15
Quality Suggestion For OGIP Data from NPS 2012/07/01 2013/03/03

Quality suggestions for ogip

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Quality Suggestion For OGIP

Data from NPS 2012/07/01 – 2013/03/03

GRAPHIC ANALYSIS

BRAZILCHINA, MAINLAND

CZECH REPUBLIC

EGYPT GERMANY GHANA INDIA MEXICO POLAND TUNISIA TURKEY URUGUAY

Response 13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1

Total NPS 15 -50 0 -100 40 100 50 50 -60 -100 14 0

Com&Re NPS 11 -100 0 -100 40 100 63 50 -67 -100 17 0

Matched 25 0 0 0 40 0 33 50 -50 0 0 0

13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1

15

-50

0

-100

40

100

50 50

-60

-100

140

11

-100

0

-100

40

100

6350

-67

-100

170

25

0 0 0

40

0

3350

-50

0 0 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

Response Total NPS Com&Re NPS Matched

NPS Based on Countries

BRAZILCHINA, MAINLAND

CZECH REPUBLIC

EGYPT GERMANY GHANA INDIA MEXICO POLAND TUNISIA TURKEY URUGUAY

Response 13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1

Total NPS 15 -50 0 -100 40 100 50 50 -60 -100 14 0

Com&Re NPS 11 -100 0 -100 40 100 63 50 -67 -100 17 0

Matched 25 0 0 0 40 0 33 50 -50 0 0 0

13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1

15

-50

0

-100

40

100

50 50

-60

-100

140

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

Response Total NPS Com&Re NPS Matched

NPS Based on Countries

Conclusion 1• Main TN Providers

• India, Brazil, Germany

Conclusion 2• Satisfaction between main Providers

• India > Germany > Brazil• Poland might not be a very good choice

(good amount of response but NPS < 0)

BRAZILCHINA, MAINLAND

CZECH REPUBLIC

EGYPT GERMANY GHANA INDIA MEXICO POLAND TUNISIA TURKEY URUGUAY

Response 13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1

Total NPS 15 -50 0 -100 40 100 50 50 -60 -100 14 0

Com&Re NPS 11 -100 0 -100 40 100 63 50 -67 -100 17 0

Matched 25 0 0 0 40 0 33 50 -50 0 0 0

13 2 1 1 10 1 14 4 5 1 7 1

11

-100

0

-100

40

100

6350

-67

-100

170

25

0 0 0

40

0

3350

-50

0 0 0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

-150

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

Response Total NPS Com&Re NPS Matched

NPS Based on CountriesConclusion 3

• Satisfaction change between status• India: Com&Re > Matched• Germany: Com&Re = Matched• Brazil: Com&Re < Matched

Conclusion 1

• Main TN Providers

– India, Brazil, Germany

Conclusion 2

• Satisfaction between main Providers

– India > Germany > Brazil

• Poland might not be a very good choice for TN (good amount of response but NPS < 0)

Conclusion 3

• Satisfaction change between status

– India: Com&Re > Matched

– Germany: Com&Re = Matched

– Brazil: Com&Re < Matched

NPS Based on Countries

What makes this difference? Mindset about the two countries?

ISSUES AND COMMENTS ANALYSIS

Detractor Issues Level 1

Detractor Issues Level 2

Promoter Issues Level 1

Promoter Issues Level 2

7%7%

6%

5%

4%

4%

4%

4%4%

4%

51%

% within PromotersJob-description aligned with the TN form

Cross-cultural working experience

Education, training and tools to fulfill the job

Living diverse cultures and having a multi-cultural experienceMatching process explanation

Integration into the local culture

Programme benefits explanation

Objectives of the programme

Exchange participant responsibilities & programme policies (XPP)Education about The AIESEC Experience

other 24 issues

Comment sum up

• Generally, the host entities are not giving enough support for the trainees in problem solving, logistics or other services

– Problem solving JD misalignments, salary misalignments etc.

– Logistic: accommodation, legal process

– Other service: LC involvement, city induction, TN taker induction

• Almost all host entities are having communication problems

– Not fast responding for the request, especially with the problem solving

– Messages not clearly delivered

• If TN takers are taking care of trainees, satisfaction will be much better

– Though Indian LCs are not completely taking care of the trainees, but TN taker there are taking care.

• If culture aspect is extremely good, even if AIESEC part did bad, trainees are satisfied with the experience

Conclusion 4

• JD is the main issue for satisfaction in all countries

– If the JD is clear explained and the same as stated in the TN form, EP will be satisfied, otherwise, will not.

– Main detractors complains:• JD’s clarification before going

• JD is not aligned

• Logistic is another issue but if the culture aspect is very strong, the experience will still produce promoters

Conclusion 5

• Lots of EPs are complaining about the services. Is it an expectation setting problem or really the host entities problem?

Conclusion 6

• The culture and other stakeholder like TN takers are also contributing to the satisfaction of the EPs

Based on Issues

• All the countries to some extend, the host entities’ service are

not that satisfying, mainly about communication effectiveness

and JD alignments.

• However, we also need to see more if it is an expectation

setting problems.

• Culture experience and professional experience are making

EP satisfied with the experience.

General Conclusion

Suggestion 1 Strong alignment with the country partners

• Make sure the TN form is completely right and aligned and work with the country partners that can guarantee the JD clarification.

Suggestion 2 Expectation Setting

• Change the mindset with certain countries, like India

• Tell all the truth about all the problems that they might encounter.

Suggestion 3 Culture preparation strengthen

• Culture difference explanation Get support from country partners. – For example, Russians are colder than you expected when you don’t know each other. Indians

are more relaxed than even Latinos. Germans care a lot about punctuality. Etc.

• Cross-culture adjustment methodology learning.

Suggestion 4 Strengthen the usage of quality reporting tools

• Make sure the EPs now when they have problems who and where they can turn for help while how they can help the organization to improve– NPS surveys

– NCB case report

– LC and MC contacts, etc.

General Suggestions