This document provides a quarterly performance review for AIESEC in Vietnam. It summarizes exchange program results for Q1 2014, noting that the organization achieved 63.5% of its exchange goals. Key metrics like NPS scores and the number of exchanges per local committee are presented. Best practices from local committees are highlighted, and the committee with the best overall performance, AIESEC FTU HN, is recognized for gaining the most exchanges and having over 170% growth compared to the previous year. The review concludes by setting exchange goals for Q2 2014 and providing reference links for additional details.

1. PERFORMANCE REVIEW
Organizational Development
Q1 2014 | AIESEC in Vietnam 2013 - 2014

2. Table of contents
1. 1. Overall performance | Jul 2013 – now
2. 2. Overall performance | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)
3. 3. Further insights
4. 4. Goal Q2 2014 | Get ready for summer peak!!!
5. 5. Good cases practices sharing
6. 6. Recognition | Best Exchange Performance in Q1 2014
7. 7. Reference links
• Notice:
• All data is taken from SONA, myaiesec.net and Customer Gauge. Some data maybe
wrong due to invalid SONA data from LCs.
• Take the review as reference for some insights you might find useful.
• Pay attention to red or big blue numbers!!!

3. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Jul 2013 – now
National performance based on MC term (Jul-Jun). Period: 01.07.2013 – 10.04.2014
2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014
IGCDP 69 247 247 223
OGCDP 115 151 205 193
IGIP 25 47 41 42
OGIP 20 19 39 29
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Exchange
Quality KPI NPS Completed % Promoters
Completed
Response Rate
Completed
Cases closed/ cases
open (all status)
IGCDP 46 58% 66% 28/1
OGCDP 26 44% 61% 28/0
IGIP 40 53% 46% 4/0
OGIP 50 67% 54% 3/0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
XGrowthChart
IGCDP
OGCDP
IGIP
OGIP
Total X

4. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Jul 2013 – now
National performance based on MC term (Jul-Jun). Period: 01.07.2013 – 10.04.2014
HN
20%
FTU HN
22%
DN
5%
HCM
18%
FTU HCM
31%
RMIT
4%
LCs contribution
in total X
HN
18%
FTU HN
26%
DN
2%
HCM
29%
FTU
HCM
20%
RMIT
5%
OGCDP
HN
22%
FTU HN
15%
DN
6%
HCM
9%
FTU
HCM
43%
RMIT
5%
IGCDP
HN
39%
FTU HN
25%
DN
14%
HCM
7%
FTU
HCM
11%
RMIT
4%
OGIP
HN
12%
FTU HN
31%
DN
0%
HCM
31%
FTU
HCM
26%
RMIT
0%
IGIP

5. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)
National performance in Q1
IGCDP OGCDP IGIP OGIP Total
Goal Q1 - 2014 86 68 24 15 193
Achieved 59 37 12 6 114
0
50
100
150
200
250
Quality
KPI
NPS
Completed
% Promoters
Completed
Response
Rate
Completed
Cases closed/
cases open
(all status)
IGCDP 41 54% 62% 15/1
OGCDP 57 60% 60% 3/0
IGIP 50 50% 20% 0/0
OGIP 50 75% 44% 2/0
HN
18%
FTU HN
26%
DN
4%
HCM
23%
FTU HCM
25%
RMIT
4%
LCs contribution
in total X
HN
8%
FTU HN
37%
DN
0%
HCM
37%
FTU
HCM
18%
RMIT
0%
OGCDP
HN
24%
FTU HN
17%
DN
7%
HCM
15%
FTU
HCM
34%
RMIT
3%
IGCDP
HN
33%
FTU HN
33%
DN
17%
HCM
0%FTU
HCM
0% RMIT
17%
OGIP
HN
10%
FTU HN
40%
DN
0%
HCM
30%
FTU
HCM
20%
RMIT
0%
IGIP

6. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)
Customer Experience Management
100
100
33
35
100
0
78
80
0
0
0
60
0
50
50
100
100
0
60
35
0
0
75
0
OGIP
IGIP
OGCDP
IGCDP
NPS Completed
RMIT FTU HCM HCM DN FTU HN HN
33
0
60
100
100
0
86
40
0
0
0
100
0
50
64
25
100
0
69
69
0
0
42
0
OGIP
IGIP
OGCDP
IGCDP
Response Rate Completed
RMIT FTU HCM HCM DN FTU HN HN

7. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)
Customer Experience Management. Some experiences in Q1 The gcdp I signed up for was supposed to last Four weeks, but ended up
being one week. I was told that i could not fly in on sunday and then arrive
on monday, because i had to be there to start the project, so i arrived on
sunday. But the entire first week there was no internship! (And no other
EPS because they left the city for a trip because boredom in the residential
city) the ticket costed me €100 more for nothing!! The contract stated the
working times to be from 10-16h, but in fact were from 7-16.. The other
EPs made my experience abroad a great one, but the project did not really
contribute to that. When talking to the other EPs about the preparation,
everybody was told different things, very strange when your on the same
project but get told different required starting dates! Aiesec Vietnam knew
for instance for a long time that the las two weeks of january, would be a
public holiday, so no internship, but my contract stated that mine would
last untill Jan 31st... All together, I am happy to have met the international
students I have, but the internship was a big disappointment. I expected
more of it, also because of the price I had to pay to enroll in aiesec.
Eline from Netherlands | Host LC: FTU HCMC
I really had an awesome time and it was truly the most meaningful and
rewarding experience. I was able to experience cultural diversity. It was great
to make many global lifelong friends :) ! Furthermore, during the journey I
was able to identify my weakness as well. Therefore this experience will
certainly improve my personal development. Most of all, through AIESEC I was
able to make the most memorable memories :) !!!
Yeonjoon Lee from New Zealand | Host LC: FTU HCMC
Cultural Preparation-Sending materials to share about culture would be
really helpful because doing research on your own does not really give you a
definite answer as to how their culture really is.
Another thing, its really important for the LC to get involved with the EP's,
not just one person, who is not even reliable.
The TNs that are raised are a fraud. You come to a country only for you to
come and do nothing because the job you interviewed for is not there.
Just to add more, I think its high time people start being honest about their
exchange experiences, to avoid repetition of same mistakes from LC's.
Kesego from Bostwana | Host LC: Hanoi
GCDP is really a good opportunity for young people as me to experience. I can
understand and develop more myself, make a small contribution to society. I
know the meaning of the youth. Thank you Aiesec, thank you GCDP!
Thanh Hien from FTU HN | Host country: China
I'm glad that I was lucky enough to meet those interns and AIESECer in the
Philippines. Their stories are so inspiring, they are my inspiration from now
on. I have set my goal and I know how I am going to achieve that goal.
THanks to them. I also learn a lot about their culture. I lived with 15 interns
in one house from all over the world. I know what they eat, how they talk,
what is their tradition ect....Overall, taking this internship was amazing
Ngoc Co from HCMC | Host country: The Philippines

8. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)
LC performance in Q1
 We got +63.5% relative growth for this Q1 compared to Q1-2013 (0% growth in 2 GIP programs and 63.5% growth in 2
GCDP programs) and NPS completed status over 30 in 3 programs (except for OGCDP). Thank you all LCs for contributing to
the winter and spring peaks 
 Recognition time!
 Please pay attention to your CEM implementation during matching and realization time!!!
 CEM wiki: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewwiki.do?contentid=10275681
 NPS system guide: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10276278
 Quality standards: MCVPs X with OD have finalized the standards to deliver the high-quality experience. Each EP/ TN
will be checked and stored based on the quality standards checklist. Please approach your MCVPs for guidance how to
implement this 
LC FTU HN
for having biggest
contribution to
total Q1 results
LC Danang
for having highest
relative growth
+400%
LC FTU HCMC
for having highest
percentage of goal
achievement

9. OVERALL PERFORMANCE | Q1 2014 (Jan – Mar)
Financial status

10. FURTHER INSIGHTS
 IGIP, ER
3 break matches & realizes last quarter: FTU HN, HCM, FTU HCM
 LC HCM was the only LC successfully re-raised 7 TNs from 2 GIP TN Takers
 Total sales people in all LCs: 37
 Sales people delivered results: 15 (41%)
• IGCDP
 Only 1 LC with below 0 NPS in realized status: LC HN (-33)
50%
0%0%12%
25%
13%
Break match/ realize IGCDP
HN (4)
FTU HN (0)
DN (0)
HCM (1)
FTU HCM (2)
RMIT (1)
0%
8%
24%
24%
44%
0%
TNs raised from NPO team
HN (0)
FTU HN (2)
DN (6)
HCM (6)
FTU HCM (11)
RMIT (0)

11. FURTHER INSIGHTS
 OGCDP
 LC HCMC has highest number of returnees in LC: 14
• CEM
 LC FTU HN is the only LC conducted CEM education for all LC members last quarter. Will other LCs do the same?
28%
41%
4%
2%
23%
2%
OGCDP AF
HN (163)
FTU HN (238)
DN (20)
HCM (13)
FTU HCM (134)
RMIT (13)
19%
24%
1%24%
22%
10%
OGIP AF
HN (54)
FTU HN (71)
DN (2)
HCM (70)
FTU HCM (65)
RMIT (28)

12. GOAL Q2 2014 | Get ready for summer peak!!!
60
60
8
19
45
41
26
26
26
30
30
26
41
76
93
22
18
15
Raise
Match
Realize
IGCDP
HN FTU HN DN HCM FTU HCM RMIT
20
16
1
12
10
5
6
4
2
10
9
5
11
10
8
0
0
0
Raise
Match
Realize
IGIP
80
77
21
100
80
30
60
46
25
151
95
72
143
131
57
10
4
5
Raise
Match
Realize
OGCDP
28
9
0
12
6
9
25
15
5
20
5
14
33
19
5
8
5
5
Raise
Match
Realize
OGIP

13. GOOD CASES PRACTICE SHARING
We run Talent Coordinator Model which is held by TM. TM
Function will have coordinators to date with members to see
if having any problems and then report the input to
TLs/Managers for them to have direction to lead and develop
their members.
AIESEC FTU HN
Create Alumni Board to support EB and LC: long-term
engage with a sustainable pool of alumni
Building synergy map of all functions
Building JD for Quality Management board of OGX
Initiating IR team for all X functions (progress: in research)
AIESEC HCMC
“Share to be shared” project to boost up the pro-active
learning attitude in members
AIESEC HN
IGIP: Engage BoA in specific training (hard knowledge) for
sub-market such us IT, instead of getting refferral or market
inside only
Move from Traditional Sales to B2B sales
Utilize linkedin to approach directly decision maker, link to
Job Group related to sub-market, connect AIESEC alumni as
well as find BoA
AIESEC FTU HCMC

14. RECOGNITION | Best Exchange Performance in Q1 - 2014
LC Total
GCDP
Q1 -
2014
Total
GIP
Q1 -
2014
Total X
Q1 -
2014
Total
GCDP
Q1 -
2013
Total
GIP
Q1 -
2013
Total X
Q1 -
2013
Relative
Growth
Q1 2014
vs Q1
2013
Goal
set for
Q1 –
2014
% Goal
achiev
ement
NPS
Completed
<0 in 1
program?
Score
1 for
total
results
Score 2
for
growth
Score 3
for %
goal
achieve
ment
Final
score
(1+2+
3)
HN 17 3 20 13 6 19 +5.3% 38 53% No 6.67 0.13 8.17 14.97
FTU
HN
24 6 30 9 2 11 +172.7% 53 57% No 10.00 4.32 8.78 23.10
DN 4 1 5 1 0 1 +400% 12 42% No 1.67 10.00 6.74 18.13
HCM 23 3 26 8 5 13 +100% 53 49% No 8.67 2.5 7.61 18.78
FTU
HCM
27 2 29 21 4 25 +16% 45 64% No 9.67 0.4 10.00 20.07
RMIT 3 1 4 1 1 2 +100% 0 0% No 1.33 2.5 0.00 3.83
Criteria for Quarterly Best Exchange Performance:
 No drop in exchange results compared to same quarter last year
 No program has NPS completed < 0 in the quarter
 Scoring: based on 3 elements: total results, relative growth, % goal achievement. In each element, LC with highest result gets 10 points,
other LCs get points based on % of highest LC. Points for each element will be sum up for final score
 So let’s say congratulations to AIESEC FTU HN for gaining Best Exchange Performance in Quarter 1 – 2014!!! 

15. REFERENCE LINKS
 CEM Wiki: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewwiki.do?contentid=10275681
 CEM system guide: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10276278
 All LCs plans Feb 2014: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301974
 Q3 2013 SONA report AIESEC Vietnam: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301972
 Q4 2013 SONA report AIESEC Vietnam: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301952
 Q1 2014 SONA report AIESEC Vietnam: http://www.myaiesec.net/content/viewfile.do?operation=fileview&contentid=10301951
 Results from L&D survey in Mar (analyzed by eMCVP TM Amy): http://slidesha.re/1n2I1WQ

16. The end
Organizational Development
Q1 2014 | AIESEC in Vietnam 2013 - 2014