9. Hold ICs between the Project Heads to discuss the expenses instead of a Budget Hearing. These should be held earlier (preferably one month before the project) to have better preparation for the expenses and to have time to look for more options. The ExeCom will follow up the core team’s financial health during project presentation OD: Internal Communication Goal: To improve existing Status: communication systems utilized by Not Achieved 0 1 2 3 4 5 Achieved project core teams and create effective information dissemination strategies. Success indicators 1. To conduct individual consultations (ICs) with at least 65% of all members. 2. To have at least 50% attendance in batch Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). 3. To have at least 80% attendance in core FGDs. 4. To have an average rating of 4 out of 5 for promotions in all AMS events. 5. To have the core teams miss at most only two deadlines (i.e, project presentation schedule, submission of Detailed Program Flow, submission of documentations, etc), if not none. Explanation Impact on participants The Member Relations Department Heads Conducting ICs with the card keepers conducted ICs with the 52 card keepers enabled the ExeCom to track the progress from the Suits System. They were tasked to of each card and to find out the kinds of conduct casual individual consultations relationships established within each cards with their respective card members. as well as problems experienced by the card keepers. Not all card keepers were able to conduct ICs with their members because of factors The ICs with card members aimed to ask such as personal conflicts and them about their stay in AMS and unresponsiveness of their members. encourage them to be more active. However, this had little impact because not Project heads had ICs with their respective all card keepers were able to conduct ICs department heads. They, in turn, were effectively. tasked to conduct ICs with their project core teams and pool members if the need The ExeCom was always updated with arises to follow-up on their individual project core activity, concerns, and performances. problems encountered through the constant updates from project heads. The The Tutors Pool heads and the Academics project heads mostly did not conduct ICs, Department Heads made it a point to IC but voiced out general concerns during their tutors. project core meetings instead. Instead of conducting separate batch ICs with the Tutors Pool proved to be an FGDs, the ExeCom conducted a first effective way of improving the selection semester FGD instead, which was open to process of tutors and ensuring that they are all members. The event was attended by 36 prepared for their tutorial sessions. members (Appendix B.III.1). The small group discussions during the first Except for those who held their FGDs semester FGD enabled participants to during semester breaks, all pre-planning determine the problems of AMS and assess FGDs were attended by a majority of its the needs of its members. The FGD was core members i.e. at least 80% (Appendix effective in making the participants more B.II.1). aware about the issues of AMS. Some online promotional materials were not released earlier than the target date due The pre-planning FGDs were helpful for the core members because they got a to conflicts with the Creatives team. chance to level-off and become more
18 | AMS Year-End Status Report 2013-2014