Purpose: How to read and interpret the Network Analysis Report
Related Document: network-analysis-report.md
| Metric | What It Means | Good | Concerning | Critical |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidates/Job | Available candidates per open job | >10 | 5-10 | <5 |
| % Affordable | Candidates within typical budget | >70% | 50-70% | <50% |
| % Priced Out | Candidates asking above budget | <15% | 15-25% | >25% |
| % of Network | Concentration of a trait | — | >50% (imbalance) | — |
What it shows: The experience levels of your available talent pool using the IC (Individual Contributor) leveling system.
How to interpret:
- IC2 = Junior (0-2 years)
- IC3 = Mid-level (2-4 years)
- IC4 = Senior (4-7 years)
- IC5 = Staff/Senior II (7-10+ years)
- IC6 = Principal/Staff II (10+ years, technical leader)
- Leadership = Lead, Manager, Director, VP, Partner
Key questions to ask:
- Does your supply match where customer demand is concentrated?
- Are you over-indexed on a seniority level that has low demand?
- Do you have enough senior (IC6/Lead) candidates for technical leadership roles?
Current state insight: The network is heavily concentrated at IC4/IC5 (84%), but customer demand skews toward IC5/IC6. This creates a structural mismatch.
What it shows: The job functions your candidates can fill.
How to interpret:
- Candidates can have multiple roles (totals exceed 100%)
- "Kind" groups roles into Engineering, Design, and Other
- % of Network shows how common each role is in your pool
Key questions to ask:
- Do you have enough specialists in high-demand roles?
- Are niche roles (ML, Security, Mobile) adequately represented?
- Is the Design pool sufficient for product team staffing?
Current state insight: Backend/Fullstack dominate (74%). Design is underrepresented (4.87%), which may limit ability to staff complete product teams.
What it shows: The intersection of role AND seniority—the actual candidate segments you can offer.
How to interpret:
- Each cell = candidates available for that exact combination
- Empty or single-digit cells = critical gaps
- Leadership column = candidates who can manage teams
Key questions to ask:
- For your most-requested job types, do you have sufficient depth?
- Where are the zeros and single-digit cells?
- Can you staff a senior ML team? A design leadership role?
Current state insight: Critical gaps exist at "Backend Lead" (1 candidate), "Fullstack Lead" (0), and "Frontend IC6" (8). These are unfillable without sourcing.
What it shows: Technologies and skills your candidates are proficient in.
How to interpret:
- % of Network = how common this skill is
- Higher-ranked skills = more candidates available
- Compare against job requirements to find mismatches
Key questions to ask:
- Are emerging technologies (GenAI, LLMs) represented?
- Do you have the "modern stack" skills customers ask for?
- Which legacy technologies dominate vs. which are growing?
Current state insight: JavaScript/React/AWS ecosystem dominates. GenAI skills (LLMs, OpenAI, LangChain) are critically scarce (<2% each).
What it shows: How skills cluster together and where supply is thin.
How to interpret:
- Stack combos show common tech pairings
- Gaps highlight technologies with <10% penetration
- Cross-reference with job requirements
Key questions to ask:
- Can you staff a "Vue.js + Go" role? (Report shows: 16 people)
- Are you prepared for GenAI/LLM job growth?
- Which cloud providers are underrepresented?
Current state insight: AWS dominates cloud; GCP and Azure are undersupplied. Rust, Elixir, and Svelte are nearly absent.
What it shows: Compares actual job openings from 2025 against candidate supply.
How to interpret:
-
Candidates/Job ratio:
- ✅ Good = 10+ candidates per job
⚠️ Tight = 5-10 candidates per job- 🔴 Critical = <5 candidates per job
-
% Demand vs % Supply: Shows structural imbalances
- If demand % > supply %, you're undersupplied
- If supply % > demand %, you have surplus
Key questions to ask:
- Are you winning or losing the supply game for high-demand roles?
- Where should sourcing focus for next quarter?
- Are you prepared for AI/ML hiring trends?
Current state insight:
- IC6/Lead roles are critically undersupplied (1.2 and 0.1 candidates/job)
- GenAI skills (OpenAI, LangChain, RAG) are at crisis level (2-5 candidates/job)
- Traditional skills (JavaScript, Java, PostgreSQL) have surplus
What it shows: Whether candidate salary expectations align with job budgets.
How to interpret:
- Median Ask vs Median Budget: Shows market alignment
- % Affordable: Candidates whose expectations fit within typical budgets
- % Priced Out: Candidates asking more than the 75th percentile budget
Key formulas:
- Effective Supply = Raw Supply × % Affordable
- Affordable/Job = True supply ratio after salary filtering
Key questions to ask:
- Are candidates reasonably priced for the market?
- Which role/seniority combos are priced out of most jobs?
- Does salary filtering worsen already-tight supply?
Current state insight:
- Directors are 71% priced out (expectations: $180k vs budget: $117k)
- Mobile IC5 engineers have 35% priced out rate
- Product Designers are the only role where asks exceed budgets (+$5k gap)
- Salary filtering reduces Fullstack IC6 supply from 33 to 22 effective candidates
What it shows: Known gaps in candidate data.
Why it matters:
- 20 candidates have no roles → invisible to role-based searches
- 137 candidates have unknown seniority → can't match to leveled jobs
Action: These candidates should be reviewed and updated.
| If you see... | Then... |
|---|---|
| 🔴 <2 candidates/job | Prioritize immediate sourcing for this segment |
| Add to sourcing pipeline; monitor closely | |
| >25% priced out | Recalibrate salary expectations or adjust budgets |
| Skill at <5% penetration | Develop upskilling program or targeted sourcing |
| If you see... | Then... |
|---|---|
| ✅ >10 candidates/job | Confidently sell this role/seniority combo |
| Set expectations on timeline; may need flexibility | |
| 🔴 <5 candidates/job | Warn customer of tight supply; consider alternatives |
| High priced-out % | Discuss budget alignment early in sales process |
| If you see... | Then... |
|---|---|
| Supply/demand mismatch | Adjust network growth priorities |
| Geographic concentration | Evaluate expansion to new regions |
| Skill gaps in growth areas | Partner with training providers or acquisitions |
| Salary misalignment | Review market rate research and pricing models |
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Network-accepted | Candidates who passed screening and are in the talent pool |
| Open to opportunities | Candidates actively seeking new roles |
| IC (Individual Contributor) | Non-management engineering levels (IC2-IC6) |
| Candidates/Job | Ratio of available candidates to job openings |
| Priced out | Candidates whose salary expectations exceed typical job budgets |
| Effective supply | Candidates who are both available AND affordable |
| P25/P75 | 25th and 75th percentile (lower/upper quartile) |
This guide accompanies the Network Analysis Report. For the raw data and SQL queries, see network-analysis-report.md.