1. NPS Goal Setting
AIESEC 2015 Quality MoS

2. 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

3. Our ability in providing
better experiences (GCDP)
Key Facts 2012
NPS: 47
% of Promoters: 60%
Response Rate: 20%
Key Facts 2013
NPS: 38
% of Promoters: 55%
Response Rate: 37%

4. Our ability in providing
better experiences (GIP)
Key Facts 2012
NPS: 45
% of Promoters: 61%
Response Rate: 24%
Key Facts 2013
NPS: 39
% of Promoters: 57%
Response Rate: 37%

5. Our ability in providing
better experiences (TLP)
Key Facts 2012
NPS: 67
% of Promoters: 72%
Response Rate: 20%
Key Facts 2013
NPS: 57
% of Promoters: 64%
Response Rate: 22%

6. Our ability in providing
better experiences (TMP)
Key Facts 2012
NPS: 51
% of Promoters: 62%
Response Rate: 12%
Key Facts 2013
NPS: 43
% of Promoters: 56%
Response Rate: 13%

7. What Goals are we
setting for?
2014 2015
Yearly NPS goa

8. Key Principles in goal
setting

9. 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

10. 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 issues
Understand the impact of the detractor issues towards the NPS number (Using Waterfall
Analysis tools)

11. Understanding Waterfall
Analysis

12. Waterfall analysis Explanation
Detractor Issues
Promoter Issues
Impact towards NPS Score
Overall NPS Score

13. GCDP NPS Goal Setting

14. 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)

15. 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)

16. 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

17. GIP NPS Goal Setting

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. 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

21. Summary of ELD NPS Goal

22. GCDP and GIP NPS Goal
GCDP GIP
2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015
38 40 48 38 43 4822500 30000 38000 9000 13000 17000

23. What about
TMP/TLP?

24. How should
your entity
set NPS
goals?

25. 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

26. Benchmarking
your NPS Goal

27. Introducing you…
NPS Regional
Zones!

28. Entity NPS Respon
ses
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 Respon
ses
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 Respon
ses
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

29. 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

30. “Let’s deliver more
while better
experiences!”