Paper 5

Core Meeting

Documented by Hong, William
Audio recording by Saraswati, Batari

Summary

Venue:Ishikawadai4, B08
Time Started: 7:15 PM
Time Finished: 9:18 PM
Agenda:

  • Review of Previous Discussions
  • Discussion of the Angles
  • Upcoming Projects

Attendance:

Name Position
Ishio, Junichiro President 3G
Hong, William President 2G
Varquez, Alvin Christopher VP Documentations
Saraswati, Batari Core 2G Internal Affairs Head
Odchimar, Anita II Project Head

SLO: (1) an organization run by majority students
(2) founded by students.

The objective of comparison: to find differences that is important to highlight challenges and opportunity. To find unique aspect of IDA
1. Identity
O Name
O Constitution : clarify the definition
X Reputation and Impact: wide scope to regional to global scope, student-led has the capacity to go to global scale. There is potential for growth for SLO.

2. Purpose
O Reason for existence: there is no difference between SLO and NSLO
O Core values: there is no difference
O Vision: there is no difference
X Key policies: hard to be identified in the same manner across every organization
O Target markets: part of student led’s purposes is to develop student skills. Students are also clients. NSLO and SLO share target market inside and outside, where in SLO the inside is students.

3. Structure
O Physical deployment (merged with workplace) : office, location, geographics. Uniqueness: For SLO they are located in universities: IDA & Global Brigades. NSLO can be located in university.
O Functional compositions (merged rules & jobs, reporting structure): since SLO is university based their role is more simple. While NSLO more professionals.
Challenges: More likely SLO has lesser capability while NSLO has more (since they are professionals)

4. Participants
O Founders: SLO has to be founded/initiated by students, while NSLO could be person/private initiated.
O Managers & workers: uniqueness of SLO all students, while NSLO mostly experts or professionals.
O Channels: Uniqueness SLO university to university
Challenges: one of the purposes of participating in NSLO is to earn a living (aside from passion they earn money/compensated), while SLO is to develop personal capacity. Opportunity: SLO can capitalize on existing university abroad, there is a ready distribution channel.
O Customers: similar with target market. There is a bigger probability that students is the beneficiaries of the system. While NSLO more outwardly focus. (Specific to IDA) Do you remember last year’s monotsukuri workshop? IDA started to include customers even in Japan. Japan is a developed country but social problems still participants. International development includes developed countries. IDA’s uniqueness is not only focused on rural developing countries but also on developed countries such as Japan. SLO may identify some specific problems for developed countries, such as high suicide rates in Japan,etc. Find the origin of the word developed countries.
For IDA, a fun approach is employed and the target could start to kids.
O Suppliers & Partners: partners for SLO is commonly universities (collaboration), partners for NSLO commonly government, other fellow NSLO.
X Neighbours & indirect participants: In SLO there are other participants like faculties
SLO has rich and diverse resources in universities. SLO’s have a ready pool of indirect participants that can assist in the universities, which can provide an immediate benefit for SLO.However they can also be a threat. Alumni can always be a big help to the functions of SLO. They can expand the reach of the SLO’s.
Opportunity: Talking about participants, student has less attachments, responsibility in terms of family they can be more flexible in travelling or volunteering.
Participants commitments: students in SLO tends to join this organization by interests, a challenge can emerged if the students’ interest shift. Their commitment is not as high as the participants in NSLO.

5. Enablers
The university can be very good enablers.
Land and buildings: For SLO, they have available venues for their activities (in the university). For NSLO’s, they need to provide for their own. Also, they need to take care of the investments for their venue.
Technology: SLO is only dependent on the skills level of the students. The advantage is that the SLO’s, more or less, have ready access to information (however they are limited to the nature or quality of the university, such as internet). Whereas NSLO’s need to spend for the acquisition of these information. Bottom-line, here we can find that the school is the best enabler.
Intellectual property: They are quite general for both. SLO’s affiliate with the universities which is why the property is shared not exclusively for SLO (this makes SLO’s less independent).
Information: Vague
Skills: SLO’s quality might be compromised because its members are still non-professionals.
Core competencies: SLO has a member-centered core competence making the organization multidisciplinary. It has a more general vision. The core competency is dependent on the students participating on a timely basis. NSLO has a more focused attention, and more established. SLO’s have a shorter membership duration, which is constrained to the number of school years, compared to NSLO.
Relationships: There is a general bias brought about by the enabling environment. The respect warranted by the partners towards the SLO’s is highly dependent on the enabling environment, which is the home educational system (by Ann Odchimar II). Whereas the NSLO have to struggle on their own to build relationships.
Financial resources: SLO’s resources may come from anywhere with added source from the university, and even from NSLO. SLO’s may have a limited ceiling of wealth depending on the policies and rules of the institute.
6.
The limitation in this paper is that the authors come from an SLO. There may be some perspectives unforeseen.

Partnership is one of the key aspects o SLO (by Batari Saraswati)
For the next meeting: Start writing the paper, we have to tidy up the tables and summarize everything for the paper. Probably include an appendix? In the paper, there are some journals with appendices. The organizations could also be written in paragraph form. This must be improved and we shall discuss some more. Ann insists on more homework. AIESEC and IFAD may be very difficult.

Next Meeting

Date:May 1, 2012
Venue: I4-B08
Attendance request: All contributors for the paper