[Photo] [AIESEC] Exchange Fair 2012

Yesterday I went to ITB to visit one of AIESEC main event this term, which was exchange fair. There were lots of booths from various countries which not only displayed unique goods, but also traditional foods. I don’t remember all the countries that participated, but I think I visited Poland, Thailand, Turkey, and China’s booths (I’m sure there’re other though). Beside that, TBI (english course) also open a booth while offering special discount for registration fee. There were also several talkshows, though I only managed to attend one (my mom want to go somewhere else.. haha). And… these are the photos of the event:



[Photo] Dreamy Look Photos

Last week I went to Pangandaran for 4 days with my friends and one soon-to-be-married-couple. I was asked to help my friend taking pre-wedding photos and even though I was not paid, I though it would be a good opportunity to get some good pictures for my portfolio (newbie’s way of thinking… hahaha). *Note: The entirely time there, I used my new 50mm f/ 1.8 fixed lens :))

Yesterday when I sorting the pictures & browsing the internet, one of my facebook friend post a link that showed some dreamy-look photos (http://www.petapixel.com/2012/02/06/dreamlike-photographs-of-insects-found-in-a-garden/). Looking at those, I though this might work well with some pictures I took at Pangandaran, and so I tried to apply it at one of them. Here is the result…


What do you think? I’m not sure I was using the right method to make this kind of editing (doubled the layer, make the color over & blur, change it into overlay, then come some leveling) since I haven’t get the right tutorial yet, so if any of you know the right step, please leave comments below :)).

*Hm… I notice something from my new lens when I did this pre-wedding photography. It does have nice colors and small focus, leaving the rest of the picture in blur. But sometimes it gave not-that-nice bokeh, it’s too rough for my taste and in several occasions, ruin (or almost) the images. What a pity… -> price never lie huh?

[AIESEC] Project Management & Effective Communication Training

After having several problem with choosing the right place, Project Management & Effective Communication Training was decided to be held this afternoon at AIESEC office, Jl. Sukasenang V no 14. The session was conducted by Dea Gendyna (MCVP Finance 11/12) and Olga Melinda (LCVP Comm 10/11). Unfortunately, I could only attend the first session and half (well, less than a quarter in fact) of the second session before I had to go home. But I have to say that I’m so glad that I came because it was a great session indeed.

As a newbie at AIESEC, I was practically ‘blind’ about many problems and projects at AIESEC. I don’t really have much clues of what other functions, beside Communication, are actually doing and I think this session open my mind more (even though that’s not the purpose of the session. haha).

Ok, the first session was about Project Management and the speaker is Dea Gendyna, who currently become the member of AIESEC Indonesia. One thing about her, she is a GOOD speaker. I think she can really engages the audience and I like the way she was not using too much slide during the presentation, instead she used the white board. It gave the feeling that she really know what she was talking about and thus makes us believe it was true. The fact that she’s a confidence person helped too.

Dea opened her presentation with a question, what do the audience think project management is. Then she specified it with if we had to describe project management within a word, what would it be. Some said it was Process, some Result, and other said it was Noun, etc. She said all of them might be true, but for her project management is Application. Something that is not only a knowledge (or theory) but already put into action. Project Management is also about 3 things, which is On Time, On Budget, and To Specification. Here she said that during our daily life, consciously or not, we actually do project management. Start from the time we woke up and have our own schedule of what we are going to do that day and what we have to achieve. Then she used that as the example of most of the explanation that she was going to tell us latter. She said that On Time and On Budget are what our superior is going to use as measurement of how successful the project is. But To Specification is what the team members going to use. So by fulfilling those 3 requirements we are successful in fulfilling our responsibility to both the upper authority and to the partners. Something that is usually forgotten by many leaders.

After that she mentioned something that is usually ignored by almost all LCs in Indonesia when they are making a project, which is risk management. Whereas in professional world that is one of the most important thing. If some plans do not work out, what are we going to do? Are there some alternatives? Working on the project that is held by student organization doesn’t mean we are free from the responsibility of doing that because we though we are not that professional and many things should be flexible. She also gave us the statistic which she got from internet about what factors that usually make a project become a failure. They are:

50%   poor definition of requirment

17%   poor risk management (what is the external factors?)

15%   poor scope control

14%   communication problem (the biggest problem in AIESEC LC Bandung)

3%   lack of qualified resources

After that Dea told us about Triple Constraint Management which should be considered every time we are doing a project. They are Time, Money, and Scope; which are the most flexible, the moderate one, and the less flexible. By doing the triple constrain management we will know which we should prioritize and the goal can be reach easier by more effective method.

According to her experience, there are 3 main problems in all Indonesia’s AIESEC LC when we are doing the project. They are too large team, weak & untrained leader, and poor progression. She mention that usually people think more members means faster and easier job, but that also mean more burdens being placed on team leader. AIESEC is an organization that focus on not only the end goal of the project but also the learning experience that all the team member should get. Making a larger team means the leader has more responsibilities of making sure that everyone in the team get the experience and learn about it. However, most of the time we become too focus on the finishing the project and therefore unconsciously denying the right of the team members. Many studies said that normal person usually can only handle 5-7 people. That means when we are making a team, it’s better if we have less members but more effective works. She also said that if, for example, there is a leader that has 5 managers, and then each manager has 5 staffs. Who is the one that has most burdens? From whom that the communication problem will most probably arise? It is the manager. He/she has responsibilities to make sure the project is done (to supervisor), each team member has their learning experience (to underlings), and has good relation with other functions in order to make the project run smoothly (to other managers). With that much members on the team, the possibility is the manager will abandon one or to of the responsibilities. And that is not the project should be.

One of the motto in AIESEC is giving same leadership opportunity to everyone within the organization regardless of their experience. Dea said it is a good one. However, we also have to make sure the one that is chosen should be able to learn fast about the project and able to control the team. Or else, again, the other team members will not gain the learning process, which is their right. This is also related to the next problem which is poor progression. At the first meeting, usually the we will have complete team members. Then at the second meeting some people are missing, and so on until at the end the one who work are only a quarter or even just 10% of the real number of the members. Usually we will immediately said that happen because other members didn’t have the commitment. However, most of the time it was because of the slow, or even no progression at all. We met at the first meeting and talking about what we should do, and then at the second meeting we were talking about the same thing, and so does at the third and so on. That makes some team members loss their goal and therefore become demotivated. They found no meaning and nothing to learn here and then just go away. Or at the other case, the leader make all the decision by him/herself and therefore make other team members unappreciated. They feel no need to discuss anything because they are treated as worker not partner. They feel no connection with the project and then choose to waive it. So in here, the progression and the communication have to be maintained well.

After that Dea asked all the audience to form a group of 2 and then give each of us a project. We had to decide 3 main goals, 2 main events within 2 months, the structures of the team member, and the timeline. All of that has to be done in 15 or 20 minutes (I forget T_T). Then she chose 2 groups to give the presentation and there were feedback from her and other audiences about it. At the end of the session, she showed us a video that related with the materials.

That is from the first session, and after that we had a break before starting the second session (Effective Communication) with Olga Melinda. Unfortunately I could only stay for several minutes before being picked up by my mom, so I can’t give any review. But I’m sure the session is also a great one and I hope there will be this kind of event again in near future :))

Discussion of National Insight

Last saturday, 27 November 2010, I went to Gedung Balai Pengelolaan Taman Budaya Jabar to watch “Dialog Wawasan Kebangsaan”. It was quite surprised that the seats were almost full (despite the fact that it was free). Glad to know that Indonesian people had the appreciation to this kind of things. The even was opened by some performances. The first one was from CCLB which sang 3 songs (2 of them,Braga Stone & Lawan, wrote by Iman Soleh). Honestly, I didn’t really like their songs, especially the first one, since they were similar to light rock (well, maybe it’s about taste). Not to mention that the pronunciations were very unclear, that’s why I didn’t really caught what they said (or sang). But what I got from the Lawan was it’s a song to encourage the small people (farmers, fishers, teachers, and drivers) to fight the unfair situations. However, I have to admit that the voice was quite good.

After that, there was an introduction of the sources & the guests. They were Tarman Azzam, Dicky Chandra, Rani Permata, Pa Happy from IPENSI, Rudi Robotika from UNIKOM, and also some representation from PSB (Paguyuban Sapedah Baheula), woman polices, and many more. The host himself was Kang Deden, who made this even together with social ministers.
The second performance was from Karinding Sasaka from Lembang, who brought us 2 songs, the opening song, and Beren or Lamping. Beren talked about the changing of the environments. I actually prefer this one than the first. It’s really amazing that here, in Indonesia, what seems to be simple music instruments, can be so beautiful. And it also very “original”.
Two ex-street singers of “88 kilometers”, also gave their performances. They made the audiences amused by guitar and violin. The first song was western one, and the other one was Indonesia Raya. Here, I released how the music performances really effect their audiences. For every performance, with their own uniqueness, different responses were given. For CCLB, the audiences felt more energy and they could song along with the band and sometime even make little screams. When Karinding Sasaka’s performance, the audience were enjoy the music quietly. And in the third performance, the responses were between CCLB and Karinding Sasaka. Quite calm but with more energy.
After these 3 performances, the audiences were asked to stand up and sang Indonesia Raya with Indonesia’s Flag in front of us. Thus the welcome speeches were given by Nur Soleh and Mr. Suyoto. Mr. Nur Soleh from social minister, mentioned about the disappearance of national identity in Indonesia, especially after reform era. This, he said, was really dangerous because Indonesia has many potentials to fall apart. The territory which is archipelago, the diversity or variety of religions, ethnicities, and cultures, and also the number of regions which are bordering with other countries. Especially for the provinces that were closer to other countries than Indonesia’s central government, lots of them know other’s flag and national songs, than ours. This, he said, because we always treated them as “backyard” not “frontyard” and paid almost no attention to them. And when he went there and asked them whether they want to be other country citizen, they spontaneity and fluently said yes. They saw hope and welfare there. So his conclusion was the one who made Indonesia territory become smaller and smaller was our own government, not other country’s. As for Mr. Suyoto’s speech, it was almost the same as Mr. Nur’s.
Bilik Kreatif Bandung, gave us performance after that. They brought lot’s of “drums” and “sticks”. Their performance was quite unique, since though it seems disorganized and disheveled, in the truth it had its own order, and could amuse audience through that.
A video about the responses of Indonesian people to some questions was played. The first question was “Are you proud to be Indonesian? Why?”. Most of them said they were proud with their own reasons (But none of them said it was because they are Indonesian they can become what they are). For the unproud, one of the reason was because they didn’t feel free, though Indonesia already independent.
The second question was “What do you remember about Indonesia?”. The funny thing is even though most of them said they were proud of Indonesia, but what they remembered about it was desultory, corruptions, disasters (both natural and human made), poverty, lack of accomplishment, debt, and unfairness. Almost none of them mention any good thing.
Then, when the questions “What is nationality for you?” and “What is national insight?”, almost all of them couldn’t answer. What I got from them was they care more about their income than that question (Of course most of the people like that, not just the “small” people). And this also related to the last question, which was “What is your hope for Indonesia?”. Out of crisis, independence, many job opportunities, safeness, prosperous, and the changing in the nation even though there should be a cuts in generation, were their answers.
When the video was finished, then the discussion was started, with Tarman Azzam, Dicky Chandra, Rani Permata, Pa Happy from IPENSI, Rudi Robotika from UNIKOM as sources. Unfortunately, I didn’t watch it until the end, because I had to go home at 9.30pm (the even was until almost 11pm).
The sources were gave their own opinion of what national insight was. The first answer was from Tarman Azzam. He said that it was an understanding of how to live as a nation. As for Nusantara’s insight, it was how to live in one territory (which was Nusantara). He chose America as the example of unity in identity. American people came from many nations, but they just “know” 1 word, which was “America”. Then he mentioned the different of Indonesia’s government and PBB’s point of view. For our government, people can be called as poor, when their income was below 1 dollar a day, but for PBB, wherever you live, when your income was below 2 dollars a day, you were poor. Accordingly, for PBB, there were about 109 millions people who were poor in Indonesia.
The second answer was from Dicky Chandra. He said that the more you know someone, the more love you would fell. This also stand for nation. Thus, he called Indonesia as Ibu Pertiwi and said that no matter how bad our “mother” was, we still had to be proud and love her (he forgot to mention that especially we had “mother” which was far from bad).
Then his wife, Rani Permata, was expected to be the third person answer the question. But before she answered, the host asked her about the experience as the wife of vice regent (bupati?). Then she talk about a woman, named Raden Ayu Lasminingrat who she though should have to be national heroine. She was the one who wrote Carita Erman, Warna Sari I, & Warna Sari II. She also the founder of Kautamaan Istri school. She lived for 105 years. Then some other sources also mentioned that they were trying to make the appropriate person to be national heros, and this year from 10 persons that they suggested, 2 was approved (both from East of Indonesia).
After that, the representation of PSB got his turn. He said that he was disappointed by the people in video who said they were not proud of Indonesia. And he also mentioned how every 10 November, the one who go on a pilgrimage was (or it looked like that) only them (people from PSB). And he also said that it’s better if we didn’t think that sea was separate Indonesia, but unity it.
The fifth answer was came from Mr. Happy, as the representation of IPENSI. He said that we had to have positive thinking through our nation, not just criticizes it. Build a society that has no power with culture.
As for Rudi from UNIKOM, hard work was his start point. And for him, every dream can be reach trough it.