1. Communication Area
Analysis & Report
AIESEC Italy Q3 2010
SONA Q3, 2010
Evgenia 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]

2. Human resources
11LCs out of 17 [65%]
have Com responsible in EB
1LC 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

3. External Events
9LCs out of 17 [53%]
didn’t participated in external events as
representative of youth leadership organization
4LCs out of 17 [24%]
Participated in more than 1 external
event as representative of youth
Suggestion: Milano Cattolica (7 events), Pavia (3), Torino (2),
Venezia (2) can share on how to participate in external events

4. Alumni Involvement
6LCs out of 17 [35%]
Have 0-1 alumni involved in their activities
3LCs out of 17 [18%]
Have more than 6 alumni involved in
LC activities
Suggestion: Napoli Parthenope (14 alumni), Torino (9), Pavia
(6) can share strategy of Alumni Management in LC

5. Web-page development
6LCs out of 17 [35%]
Have <500 visitors on LC web-page in 3 months
4LCs 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

6. Social Media
7LCs out of 17 [41%]
Don’t have twitter account or have 0 followers
6LCs 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

7. Media Appearances
5LCs out of 17 [29%]
Have 0 media appearances
2LCs 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

8. Teams allocation My@net
8LCs out of 17 [47%]
Have <50% members allocated in teams in My@
2LCs 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

9. Internal Com &
Knowledge Management
13 LCs out of 17 [76%]
Don’t have functional wiki in myaiesec.net
in 8LCs out of 17 [47%]
<50% members use my@net email
0LCs out of 17 [0%]
Have internal com policy

10. Office Infrustructure
3LCs out of 17 [18%]
Don’t have internet in the office
7LCs out of 17 [41%]
Have <50% provision of PC in office

11. Com claster allocation
SONA 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

12. Com claster allocation
Since maximum total score for Com area = 24,
To allocate LCs in clasters in communication area, we accept that:
1Claster: 17-24 points
2 Claster: 9-16 points
3 Claster: 0-8 points

13. Com claster allocation
Com area claster allocation based on Q3 results
1 Claster 2 Claster
13-Torino
11-Milano Cattolica
10-Pavia
3 Claster
8-Genova
8-Napoli Parthenope
8-Palermo
7-Venezia
7-Bolzano
7-Roma Tre
6-Ancona
6-Napoli Federico II
6-Trieste
5-Roma Sapienza
5-Trento
4-Pisa
3-Catania
1-Bari
0% of LCs - 1st Claster
18% of LCs – 2nd Claster
82% of LCs – 3rd Claster

14. Com claster allocation
There is no big difference in
results between LCs that have and
don’t have Com responsible in EB
INTERESTING FACT
[ ]