NPS Goal SettingAIESEC 2015 Quality MoS

Objective

We understand the meaning behind the numbers of experiences we are providing

We have a clear direction in providing a high quality experiences towards 2015

We are able to provide more while better experiences

Our ability in providing better experiences (GCDP)

Key Facts 2012NPS: 47% of Promoters: 60%Response Rate: 20%

Key Facts 2013NPS: 38% of Promoters: 55%Response Rate: 37%

Our ability in providing better experiences (GIP)

Key Facts 2012NPS: 45% of Promoters: 61%Response Rate: 24%

Key Facts 2013NPS: 39% of Promoters: 57%Response Rate: 37%

Our ability in providing better experiences (TLP)

Key Facts 2012NPS: 67% of Promoters: 72%Response Rate: 20%

Key Facts 2013NPS: 57% of Promoters: 64%Response Rate: 22%

Our ability in providing better experiences (TMP)

Key Facts 2012NPS: 51% of Promoters: 62%Response Rate: 12%

Key Facts 2013NPS: 43% of Promoters: 56%Response Rate: 13%

What Goals are we setting for?

2014 2015

Yearly NPS goal

Key Principles in goal setting

Key Principles

Improving score is the primary message of NPS implementation

setting the right goals is not a "one size fits all" proposition. • By having trustworthy data and connect NPS goals to

the core business strategy, the customer’s voice can serve as the organisation needs

How to do goal setting NPS?

Set yearly NPS score by adding the impact of the issue towards NPS based on the classification

Classify the detractor issue into “small loop” and “big loop”Small loop: short term tactical solution (6 – 12

months)Big loop: long term strategic solution (12 – 24

months)

Define the key detractor issuesUnderstand the impact of the detractor issues towards the NPS number (Using Waterfall Analysis

tools)

Understanding Waterfall Analysis

Waterfall analysis Explanation

Detractor Issues

Promoter Issues

Impact towards NPS Score

Overall NPS Score

GCDP NPS Goal Setting

1. Key Detractor Issue

• AIESEC’s Support during experience (-2.6)• Job Description Clarity and Alignment (-2.3)• Logistical support (-2.2)• Opportunity to create positive societal impact (-1.7)• Communication effectivity during acceptance

procedure (-1.1)• Integration by the hosting entity (-1)

Note: Choose the self select issue which has highest impact towards NPS (E.g >1)

2. Classifying Detractor Issue

Small Loop• Communication (-1)• Integration (-1)

Big Loop• Support (-2.6)• Job Description (-2.3)• Logistical Support (1.7)• Societal Impact (1.1)

3. Set GCDP yearly NPS Goal

2014

Expected Solved Issue:• Communication (-1)• Integration (-1)

2015

Expected Solved Issue• Support (-2.6)• Job Description (-2.3)• Logistical Support (-1.7)• Societal Impact (-1.1)• Communication (-1)• Integration (-1)

Current NPS score: 38 Current NPS score: 38

2014 NPS score: 40

2015 NPS score: 48

GIP NPS Goal Setting

1. Key Detractor Issue

• AIESEC’s Support during experience (-2.5)• Job Description Clarity and Alignment (-1.6)• Logistical support (-1.5)• Visa documents and information (-1.3)• Communication effectively during acceptance

procedure (-1.3)• Integration by the hosting entity (-1)

Note: Choose the self select issue which has highest impact towards NPS (E.g >1)

2. Classifying Detractor Issue

Small Loop• Visa documents and

information (-1.3)• Communication (-1.3)• Integration (-1)

Big Loop• Support (-2.5)• Job Description (-1.6)• Logistical Support (-1.5)

3. Set GIP yearly NPS Goal

2014

Expected Solved Issue:• Visa documents and

information (-1.3)• Communication (-1.3)• Integration (-1)

2015

Expected Solved Issue• Support (-2.5)• Job Description (-1.6)• Logistical Support (-1.5)• Visa documents and information (-

1.3)• Communication (-1.3)• Integration (-1)

Current NPS score: 39 Current NPS score: 39

2014 NPS score: 43

2015 NPS score: 48

Summary of ELD NPS Goal

GCDP and GIP NPS Goal

GCDP GIP2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015

38 40 48 38 43 4822500 30000 38000 9000 13000 17000

What about TMP/TLP?

How should your entity set NPS goals?

Entity Goal Setting

Using the same steps and processes as the global goal are set Define the detractor issue Classifying detractor issue Set NPS Goal

Using the regional zones as a benchmarking tools Compare the Goal of your NPS with other entity

Benchmarking your NPS Goal

Introducing you…

NPS Regional Zones!

Entity NPS Responses

1 Paraguay 83 6

2 Bolivia 75 24

3 Mexico 57 175

4 Peru 56 157

5 Chile 55 51

6 Ecuador 55 22

7 Argentina 51 354

8 Guatemala 50 16

Green Zone

Entity NPS Responses

9 Brazil 49 1237

10 Venezuela 47 32

11 Colombia 35 426

12 Panama 33 24

13 Costa Rica 31 26

Yellow Zone

Entity NPS Responses

14 El Salvador 11 9

15 Uruguay 11 9

16 Nicaragua 0 2

17 Dominican Republic 0 2

18 Puerto Rico 0 0

Red Zone

IGN - iGCDP

> 50

25 - 49

< 25

Global vs National Goal

• Global goal is not a benchmark towards your entity’s NPS Goal Setting

• Your Benchmark is based on the Zones!

• It’s about creating more promoters through co-delivering the experience between hosting and sending entity

“Let’s deliver more while better experiences!”