Communication Area Analysis & ReportAIESEC Italy Q3 2010

SONA Q3, 2010Evgenia Berestneva, MCVP IM

[All data in this report is based on SONA filled by LC; real data, that can be checked in myaiesc.net and other resources can be different]

Human resources

11 LCs out of 17 [65%] have Com responsible in EB

1 LC out of 17 [6%] has 2 different ppl responsible For Com and IM in EB

Suggestion: if you want to have VPCom and VPIM in EB, contact Milano Cattolica to get GCPs on structure and JD

External Events

9 LCs out of 17 [53%] didn’t participated in external events asrepresentative of youth leadership organization

4 LCs out of 17 [24%] Participated in more than 1 externalevent as representative of youth

Suggestion: Milano Cattolica (7 events), Pavia (3), Torino (2), Venezia (2) can share on how to participate in external events

Alumni Involvement

6 LCs out of 17 [35%] Have 0-1 alumni involved in their activities

3 LCs out of 17 [18%] Have more than 6 alumni involved inLC activities

Suggestion: Napoli Parthenope (14 alumni), Torino (9), Pavia (6) can share strategy of Alumni Management in LC

Web-page development

6 LCs out of 17 [35%] Have <500 visitors on LC web-page in 3 months

4 LCs out of 17 [24%] Don’t have counter on web-page

Suggestion: 1) Catania, Genova, Napoli Federico II, Venezia – contact Alessio Esposito (NCC Web-Manager) or MCVPIM to get support with installation of counter on web-page 2) Milano Cattolica (1350), Trento (1000), Torino (895) have the highest measurements – get to know what did they do for it

Social Media

7 LCs out of 17 [41%] Don’t have twitter account or have 0 followers

6 LCs out of 17 [35%] Don’t have fan-page

Suggestion: Palermo, Roma Sapienza, Roma Tre, Torino, Trieste, Venezia can share GCPs on promotion of fan-page

Media Appearances

5 LCs out of 17 [29%] Have 0 media appearances

2 LCs out of 17 [12%] Have more than 10 media appearances

Suggestion: contact Torino (18), Napoli Federico II (15-20) to know the strategy for big number of media apperances

Teams allocation My@net

8 LCs out of 17 [47%] Have <50% members allocated in teams in My@

2 LCs out of 17 [12%] Have 100% of members allocated In teams in myaiesec.net

Suggestion: contact Ancona and Genova to know strategy to achieve 100% allocation of members in teams in myaiesec.net

Internal Com & Knowledge Management13 LCs out of 17 [76%] Don’t have functional wiki in myaiesec.net

in 8 LCs out of 17 [47%] <50% members use my@net email

0 LCs out of 17 [0%] Have internal com policy

Office Infrustructure

3 LCs out of 17 [18%] Don’t have internet in the office

7 LCs out of 17 [41%] Have <50% provision of PC in office

Com claster allocationSONA 2010 has aim to track not only organizational performance, but also “health” of each area.

Health rate for each question in the area is from 0 to 4 (4=max).Since there are 6 main questions in Com area, max score = 24.You can see here table for “health points” allocation:

Health score 0 1 2 3 4

# of external events participated 0 1-2 3 4-5 6

# of alumni involved in activities 0 1 2 3-4 5

# of unique visitors on web-page 0-300 301-550 551-850 851-1000 >1000

# of media appearances 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 >20

% of M allocated to teams in My@ 0-10 11-40 41-60 61-80 81-100

# of functional area wiki 0 1-3 4 5 6

Com claster allocation

Since maximum total score for Com area = 24, To allocate LCs in clasters in communication area, we accept that:

1 Claster: 17-24 points

2 Claster: 9-16 points

3 Claster: 0-8 points

Com claster allocationCom area claster allocation based on Q3 results

1 Claster 2 Claster13-Torino11-Milano Cattolica10-Pavia

3 Claster8-Genova8-Napoli Parthenope8-Palermo7-Venezia7-Bolzano7-Roma Tre6-Ancona6-Napoli Federico II6-Trieste5-Roma Sapienza5-Trento4-Pisa3-Catania1-Bari

0% of LCs - 1st Claster

18% of LCs – 2nd Claster

82% of LCs – 3rd Claster

Com claster allocation

There is no big difference in results between LCs that have and don’t have Com responsible in EB

INTERESTING FACT

[ ]