment empowers every member to live a highquality AIESEC XP"
Customer XP"1. CEM Implementation (CLO & CLS)"
2. Fire fighting"3. Customer-based programme and processes evolution"
Collaboration"1. Team XPs "
2. Internal Collaboration"3. Internal Supply & Demand for X"
4. External Collaboration
Resource Audit
Resource Audit • Financial • Physical • Human Resources • Reputation • Know-How
Main Output: Picture of where the org. stands right now
Financial Resources
Physical
Offices • 13 Local Offices • Presence in 12 Universities
Assets: • Computers • Printers • Projectors
Human Resources HR analysis
Members in front office 52%
Members in back office 48%
Back office areas:
TM 29%
Comm/Mkt 29%
F 17%
ER 21%
IM 2%
Other (internal conferences) 2%
Front office areas:
GCDPi 31%
GIPi 18%
GCDPo 26%
GIPo 25%
Area % newies % oldies
GCDPi 48% 52%
GCDPo 48% 52%
GIPi 51% 49%
GIPo 56% 44%
TM 41% 59%
Comm 55% 45%
F 52% 48%
ER 38% 62%
"Age" of oldies 6-12 months
Human Resources HR Analysis
Top reasons for people applying to TLP positions: 1. Personal development
2. Want more responsibility
3. Creating own projects
Top reasons for people not applying to TLP positions:
1. Not enough time - TL role perceived as something that requires a lot of availability and commitment
2. Lack of confidence/fear of not being good enough (knowledge of the area of organization, leading a team)
3. TL promotion timeline too short, no time to do a good application
Pros of our TLP experiences (as seen by TLs) 1.Personal development
2. Developing others
3. Learn about time management
Cons of our TLP experiences (as seen by TLs) 1. Fear of failure/pressure
2. Not being able to manage a team well
3. Time management is hard
Average # applicants per position opened: 1,1
Know-how
Know-How analysis Area of knowledge Level (scale 1-3)
GIPi process 1,7 GIPo process 2,1
GCDPo 2,0 GCDPi 1,8
Market knowledge 1,1
Online communication 1,4
Offline communication 1,7
PR 1,2
Product positioning 1,3
Member recruitment 1,9 Members development 2,2
Backoffice linked to frontoffice 1,7
Accounting 2,1 Financial management 1
Legal 1,2 IM 1,3
IT/Business Intelligence 1,3
Sales 1,4
Customer Experience Management (students) 1,5
Customer loyalty for organizations 1,4
Reputation What? Characteristics
GCDPo NPS: 40
% of Promoters: 56% % of Passives: 31% % of Detractors: 13%
GCDPi NPS: 43
% of Promoters: 56% % of Passives: % of Detractors: 18%
GIPo NPS: 100
% of Promoters: 100% % of Passives: 0% % of Detractors: 0%
GIPi NPS: 62
% of Promoters: 69% % of Passives: 23% % of Detractors: 8
TOTAL
NPS: 43
% of Promoters: 56% % of Passives: 31% % of Detractors: 13%
Reputation
Fun; 57
Boring; 6
Daring; 21
Challenging; 154
Inclusive; 28
Dynamic; 111
Passive; 4
Theoretical; 11
Practical; 62
Inaccessible; 2
Diverse; 60
Impactful; 134
Intercultural; 181
Top of mind words associated with AIESEC
Reputation
0
50
100
150
200
250
In AIESEC
Outside AIESEC
Boston Box
What? The Boston Box works to aid portfolio management. The box is a 2x2 matrix with four
quadrants. The axes represent low to high market growth and low to high market share. The quadrants represent the following areas:
Dogs These are business units or products that have low relative share and are in unattractive, low-
growth markets.
Cash Cows These are low-growth business units of products that have a relatively high market share.
These are mature, successful products that can be sustained without large investment.
Stars These are high-growth business units or products with a high percentage of market share.
Question Marks These are the business units or products that low market share, but operating in high-growth
markets.
Boston Box
The size of each product circle is according to volume of XP delivered
Boston Box
The size of each product circle is according to the revenue received
Results Evolution
36 27
64 58
31 25 21
14
67 67
174 170
10
58
202
132
0
50
100
150
200
250
2010 2011 2012 2013
Exchange Program Results Evolution
GIPo
GIPi
GCDPo
GCDPi
Growth Evolution
-‐100,0%
0,0%
100,0%
200,0%
300,0%
400,0%
500,0%
600,0%
GIPo GIPi GCDPo GCDPi
Growth Evolution per Exchange program
2010 - 2011
2011-2012
2012-2013
Results Evolution
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
1000
2010 2011 2012 2013
TXP Evolution
TMP
TLP
Results Evolution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
UM FEP PC AV NF LX XX LC NV
GCDPi Evolution
2010
2011
2012
2013
Results Evolution
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
UM FEP PC AV NF LX XX LC NV
GCDPo Evolution
2010
2011
2012
2013
Results Evolution
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
UM FEP PC AV NF LX XX LC NV
GIPi Evolution
2010
2011
2012
2013
Results Evolution
0 2 4 6 8
10 12 14 16 18 20
UM FEP PC AV NF LX XX LC NV
GIPo Evolution
2010
2011
2012
2013