Recently there have been some articles about the valuation of LinkedIn and it outpacing Facebook. I was talking with an MBA candidate (that I mentor) about social networks. We were discussing the size and value of his Facebook network vs. mine in LinkedIn. He mentioned the concept of gatekeepers, which was a new term for something most of us probably know about but not actively think about.

He was asked in his MBA program about his social/work network, and he realized it deficiencies. I'll walk through an example of the discussion as it relates to me. I have >200 people in my LinkedIn network. I am fairly sure I've met at least 80% of them. I accept just about everyone from EDS, SMU or Purdue who asks to be in my network, whether I've met them or not, so that's how a few get in that I've never met. He asked: "How many would you go to if you needed to borrow some money?" (or some other really meaningful show of support - use your imagination). It turns out it would be very few. Those individuals are really my core network. The rest are resources I may draw upon, but not rely on.

One of the goals for an individual in the workforce should be to cultivate that core network, and essentially become a gatekeeper for that group. If each of those people has a group they really trust, you have greater diversity of support from the extended network that can address your problems. That seems to have been the original philosophy of LinkedIn. Clearly with some folks out there with >1000 1st level connections in LinkedIn, it's gone fairly far from that close knit group perspective.

What I find interesting is the injection of technology using techniques like Knowledge Network (which Microsoft experimented with and looks like it will be in a future version of SharePoint). This tool moves part the gatekeeper function to a computer system that watches what you're working on or interested in and matches you to others within the company, sending email like "You should talk to Joe, he is working on xxx."

These techniques can be critical for a technical services company, since we bring in large numbers of new employees (transition). These folks will normally be remote from other EDS groups, so developing their network will be difficult. Yet the whole foundation for the relationship between the service provider and their previous employer is based on those same employees drawing upon the greater corporate resources. If they do the same thing, in the same way, it's a recipe for disaster.

There is also the need to understand what differentiated this new workforce before it is paved over with a "corporate standard". Their unique nature could be an innovation that improves performance elsewhere, but that's a whole other issue. This balance of planting and harvesting of ideas is important to the outsourcing industry.

Network development skills are critical to technologists as well as business leaders in making the most of their corporation and partners.

Charlie Bess
EDS' Next Big Thing Blog