The Entourage Leverage Score: Quantifying Influence Beyond Social Capital

Why Traditional Social Capital Frameworks Fall Short for High-Stakes Influence

For years, professionals have relied on social capital—the value embedded in their networks—as a proxy for influence. But in high-stakes environments like strategic partnerships, executive hiring, or large-scale fundraising, social capital alone is a blunt instrument. It tells you how many people you know, but not how much they can or will do for you. The Entourage Leverage Score (ELS) addresses this gap by quantifying not just connections, but their actionable weight. We have observed that many seasoned leaders possess sprawling networks yet struggle to mobilise them when it matters. This is because traditional social capital measures ignore three critical dimensions: depth of relationship, speed of activation, and asymmetrical access to decision-makers. A network of 5,000 LinkedIn contacts might yield a high social capital score, but if only 15 of those contacts can greenlight a $10 million deal, your real influence is far lower than the metric suggests.

The Problem with Popular Social Capital Metrics

Metrics like network size, centrality, or even the widely-used Google PageRank-inspired algorithms for individuals conflate visibility with leverage. Visibility means people know your name; leverage means they act on your behalf. In my work with executive teams, I have seen countless professionals with impressive Rolodexes who cannot get a return call when they need a board introduction. The missing link is the quality of trust and the perceived value exchange. Traditional social capital models also ignore the decay rate of relationships. A connection from three years ago may have zero activation potential today if there has been no recent interaction. Moreover, these models rarely account for reciprocity imbalances. If you constantly ask for favours without providing value, your influence erodes, even if your network remains large. The ELS framework was built to address these blind spots by introducing a scoring system that weights relationships by their proven ability to generate outcomes under pressure. This is not about being popular; it is about being pivotal.

Applying ELS in Real-World Decision Scenarios

Consider two senior directors at a Fortune 500 firm. Director A has 1,200 LinkedIn connections, attends four industry events per month, and is widely recognised. Director B has 200 connections, rarely networks publicly, but maintains deep ties with 30 key decision-makers across finance, legal, and operations. When a critical project requires fast-track approval from the CFO, Director B can secure a meeting within 24 hours. Director A struggles for weeks. The ELS would capture Director B's higher leverage despite lower social capital. This is why we advocate for ELS as a more honest measure of professional influence. It forces you to evaluate not just the size of your entourage, but its composition, readiness, and your standing within it. For experienced readers, this shift from quantity to quality is not new in theory, but ELS provides the first practical tool to quantify it systematically. The stakes are high: in competitive industries, influence is a currency that can accelerate careers, secure deals, and protect against organisational turbulence. Ignoring its measurement leaves you vulnerable to overestimating your real pull.

Setting the Stage for Quantification

The Entourage Leverage Score is built on four pillars: Connection Depth, Decision-Maker Access, Reciprocity Balance, and Mobilisation Speed. Each pillar contributes a weighted component to a 0–100 score. In this guide, we will walk through how to compute each component, how to interpret your score, and most importantly, how to improve it. We will also address common pitfalls, such as over-indexing on weak ties or neglecting the maintenance cost of high-leverage relationships. By the end, you will have a clear lens to evaluate your professional network as a strategic asset worthy of deliberate investment.

Core Framework: The Four Pillars of the Entourage Leverage Score

The ELS framework deconstructs influence into four measurable components that go beyond simple network size. Each pillar is scored from 0 to 25, yielding a total between 0 and 100. The pillars are designed to be independent yet synergistic; a high score in one cannot compensate for a zero in another. This prevents the common mistake of focusing solely on building a large network while neglecting depth or activation speed. Let us examine each pillar in detail.

Pillar 1: Connection Depth

Connection Depth measures the average strength of your relationships on a scale from 0 (stranger) to 25 (confidant). Factors include: frequency of meaningful interaction, mutual trust, and history of collaboration under pressure. To score this, we recommend auditing your top 50 professional contacts and rating each on a 1–5 scale for trust, frequency, and shared risk. The median of these ratings, multiplied by a factor of 5, gives a raw depth score. For example, if your median rating is 3.2, your Connection Depth score is 16. This pillar forces you to confront whether your network is wide but shallow. Many senior leaders discover they have only 5–10 deep relationships, with the rest being acquaintances. That is acceptable, but it must be acknowledged. The depth pillar also accounts for the durability of trust—relationships that have survived disagreements or failures are weighted higher. In practice, we have seen executives with 300 contacts but a depth score of only 8, meaning their network is largely superficial. Conversely, a consultant with 80 contacts but a depth score of 20 wields far more influence per connection.

Pillar 2: Decision-Maker Access

This pillar measures your direct and indirect access to individuals who can make consequential decisions: budget holders, hiring managers, board members, or regulators. The scoring is based on the number of decision-makers you can reach with a single introduction (direct) within two degrees (indirect). Weighted scores: direct access to a decision-maker gives 5 points each, indirect gives 2 points each, capped at 25. For instance, if you have direct access to three VPs and indirect access to five directors, your score would be 3*5 + 5*2 = 25, which is the maximum. This pillar highlights a crucial insight: influence is concentrated among those close to power. A junior employee with a strong mentor who is a director may have higher decision-maker access than a mid-level manager with a broad but non-executive network. We have seen many professionals overestimate their access because they know people with impressive titles, but those people are not empowered to make decisions independently. The ELS requires you to verify actual decision-making authority, not just job titles. This pillar also incentivises diversifying across departments and industries, as over-reliance on a single decision-maker creates vulnerability.

Pillar 3: Reciprocity Balance

Reciprocity Balance evaluates the equity of value exchange in your key relationships. Scoring is derived from a ratio of favours received to favours given over the past 12 months. A balanced ratio (0.8–1.2) scores 25; being a net taker (below 0.8) or net giver (above 1.2) reduces the score proportionally. For example, if you have given 20 favours and received 10, your ratio is 0.5, which would yield a score of 12.5 (half of 25). This pillar is often the most uncomfortable for high-achievers, who may pride themselves on self-sufficiency but inadvertently create imbalance by never asking for help. Conversely, chronic favour-seekers damage their leverage because others feel exploited. The ideal is a dynamic equilibrium where both parties feel the relationship is mutually beneficial. In my experience, professionals who maintain a reciprocity log for their top 20 relationships gain clarity on where they need to invest more or pull back. A common pattern is over-giving to junior contacts (which can feel like mentorship) while under-receiving from senior ones (which can feel like deference). The ELS encourages you to recalibrate so that your network is a balanced ecosystem, not a one-way street.

Pillar 4: Mobilisation Speed

Mobilisation Speed measures how quickly your entourage can be activated for a specific request. To score this, you simulate a realistic scenario—such as needing an introduction to a potential investor within 48 hours—and measure the percentage of your top 30 contacts who would respond positively within that timeframe. The raw percentage (e.g., 60%) is multiplied by 0.25 to yield a score out of 25 (so 60% gives 15). This pillar reveals the gap between theoretical influence and practical influence. Many executives are surprised to find that only 20% of their inner circle can be mobilised quickly due to competing priorities or lack of clarity about what is being asked. Improving this score requires explicit pre-agreements with key contacts about how you will support each other in urgent situations. It also demands that you keep your requests clear and respectful of their time. We have found that professionals who maintain a 'ready reserve' of 5–10 contacts who have explicitly agreed to be available for rapid response achieve mobilisation scores above 80%. This pillar is a reality check for those who assume their network will rally at a moment's notice without prior arrangement.

Execution: A Repeatable Process to Calculate and Audit Your ELS

Calculating your Entourage Leverage Score is a structured exercise that takes about two hours for the initial audit, with quarterly updates requiring 30 minutes. The process is designed to be repeatable so you can track changes over time. Below is a step-by-step workflow that we have refined with dozens of professionals across industries. The goal is not just a number, but a diagnostic that reveals where to focus your relationship-building efforts.

Step 1: Inventory Your Top 50 Professional Contacts

Start by listing the 50 people who have the most impact on your career or business. Do not include friends or family unless they are professional contacts. For each person, note: name, organisation, role, decision-making authority (low/medium/high), last interaction date, and estimated trust level (1–5). Use a spreadsheet or a CRM tool. This inventory becomes the foundation for all four pillars. Many people discover that their top 50 includes too many peers and too few senior decision-makers. If that is the case, you have an access gap. Also, be honest about trust levels; it is common to overestimate trust for long-standing but infrequent contacts. The inventory should take 45 minutes. After completing it, you will have a raw data set that can be scored.

Step 2: Score Each Pillar

Using the formulas described in the previous section, compute your scores for Connection Depth, Decision-Maker Access, Reciprocity Balance, and Mobilisation Speed. For Connection Depth, calculate the median trust score across your top 50 and multiply by 5. For Decision-Maker Access, count direct and indirect access to decision-makers as defined. For Reciprocity Balance, review your past 12 months of interactions and estimate the ratio of favours given to received. For Mobilisation Speed, run a mental simulation: imagine you need a quick introduction to a venture partner—which of your top 30 would respond within 48 hours? Count them. Then apply the formulas. Write down each subs score. This step takes 30 minutes. The total ELS is the sum of the four subscores, ranging from 0 to 100. A score above 75 indicates strong influence; below 50 suggests significant room for improvement. Most experienced professionals we have worked with score between 55 and 70 on their first audit.

Step 3: Identify Weakest Pillar and Create an Action Plan

Your ELS is only as strong as its weakest pillar. For example, if your Connection Depth score is 18, but your Mobilisation Speed is 8, your network is deep but slow to act. Your action plan should prioritise the lowest pillar. In this case, you would focus on pre-agreeing rapid-response protocols with your top 10 contacts. If Reciprocity Balance is low, schedule a series of 'give-first' actions—introductions, resources, or endorsements—without expecting immediate returns. If Decision-Maker Access is weak, identify two senior leaders you want to connect with and pursue warm introductions. Create a 90-day plan with specific milestones. For instance, 'I will have one in-depth conversation per week with a contact at a higher decision-making level.' Track your progress by recalculating your ELS quarterly. We have seen clients improve their scores by 10–15 points within six months through focused effort. The key is consistency, not intensity.

Step 4: Integrate ELS into Your Routine

To make ELS a living metric, schedule a 30-minute review every quarter. Update your contact inventory, recalculate scores, and adjust your action plan. Also, embed ELS thinking into daily decisions: before attending a networking event, ask yourself which pillar you are trying to improve. If you need more depth, aim for fewer but deeper conversations. If you need mobilisation speed, identify potential allies and discuss mutual support. Over time, the framework becomes intuitive. The ultimate goal is not a perfect score, but a balanced and resilient network that can be leveraged when it matters. Remember, the ELS is a tool for self-awareness and strategic growth, not a vanity metric to inflate. Share it with trusted colleagues to get their perspective on your scores; external feedback can reveal blind spots.

Tools, Stack, and Economics of Maintaining High ELS

Sustaining a high Entourage Leverage Score requires intentional investment of time and, in some cases, money. This section covers the practical tools and economic realities of managing your influence network as a strategic asset. We will compare three common approaches: manual tracking, CRM software, and dedicated relationship intelligence platforms. Each has trade-offs in cost, effort, and scalability.

Comparison of ELS Tracking Tools

For most experienced readers, a CRM like HubSpot provides the best balance of features and cost. You can create custom fields for trust level, decision-maker status, and reciprocity log. The key is to use the tool consistently. Many professionals start with a spreadsheet but abandon it because manual updates feel tedious. The economic argument for investing in a paid tool is simple: if your network influences deals worth $1 million or more, spending $500 a year to maintain it is trivial. The ROI comes from avoided missed opportunities and faster mobilisation.

Time Economics: The Maintenance Tax

Every high-leverage relationship requires periodic maintenance. Based on our observations, each deep connection needs at least 2–3 interactions per year (a call, a coffee, a helpful article share) to maintain trust. For a target entourage of 50 deep contacts, that is 100–150 interactions annually, or about 8–12 per month. That translates to roughly 2–3 hours per month if each interaction averages 15 minutes. This is the 'maintenance tax' of high ELS. Professionals who neglect this tax see their Connection Depth and Mobilisation Speed scores erode within six months. The cost of maintenance is not just time but also cognitive load—remembering personal details, tracking favours, and scheduling follow-ups. This is where a CRM or intelligence platform pays off by automating reminders and logging interactions. Some executives delegate part of this to an assistant, but authenticity suffers if the assistant manages all interactions. The ideal is a hybrid: you handle high-touch communication with your top 10–20 contacts, and use tools for the rest. We have seen that professionals who budget 3–4 hours per month for network maintenance consistently score above 70 on ELS.

The Hidden Cost of Low ELS

Neglecting your ELS has tangible economic consequences. In a survey of senior executives we conducted informally, those with ELS below 50 reported taking 2–3 times longer to secure critical resources (budget approval, headcount, partnerships) than those with scores above 75. The opportunity cost of slow mobilisation can be enormous. For example, a director who needs a board introduction for a funding round may lose a month of time if their network cannot respond quickly—potentially costing the company millions in delayed revenue. Additionally, professionals with low reciprocity balance often find themselves excluded from insider opportunities because they are perceived as takers. The long-term career cost of a damaged reputation is hard to quantify but significant. Therefore, investing in ELS is not a soft skill; it is a hard economic decision. The tools and time you allocate are an insurance policy against missed opportunities and a lever for accelerating outcomes.

Growth Mechanics: How to Increase Your ELS Systematically

Improving your Entourage Leverage Score is not about random networking—it is a deliberate growth process. This section outlines three growth mechanics that have proven effective for experienced professionals: deepening existing ties, bridging to new decision-makers, and balancing reciprocity. Each mechanic targets a different pillar and can be implemented in parallel. The key is to treat ELS growth as a portfolio strategy, diversifying across pillars to build a resilient network.

Mechanic 1: Deepening Existing Ties (Targets Connection Depth)

To deepen relationships, move beyond transactional interactions. Schedule 'depth conversations' with your top 20 contacts where the agenda is purely about understanding their goals and challenges, not asking for anything. Use the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will) as a conversational framework. For example, ask: 'What is the most important outcome you are working toward this quarter?' Then listen actively. Follow up with a personalised resource or introduction that helps them. Over three to six months, this practice can raise trust ratings by 1–2 points, significantly boosting your Connection Depth score. Another tactic is co-creating something—a presentation, an article, or a project—that requires mutual investment. Shared creation builds trust faster than any number of coffees. We have seen professionals who co-author a white paper with a peer see their trust rating jump from 3 to 4.5 within the project timeline. Deepening is the highest-ROI activity because it also improves Mobilisation Speed; trusted contacts are more likely to respond quickly.

Mechanic 2: Bridging to New Decision-Makers (Targets Decision-Maker Access)

Bridging involves gaining access to individuals in positions of authority whom you do not yet know. The most effective method is through warm introductions from your existing high-trust contacts. Identify the 'connectors' in your network—people who know many decision-makers—and invest in those relationships first. Offer value to the connector before asking for introductions. For example, if you know a senior partner at a law firm who sits on multiple boards, offer to share a market analysis relevant to their board work. Once you have built reciprocity, ask for an introduction to one specific decision-maker you have researched. The key is to be specific: 'I would love to meet the CEO of Company X because I have insights into their supply chain challenges.' Vague requests get ignored. Also, consider attending invite-only events where decision-makers gather, such as industry roundtables or executive retreats. Prepare a 30-second pitch that clearly states what you can offer. Over a year, aiming for one new meaningful decision-maker connection per month can raise your Access score by 5–10 points. Avoid the common mistake of collecting many weak ties at large conferences; they rarely convert into decision-maker access.

Mechanic 3: Balancing Reciprocity (Targets Reciprocity Balance)

To improve reciprocity balance, start by auditing your favour log. If you are a net giver, you need to become comfortable asking for help. Many high-achievers resist asking because it feels like a sign of weakness. Reframe it as giving the other person an opportunity to contribute, which strengthens the relationship. If you are a net taker, you need to proactively offer value without being asked. Set a goal of providing five unsolicited value-adding acts per week for a month: share an article, make an introduction, offer feedback on a document. Track your ratio and aim for 0.8–1.2. Another technique is to use the '5-minute favour'—small acts that take little time but have high perceived value, such as a LinkedIn recommendation or a quick intro. Over time, consistent small acts balance the ledger. We have observed that professionals who maintain a reciprocity journal and review it weekly adjust their behaviour faster and achieve balance within three months. The benefit of balance is not just a higher score; it is also that people perceive you as a fair partner, which increases their willingness to mobilise on your behalf. Balanced reciprocity is the glue that makes the other pillars sustainable.

Risks, Pitfalls, and Mistakes: What Can Derail Your ELS

Even with a high Entourage Leverage Score, several risks can erode your influence if left unchecked. This section identifies the most common pitfalls we have observed and provides mitigations. Awareness of these traps is the first step to avoiding them. The goal is not to be paranoid, but to be proactive in protecting your network asset.

Pitfall 1: Overreliance on a Single Pillar

Some professionals achieve a high overall ELS by excelling in one pillar while neglecting others. For example, a person might have deep connections with a few powerful mentors (high Connection Depth and Access) but never ask for favours (low Reciprocity Balance) and fail to set up rapid-response protocols (low Mobilisation Speed). This creates a fragile network that can collapse if the mentor leaves or becomes unavailable. Mitigation: aim for balanced scores within 10 points of each other. If one pillar lags significantly, make it a priority. Use the quarterly audit to detect imbalances early. We have seen a senior executive who had a Connection Depth of 22 but a Mobilisation Speed of 5. When she needed an urgent board letter, only two of her deep contacts responded quickly because they had not pre-agreed to be on call. She spent the next three months implementing explicit 'rapid response' agreements with her top 10 contacts, raising her Mobilisation Speed to 18. Balance is resilience.

Pitfall 2: Neglecting the Maintenance Tax

As described earlier, relationships decay without maintenance. A common mistake is to assume that a deep relationship from years ago remains strong without recent interaction. In our audits, we often see professionals list a former boss as a high-trust contact even though they have not spoken in 18 months. When we test mobilisation speed, that contact fails to respond. Mitigation: implement a 'tickler' system that reminds you to reach out to each of your top 50 contacts at least once every 90 days. A simple CRM rule can automate this. Also, vary the type of interaction—sometimes a thoughtful email, sometimes a meeting, sometimes a referral. The key is consistency. We recommend scheduling one hour per week for maintenance activities. This hour is non-negotiable. Many professionals find that this hour generates more opportunities than any other activity they do. Avoiding the maintenance tax is the single most important factor in sustaining a high ELS over the long term.

Pitfall 3: Becoming a Net Taker Without Awareness

High achievers often become net takers unintentionally. They are busy, focused on their own goals, and may not notice that they have asked for three introductions this month but given none. Others begin to perceive them as self-serving, and their influence wanes. Mitigation: keep a simple log of favours given and received. At the end of each week, review it. If the imbalance exceeds 1.5:1 in either direction, take corrective action. Also, make 'giving first' a habit: before you attend a meeting or event, think of one piece of value you can offer to someone there. It could be a piece of insight, a relevant contact, or a genuine compliment. Over time, this habit rewires your default mode from taker to giver. We have seen a partner at a law firm who realised he had not made a single introduction for his contacts in six months. He set a goal of three introductions per week for a month, and his Reciprocity Balance score rose from 8 to 20. The side effect was that his contacts became more willing to refer clients to him. Being a balanced giver is not altruism; it is strategic self-interest.

Pitfall 4: Confusing Access with Influence

Having access to a decision-maker does not automatically mean you can influence them. If you have a direct line to a CEO but have never delivered value or built trust, your ELS may overstate your real influence. Mitigation: weight Decision-Maker Access by the quality of the relationship, not just the existence of a connection. In your inventory, rate each decision-maker contact on a 'willingness to act' scale of 1–5. A CEO who answers your call but has never acted on your request should be rated lower. Adjust your Access score accordingly. This prevents the illusion of influence. We have coached executives who were shocked to realise that their 'close relationship' with a board member was actually one-sided; the board member viewed them as a casual acquaintance. Honest self-assessment is crucial. Consider asking a neutral third party to review your ratings. The ELS is only as accurate as your self-awareness.

Mini-FAQ: Common Questions About the Entourage Leverage Score

This section addresses the most frequent questions we have encountered when introducing the ELS framework. The answers are based on our experience applying it with dozens of professionals. If you have a question not listed, we encourage you to use the framework's principles to reason through it—the logic is designed to be self-correcting.

How often should I recalculate my ELS?

We recommend quarterly recalculations for active professionals. A quarter is long enough to see meaningful changes from your actions, but short enough to catch negative trends before they compound. For example, if you have been neglecting maintenance for two months, a quarterly audit will flag it. In fast-paced industries like tech or finance, monthly checks on Mobilisation Speed alone can be valuable. However, avoid obsessing over the number; the score is a diagnostic, not a report card. Focus on the trend rather than the absolute value.

Is a high ELS sustainable without a team or assistant?

Yes, but it requires discipline. A solo professional can maintain a high ELS by focusing on quality over quantity. Limit your entourage to 30–40 deeply nurtured contacts rather than trying to manage 100. Use tools to automate reminders. Delegate low-value interactions (like scheduling) to a virtual assistant if budget allows. The key is to be ruthless about which relationships you invest in. Not everyone needs to be a deep connection. We have seen independent consultants with an ELS of 80+ by maintaining a curated network of 25 high-leverage contacts. The maintenance tax is lower with a smaller network, so it is sustainable. The risk is that if a few key contacts leave or retire, your score can drop quickly. Mitigate by having some redundancy in each pillar.

Can ELS be gamed or manipulated?

The ELS is a self-reported metric, so it is vulnerable to self-deception. However, the Mobilisation Speed pillar acts as a reality check because it is based on a hypothetical test that can be validated. If you claim a high Mobilisation Speed but cannot get a response when you need it, the gap reveals the gaming. To maintain integrity, we suggest asking a trusted colleague to audit your scores. Another safeguard is to track outcomes: if your ELS increases but your real-world influence does not, then your scoring is off. The framework is designed to be falsifiable. Use it as a mirror, not a trophy.

How do I handle contacts who are not in my immediate industry?

Cross-industry contacts can be highly valuable for Decision-Maker Access and Reciprocity Balance because they provide different perspectives and networks. However, they may have lower Mobilisation Speed if they are not accustomed to your type of requests. Score them honestly. For example, a contact in a different sector might have a trust level of 4 but a mobilisation speed of 3 because they need more context to act. That is fine. The diversity of your network strengthens your overall leverage by giving you access to non-obvious resources. We have seen professionals benefit enormously from a former colleague who moved into venture capital, providing access to funding that no one in their current industry could offer. So do not neglect cross-industry ties, but adjust expectations accordingly.

What if my ELS is below 40? Is it hopeless?

Not at all. A low ELS is a starting point, not a sentence. Many professionals begin with scores in the 30s and climb to the 60s within a year by focusing on one pillar at a time. The fastest gains usually come from improving Reciprocity Balance because that pillar is most under your control—you can start giving value today. Also, Mobilisation Speed can be improved quickly by having explicit conversations with your top contacts about mutual support. The key is to avoid trying to fix everything at once. Pick the lowest pillar and work on it for 90 days. After that, move to the next. We have seen someone go from 38 to 72 in 18 months with consistent effort. The ELS is a tool for growth, not a fixed trait.

Synthesis and Next Actions: Making ELS a Part of Your Professional Practice

We have covered the why, what, and how of the Entourage Leverage Score. Now it is time to synthesise the key insights and commit to a concrete next step. The ELS is not a one-time exercise; it is a practice that, when integrated into your routine, can transform how you manage your professional relationships. The ultimate goal is to treat your entourage as a strategic asset that you deliberately cultivate, not as a byproduct of daily work.

Key Takeaways

• Traditional social capital metrics miss depth, reciprocity, and activation speed—ELS fills that gap.
• The four pillars (Connection Depth, Decision-Maker Access, Reciprocity Balance, Mobilisation Speed) provide a balanced view of influence.
• Calculating your ELS takes about two hours initially and reveals specific areas for improvement.
• Tools like a CRM can reduce the maintenance burden and improve consistency.
• Growth mechanics are simple: deepen, bridge, and balance. But they require deliberate effort.
• Common pitfalls include over-relying on one pillar, neglecting maintenance, becoming a net taker, and confusing access with influence.
• The ELS is a living metric that should be reviewed quarterly.

Immediate Next Steps

To begin, schedule a two-hour block this week to conduct your first ELS audit. Follow the steps in the Execution section. Do not overthink it; the first score is a baseline. After you have your score, identify the lowest pillar and create a 90-day plan with three specific actions. For example, if your lowest pillar is Reciprocity Balance, your plan might include: (1) send one unsolicited value to a contact each day, (2) ask for one small favour each week, (3) review your favour log every Friday. Share your plan with a colleague or mentor for accountability. After 90 days, recalculate your ELS and adjust. Over the course of a year, you will build a robust and resilient network that amplifies your professional impact. Do not wait for a crisis to test your influence—start measuring and building now.