1. Summer Steering Team
Recommendations

2. Contents
Letter to AIESEC US | 3
Global Information System | 4-5
Coaching Model | 6-7
Membership Model | 8-19
LCP Call Input | 20-21

3. Dear Generation 2014,
From June 28-29, the Summer Steering Team met in New York to give input on the legacy project plans of MC 14.15, the launch of
the Global Information System across AIESEC US, the evolution of the MC-LC coaching model, and the update of the AIESEC US
membership model - all while collecting input from the LCPs of AIESEC US. Through conversations with the LCPs of AIESEC US
and with each other, we created recommendations for the National Plenary and the MC on the most effective ways to empower
AIESEC US to deliver on our promises.
It’s been 5 years since the Revolution and AIESEC US has come a long way. The organization has continued to develop over the
years thanks to the previous leaders and teams who dedicated themselves to impacting young people in the United States. After all
the efforts put into re-establishing this organization we have yet to achieve our potential and the dreams we have for AIESEC US.
We’ve been good, but we can’t settle for good; we must aspire to be great. We must stand together with the humility to see our
organization the way it currently is, the courage to dream big, the boldness to take ownership for the organization, accept change,
and dare to transform.
We hope that you take our input into consideration moving forward and help us continue these discussions to further develop
AIESEC US.
Sincerly,
The 2014 Summer Steering Team
Alex Robinson (AIESEC Chapel Hill), Samson Wu (AIESEC SLO), Ling Li (AIESEC Yale), Harrison Kao (AIESEC San Diego), Jimmy
Ngo (AIESEC Baruch), Natalie Rodgers (AIESEC Austin), and Bjørn Mikkelson (AIESEC Eau Claire)
Letter to AIESEC US

4. Global Information System
What is it?
A new platform with a new customer flow: Sign-up → Apply → Match → Realize → Completed → Re-Integrated
(no more “Raise” stage). EPs can apply to TNs as soon as they sign up. Every stage is trackable, which means more
data. The CRM will be included, planning and tracking elements, a library of resources that doesn’t require a specific
keyword search. The GIS will be replacing myaiesec.net from August onward.
Every LC should have one GIS manager to help with implementation.
Resources:
Test out the functionality of the site here: https://auth.aiesec.org/users/sign_in
Find more info here: http://issuu.com/aiesecinternational/docs/gis_guide_-_testing_the_new_system
Check out what it looks like and find updates here: aies.ec

5. GIS Recommendations
MC 14-15 AIESEC US
● Provide education on general system
functions
● Further explore how the GIS
customer flow will affect our
processes and operations
● Provide continuous change
management support for
implementation
● Subscribe to GIS newsletter for
updates
● Watch online videos
● Become a user to test the site
● Think about how recruitment and
exchange will be affected by the new
customer flow of the GIS
● Give feedback
● Ask questions to Steering Team,
Niels, and Sebastian
● Find a GIS manager in your LC

6. Coaching Model
What is it?
Each MC member will be responsible for directly coaching 2-3 LCPs, each with different
realities. This MC coach will make 2 physical coaching visits per year. This MC coach will also
be helpful in transition between EBs.
Regional Coordinators will coordinate regional teams of NST coaches who will provide support to
and coach VPs of a particular region. RCs will still be responsible for RoKs. It is intended that
NST regional coaches will be the FACIs at that region’s RoKS for stronger connection.
All in all, increased connection between the national and local levels and higher regional and
functional collaboration.

7. Coaching Model Recommendations
MC 14-15 AIESEC US
● Ensure tracking and accountability for
MC, RCs, and NSB
● Provide TtT training to all NSB
members at NSBC
● Create on-boarding strategy to
ensure LCVP buy-in and trust of NST
coaches
● Promote it to your EBs
● Plan for constant coaching and
regional collaboration for LCPs and
VPs
● Continue to promote TtT and NSB to
members
● Consider RC after LCP term
● Plan to budget for 2 coaching visits
per year from the MC Coach

8. Initial Reasoning
● We want to transform our organization but first we
need to transform the way we govern our
organization.
● How can we transition into a membership model that
is focused on sustainability and growth instead of
achieving the minimum?
Initial Proposed Model (NPM)
● We incorporate a tier model.
● We identify the indicators for sustainability and
growth.
● We increase the standards we set for ourselves as
an organization.
Membership Model
Current Model Pros Current Model Cons
Standard across all LCs All or nothing in terms of LC
status
Easy to maintain
membership status without
growing
Does not represent the
health of an LC or tell the
full story
Achieving full membership
does not always mean
becoming a sustainable LC
Our national membership
does not safeguard
AIESEC US’ global
membership

9. Initial Proposed Model (NPM)
Criteria Member Full Member MOA Time allocation
University Registration YES YES 6 months
3 BoD/BoA members YES YES 12 months
SONA Submission YES YES Automatic upgrade if
other criteria is met
Conference attendance YES YES
Positive Bank account YES YES 6 months
Reserves X amount X amount
Audit ? ? ?
Growth %, Absolute, + growth %, Absolute, + growth
Exchange ___ ICX, ___ OGX ___ ICX, ___ OGX 12 months

10. Reasoning behind revisions to the NPM proposal:
1) Taking into consideration the voices of the LCPs present at Steering Team, phone conversations that we
conducted with other LCPs throughout the weekend, and Feedback from NPM we believe that the initial
proposed model was not the most optimal model for the current state of AIESEC US.
2) As a sign of sustainability and as a safety measure, we determined that a full member would be required to
have a flat $3000 in reserves, which would be enough to safeguard against most emergency expenses.
3) Additionally, we removed the growth aspect of the model, changing it to a “market-based” model to
encourage LCs to capitalize on their strengths and facilitate more exchanges as a nation. (See University vs. City
slide 11)
4) The new criteria values were based in part off of global standards, national goals, and what can be seen as
reasonable growth to expect based on LCs’ previous results
Revised Membership Model

11. LC Type ICX (current) OGX
(current)
ICX
(proposed)
OGX
(proposed)
City (16) 41 292 64 64
University
(14)
13 325 n/a 420
University vs. City
● Based on our initial assessment of market size, of the current 30 LCs, there are 16 City LCs with a stronger potential in
ICX and 14 University LCs with a stronger potential in OGX. The criteria for allocating city and university LCs will
be determined by Dom and Angie.
● From the performance of the past 4 quarters, the university LCs were achieving <1 TN per LC, but are still devoting a
lot of effort and resources towards ICX. If they reallocated their efforts to OGX, they would be able to grow
substantially in OGX and contribute more experiences to the national plenary while still remaining members of
AIESEC US.
● There are no restrictions on running both exchange programs.
● The decision to make the ICX requirement 4 was based on the minimum ICX required for the 16 City LCs to achieve
the 60 TNs required for AIESEC US to maintain global membership. The decision to make the OGX requirement 30
was based on the number of University LCs already performing at around 30 exchanges per year or with the potential
to perform at that level.

12. Membership Model
IG
Disbandment
OE GM
MoA
FM
Host Required
Only GM, FM, MoA are considered
entities on myaiesec.net
1 year maximum.
Achieve GM or FM
requirement in 1 year -
> automatic upgrade.
Failure to achieve
criteria in 1 year ->
automatic
disbandment.
Failure to achieve FM criteria
leads to downgrade to GM
(given GM criteria are met)
If GM criteria are not met,
automatic downgrade to MoA
No time limit for GM or FM

13. Membership Model
Criteria General Member Full Member MOA Time allocation
University Registration YES YES 6 months
3 BoD/BoA members YES YES 12 months
SONA Submission YES YES Automatic upgrade if other
criteria is met
Conference attendance YES YES
Positive Bank account YES YES 6 months
Reserves N/A 3000
Exchange (City) 4 ICX (min. 2 accounts); 4 ICX (min. 2 accounts);
30 OGX
12 months
Exchange (University) 30 OGX 4 ICX (min. 2 accounts);
30 OGX
12 months

14. Breakdown
IG OE MoA GM FM
MCP Voting &
MC VoC
NO NO NO YES YES
Voting at
legislation
NO NO NO NO YES
Host
conferences
NO NO NO YES YES
Host other
entities
NO NO NO NO YES
IG OE MoA GM FM

15. Current Reality
Entity OGX ICX Needed for GM Needed for FM
Appalachian 37 0 ✔ (University) OR 4 ICX (City) 4 ICX
Arizona State 15 0 15 OGX OR 4 ICX 15 OGX AND 4 ICX
Austin 25 5 ✔ (City) OR 5 OGX (University) 5 OGX
Baruch 64 2 ✔ (University) OR 2 ICX (City) 2 ICX
Chapel Hill 41 1 ✔ (University) OR 3 ICX (City) 3 ICX
Colorado 7 2 23 OGX OR 2 ICX 23 OGX AND 2 ICX
Cornell 14 0 16 OGX OR 4 ICX 16 OGX AND 4 ICX
Dallas 2 0 28 OGX OR 4 ICX AND 2 OGX 28 OGX AND 4 ICX
Denver 9 2 21 OGX OR 2 ICX 21 OGX AND 2 ICX
Eau Claire 15 0 15 OGX OR 4 ICX 15 OGX AND 4 ICX
Georgia (UGA) 37 0 ✔ (University) OR 4 ICX (City) 4 ICX
All numbers based on last 4 quarters

16. Current Reality
Entity OGX ICX Needed for GM Needed for FM
Georgia State 9 2 21 OGX OR 2 ICX 21 OGX AND 2 ICX
Georgia Tech 16 8 ✔ (City) OR 14 OGX (University) 14 OGX
Houston 13 0 17 OGX OR 4 ICX 17 OGX AND 4 ICX
Illinois 17 1 13 OGX OR 3 ICX 13 OGX AND 3 ICX
Indiana 12 2 18 OGX OR 2 ICX 18 OGX AND 2 ICX
Madison 33 1 ✔ (University) OR 3 ICX 3 ICX
Miami Florida 19 0 11 OGX OR 4 ICX 11 OGX AND 4 ICX
Michigan 31 4 ✔ (Both) ✔
Northern Illinois 2 3 28 OGX OR 1 ICX AND 2 OGX 28 OGX AND 1 ICX
Northwestern 7 5 23 OGX OR ✔ (City) 23 OGX
Ohio State 0 0 30 OGX OR 4 ICX AND 4 OGX 30 OGX AND 4 ICX
All numbers based on last 4 quarters

17. Current Reality
Entity OGX ICX Needed for GM Needed for FM
Purdue 23 0 7 OGX OR 4 ICX 7 OGX AND 4 ICX
San Jose 20 8 10 OGX OR ✔ (City) 10 OGX
San Luis Obispo 33 2 ✔ (University) OR 2 ICX 2 ICX
Seattle 42 1 ✔ (University) OR 3 ICX 3 ICX
Texas A&M 5 2 25 OGX OR 2 ICX 25 OGX AND 2 ICX
Washington DC 23 1 7 OGX OR 3 ICX 7 OGX AND 3 ICX
Yale 45 2 ✔ (University) OR 2 ICX 2 ICX
All numbers based on last 4 quarters

18. SNC 14
Timeline:
Membership Model
WNC 15SNC 15WNC 14
Model SNC 14 WNC 14 SNC 15 WNC 15
Current Membership based on
current model
Membership based on
current model
N/A N/A
New New model passed and
we start tracking
Continue tracking Membership based on
new model (last 4
quarters)
Membership based
on new model
As seen in the Current Reality data, not many members would currently qualify for GM/FM. This is due
in part because the last four quarters have been driven by the 2:2 standard. Thus the new model will
go into effect officially SNC 2015, taking into account the next four quarters and giving LC’s time to
transition.

19. Membership Model Recommendations
MC 14-15 AIESEC US
● Consider different types of support that
LCs will need in each proposed state
● Possibly incorporate discussions of
model with LCPs throughout the
summer.
● To the MSC: Consider which
upgrades/downgrades/disbandments
should be “automatic” under the new
model.

20. Why: We did LCP call input because LCPs have the most insight and knowledge about their LC reality and
LC history.
We reached out to a total of 27 LCPs, and a total of 20 LCPs shared their inputs. LCP input link: Here
Summary:
● iGIP was the most common focus programme and few LCs had no clear focus.
● Most LCPs had minimal knowledge of Gen 2015.
● The most common positive comment about the mindset of their LC from LCPs was that they had
motivated members that believed in AIESEC‘s value and loved AIESEC’s purpose.
● The most common negative comment about the mindset of their LC from LCPs was that there was a
lack of education, lack of connection to the bigger picture, and lack of connection to the global
mindset of AIESEC.
● The average scale of GIS knowledge was around 5 out of 10. All the LCP said the major challenge
GIS will be uniform education among LCs and long-term transition.
● Almost all the LCPs were fully aware of quality standards for exchange.
LCP Call Input

21. Summary (continued):
● For the minimum exchange criteria as a general member, the average number suggested was 2 ICX and
6 OGX.
● For the minimum exchange criteria as a full member, the average number suggested was 4 ICX (with
minimum 2 different accounts) and 15 OGX.
● Other criteria LCPs said should be considered in the membership model was 1) growth potential of LC
2) TMP and 3) financial health.
● Most LCPs said no change is needed for the price of oGCDP, oGIP, and iGIP.
● About 85% of LCPs said membership criteria should not be based on LCs’ market.
● Regarding the coaching model, most LCPs want the MC to be more proactive, more accessible, and to
provide more follow up.
● The general expectation for MC 14.15 is to have more MC-VP connections, keep LCPs in the loop on
all major discussions, and manage a great SNC.
● The expectation for summer steering team is high transparency and to play a mediator role between LCs
and the MC.
LCP Call Input

22. - The Summer Steering Team 2014
Thank you!