The state of expert networks and the rising role of LinkedIn | Trends in the Living NetworksTrends in the Living Networks

It is some years now since ‘expert networks’ have become a significant force, linking subject matter experts in science, technology, and business to clients, largely in funds management and finance, usually at very healthy hourly rates. Clients such as hedge funds that are investing in particular sectors or companies want to know more about issues such as the viability of drug development processes, or when they can, about internal issues like staff turnover. A survey showed that over 40% of institutional investors found that expert networks were an “extremely” or “very important” aspect of their company research.

Clearly there is the potential for insider information to be made available if people are currently, or even possibly recently, employed by the company in question. The expert networks, most notably Gerson Lehrman Group, which is reported to control two-thirds of the market, have strict clauses in their agreements about what can be discussed by experts. But sometimes things go too far. An FBI probe into a consultant working through Gerson Lehrman Group was launched in December. The New York Times recently reported that after their success convicting Raj Rajaratnam of Galleon of insider trading, federal authorities are turning their attention to expert networks.

The reality is that LinkedIn has been used as a proxy expert network by many for some time now. Simply search by company and role, and you can find people who have recently left the company you are researching who may be willing to take on a ‘short-term consulting contract’. It is a little more effort to negotiate terms and make payments than it is on an existing platform, but it isn’t hard to do.

In a recent conversation with the CEO of a technology company that is a client of ours, he told me that his senior staff were frequently approached within a week of leaving the company to provide insights into the company. He presumed that there were alerts on LinkedIn to identify when people left so that they could be approached.

These alerts are not provided by LinkedIn, but can fairly easily be created using LinkedIn APIs. TechCrunch reports that Job Change Identifier and Bullhorn are examples of services providing alerts when people leave companies.

A few quick thoughts on the implications:
* LinkedIn could provide an expert network service (which I am sure they have at least considered and could be planning).
* A third-party expert network could be built on LinkedIn APIs.
* Investigations into the expert networks or other pressures could mean that some clients go to LinkedIn directly to identify possible expert advisors.
* In a world in which anyone can be easily connected, whether explicit expert networks exist or not, the potential for inappropriate flows of insider information increase, and regulatory challenges soar.
* Everyone needs to be aware of the potential of breaching insider information regulations.

Still Titled

The evolution of expert networks is just beginning.
Ross is right to expect changes, but he’s missing some of the detail
that will illuminate where the model is actually headed.

http://stilltitled.com/2011/07/14/linkedin-does-not-an-expert-network-make/
http://twitter.com/askvisory Askvisory.com

Expert Networks need to be disrupted. Services like Askvisory.com make the process fully transparent, whilst giving direct access to the Experts who are paid for their time.

This solves the issue of questionable account managers pushing even more questionable Experts to clients.

Would appreciate your thoughts on Askvisory.com.
- Anonymous Coward
  
  How exactly is Askvisory not a middleman? It’s just a web-based middleman that requires the client to do the search on their own rather than the expert network service doing the search for the client. Marking up an expert’s rate at 15-35% is, I think, about the markup that transactional expert networks use.
  
  While there is potential to disrupt expert networks, I don’t see how building another service that mirrors what expert networks already do is disruptive. What would be disruptive is if companies/funds/firms found their own experts using freely (or nearly freely) available tools like search engines, LinkedIn, etc. Then that extra bit on the expert’s rate can be cut away.
  - M. Oais Ahsan
    
    I did some digging.
    Your analysis is also quite poor as forget the 35%… The cost of an expert typically is about $800 an hour using an account manager. With Askvisory, it’s like $100 as there is no “middle-man”.. That’s why we use them to be blunt.
    
    Plus, the credit goes to the expert on his/her profile vs. the Expert Network.. I think that’s disruptive.
    - Guest
      
      Do your experts do any litigation expert witness work? If so, $150/hr is ridiculously low.
http://twitter.com/askvisory Askvisory.com

It’s like you have a crystal ball here… Askvisory has worked with Linkedin and their API’s. This has created a new Expert Network model, which removes the middle-men (i.e. Account managers). The model also works in that the recognition for the advice goes to the Expert and not the research firm… Similar to to endorsements in Linkedin.