AIM general manager

[Helenabean]

We are thinking of applying for the skills assessment through AIM for the General Manager. We have a question - The info on the job description - it says brief description on the AIM website.  How much detail are they requiring? If anyone had a positive assessment could you give me some feedback on this?

thanks 

[MichKen]

Hi @Helenabean; although not GM I had a successful AIM assessment!  Org charts and job descriptions are the most critical part of the assessment.  It must meet with their requirements.  I did not submit full detailed job descriptions but did submit a role profile type description of each role on the org chart, roughly 15 points per role.  However they do want official company documents so you need to try submit that if possible.

[Helenabean]

Thanks so much for your info. 

[PurpleFerri]

@Helenabean we are also busy preparing for GM with AIM. We have heard its the most difficult assessment agency so we are nervous. 

 

Let me know how yours goes. Good luck.

[danofotiadis]

Hi @Helenabean, I too had a successful AIM assessment, although also not for GM. The way I see it is that you really have one solid shot at preparing a high quality application to a notoriously sticky department. My advice would be to not short change your efforts and rather over-supply paperwork. It literally took me months to prepare, distribute, request signatures, receive documents, collate, scan and finally send for submission. There's an added layer of difficulty because they request it for every company you've worked at going back 10 years.

 

 @MichKen is spot on about the organograms though - those need to be very accurate, paying special attention to the titles of the people both below and alongside you. I submitted my organograms showing three individuals reporting into me, and they came back to me wanting detailed job descriptions of three more individuals reporting into each one of those three. It can get quite hairy, but as I said up front, these job descriptions are problably not something you want to google and slap together in an evening. It took me months, and I created them from scratch (at least two pages worth per position - high-level objectives, key responsibilities, etc). Remember that you have to get the CEO of each previous company to sign them off, so if they're generic or off topic, no CEO worth their salt will sign 30 pages of randomly assigned job descriptions.

 

Whether that's the right way or not, I can't tell, I'm only telling you what worked for me. But give it your best shot, it's your future you're dealing with here. Let us know how you go, all the best!!

[RussellJ]

17 hours ago, danofotiadis said:

Hi @Helenabean, I too had a successful AIM assessment, although also not for GM. The way I see it is that you really have one solid shot at preparing a high quality application to a notoriously sticky department. My advice would be to not short change your efforts and rather over-supply paperwork. It literally took me months to prepare, distribute, request signatures, receive documents, collate, scan and finally send for submission. There's an added layer of difficulty because they request it for every company you've worked at going back 10 years.

 

 @MichKen is spot on about the organograms though - those need to be very accurate, paying special attention to the titles of the people both below and alongside you. I submitted my organograms showing three individuals reporting into me, and they came back to me wanting detailed job descriptions of three more individuals reporting into each one of those three. It can get quite hairy, but as I said up front, these job descriptions are problably not something you want to google and slap together in an evening. It took me months, and I created them from scratch (at least two pages worth per position - high-level objectives, key responsibilities, etc). Remember that you have to get the CEO of each previous company to sign them off, so if they're generic or off topic, no CEO worth their salt will sign 30 pages of randomly assigned job descriptions.

 

Whether that's the right way or not, I can't tell, I'm only telling you what worked for me. But give it your best shot, it's your future you're dealing with here. Let us know how you go, all the best!!

Said like a champ.

[Helenabean]

Hi @PurpleFerri we have just submitted our application to AIM.  Hoping they start working on it soon. will keep you posted.  Good luck with your 

submission.  Are you hoping to get in to South Australia? thanks @danofotiadis for all the info.  Lets hope they are happy with everything we submitted.  Will let you know.  Since you have received a positive skills assessment i am assuming you have lodged your expression of interest?  If so could you tell me if the process is pretty straight forward and how quickly can you receive an invitation?

 

[danofotiadis]

No problem at all @Helenabean - any time. I did lodge my EOI and all the steps after a successful skills assessment are fairly straightforward, provided you have the relevant documentation lined up: passports, certified copies of education certificates, favorable IELTS results, character forms, etc - whatever is required. I find that from here on out its more of a "check-box" process (when rather than if) as opposed to sitting and hoping. That's why I was putting so much emphasis on the skills bit.

 

I was advised of a 4-6 week wait for my EOI and state application and I received the state approval and invitation after 10 days. I know it's not one size fits all, but that was my experience.

 

Again, good luck, and reach out if you need more info!

[NoahWi]

Good luck with the AIM

[PurpleFerri]

@danofotiadis @RussellJ @MichKen can you tell me what the size of your company was in total that you submitted for AIM?  

I have read it must be more then 600 total employees in order to get a positive AIM assessment.

Anyone know about this? 

Thanks 

Edited June 14, 2017 by PurpleFerri
Detail

[danofotiadis]

Hi @PurpleFerri, Obviously, they must be big enough for your organograms to make sense (three people reporting into you, with three more people reporting into each one of them), but I had no issues regarding the size of companies. The companies I submitted for had 350, 150 and 50 employees respectively. 

[PurpleFerri]

@danofotiadis thank you. Yes i understand the 3 direct reports with 3 direct reports etc. But that structure is possible with a company of +- 60 employees. And because we are applying for GM will they say the level of complexity is not to their standard whatever their definition of that might be. Not sure, Im just trying to see if its possible for positive AIM assessment in a smaller sized company that still meets the requirements.  We really want to make sure we got everything as close to perfect before we submit. 

Edited June 14, 2017 by PurpleFerri

[MichKen]

Mine were 750 for one and 1400 for another.  I submitted a third which was 300 but the did not recognize this one, but I can't say if this was due to the size of company or something else - didn't get specific feedback on that.

Edited June 14, 2017 by MichKen

[PurpleFerri]

@MichKen i hope it wasn't due to size 

[MichKen]

It's a tough one @PurpleFerri; and there is very little reliable information on the web about AIM assessment.

 

My assumption was always that it was a job title issue (I reported to the Director who had an unusual title and I didn't directly draw the link that this position was the same as Corporate General Manager), even though the job content was that of a GM.  Either that or that my job content in that role started moving away from my core function to a broader scope, not traditional to my role.  It only dawned on me when you asked today that the organization size may have been an issue - but it was perhaps even all 3 issues.

 

I was told that they are very traditional and that simple, straightforward, traditionally packaged information should be presented, e.g. no modern matrix org structures, no unusual titles, etc.  They want to see what they want to see and will not accept anything different.

 

Having said all that, they do specifically ask for organizational size, so it may well have some bearing on the decision because it would potentially indicate span of control.

 

This is from the application form:

Explanatory Notes

To be assessed as a senior manager for migration purposes, the complexity and size of the organisation will influence the assessment. Applicants will require senior management experience over a diverse range of responsibilities including authority over three or more subordinates who are also at managerial level. Senior functional managers would therefore have a high level of discretionary authority.

Senior managers tend to manage departments servicing the overall operations of the organisation and where delegation to several subordinate managers involved in specific but related functions is required. The critical components in applying these criteria are the breadth and depth of the applicant’s own managerial responsibilities and those of the subordinate managers reporting directly to the applicant. An important criterion is that the organisation chart must show that the applicant supervises three or more direct reporting managers.

The criteria for recognition as a senior manager for migration purposes make it clear that the applicant must be responsible for a range of responsibilities at a level which is concerned with the implementation of the organisation’s strategies and policies.

Our assessment is based upon a review of an entire career history, but with an emphasis on the immediate past three (3) years, and satisfactory evidence is sought of managerial progression through increased authority and responsibility of each position thereby demonstrating a period of sustained success. 

[PurpleFerri]

@MichKen thanks for your response.  Yeah it's very hard to determine what they will accept. But we can only try and see. I did read the part about complexity, size, depth and breadth and that is why we are nervous about the submission.  But we are still preparing eveything and will see what happens. From your notes we are keeping it simple and straightforward enough for them to understand. Holding thumbs.  

[MichKen]

Hoping you receive a favorable outcome @PurpleFerri!