Destiny’s Child, or How the ACT got its Trunk

The Federation of Government Information Processing Councils (FGIPC) was formed in 1979 because it was necessary. It was an early Social Network, before LinkedIn and all the others furnished a way for professionals to forge connections and share information.

In the 1970’s, you could count the number of computers owned by the government. Quite literally – Ken Allen has a book in his office from the late Sixties than lists all 600 or so government computers. Every computer tended to be a little bit different. You might have the identical make and model as a system in another agency, but the parts would be somewhat different, and the baseline software probably had a different level of release and patches. But it was always advantageous to know someone who had the same ostensible configuration – perhaps to consult on the costs and advantages of installing new software or peripherals, or to help troubleshoot some balky issue. A series of local associations of government ADPE - Automated Data Processing Equipment – professionals sprang up in local areas and regions to facilitate information sharing, and were generally across agencies within a metropolitan area or region. The ADP Council of the Southeast, the Southern California Technology Council, the New England ADP Council, and others, totaling fifteen or twenty regional and a couple of vertical Councils.

The Federation – FGIPC – was launched from a vision of extending the collegial sharing beyond regional and onto a national basis. FGIPC provided an annual conference – the Management of Change – and used its meager funds to support scholarships for federal IT students. It was a shoestring operation, with no paid staff but intense support from several motivated elected officers. It was actually subsidized by the home agencies of those officers in time and travel. It had nominal support from OMB and GSA. FGIPC provided a valuable forum for meeting technology managers beyond the home agency or local region. In 2003, FGIPC elected to re-brand itself as the American Council for Technology, and ACT as we know it presently was born.

While this is a pretty desiccated recitation of yesteryear, it is consequential to comprehend why ACT was originated and the value that it delivered in order to appreciate some of the later events and some of the current challenges. In subsequent blogs, we will delve into some of the less savory practices and events of FGIPC that represent lessons for today.

How the Industry Advisory Council Got its Ears

How the Industry Advisory Council Got its Ears

[NOTE: This is perhaps the only blog on ACT-IAC that will be posted that is more rumor and innuendo than observed fact. It is however, a Good Story, and may be completely true, and it is part of the lore from the early days of the Industry Advisory Council. Corrections, denials, and alternate versions are welcomed from anyone with a better story.]

In 1991, H.R. 3161 was introduced by William Conyers, House Government Operations Committee Chairman. The legislation was a mishmash of new rules, including the stipulation that GSA fully compete any and all acquisitions with a total value in excess of $1000.00 – including schedule buys. It would lay an ponderous burden on contractors and agency procurement staff. Because it was a Conyers pet project, the bill had gained acquiescence from a wide spectrum of industry advocates – no one wanted to thwart potent and vindictive Conyers. So AFCEA, ITAA, NAM, ADAPSO, EIA, and everyone else in town voiced no protest.

IAC was initially a pretty Small Deal – it took most of 1990 to enlist the 20 charter member companies, and growth was a slow process. The first Executive Leadership Conference attracted about 140 attendees to Charlottesville. And there was frankly not much else going on in IAC. The second ELC (1992) was fundamentally an acquisition colloquium, and one of the workshop topics encompassed pending legislation to reform procurement. ELC was a success, in terms of audience satisfaction and intense discourse. One of the byproducts of the conference was a published “Proceedings.”  Each of the workshops included a recorder, taking notes compiled into a brief treatise distributed to attendees and press, with no attribution of comments or identification of discussants. 

At ELC, the impacts that H.R. 3161 would have on contracting personnel on both sides of the fence was widely recognized, and it was discussed in a procurement workshop in less than salutary terms. That spirit was reflected in the Proceedings. While companies and their trade groups would not vocally object to HR 3161, everyone knew that it included inopportune requirements.

One of the pointed Capitol Hill news publications – it could have been Role Call or the National Journal– acquired the Proceedings and published a story that noted the broad support for HR 3161, with solely the tiny upstart IAC expressing any reservations about the wisdom of the GSA restriction. While no one cared much about the Proceedings from a conference of less than 150 participants, or the opinion of an association with less than 50 members, IAC had inadvertently been branded as an opponent of the Conyers bill.

And the bill failed. It never made it to the House floor for a vote.

With no one else visible, pundits assumed that the IAC opposition had been instrumental in defeating the potent committee chair, and IAC became noteworthy in the press. While strictly barred from lobbying, and actually endorsing no position on any legislation, IAC was abruptly more interesting to the federal IT Trade Press, based on anonymous remarks made in off-the-record discourse.

You know what they say about assumptions.

The actual story of the defeat of HR3161 was entirely different, and engendered no backlash from Conyers to IAC. An ascendant House leader from Louisiana had a wish for a commemorative coin to honor Louis Armstrong, who had died twenty years earlier. That congressman – let’s say it was Bob Livingston, who was designated Speaker of the House in 1996 – blamed Conyers for the defeat of that proposal, and quashed HR 3161 in retribution. Conyers probably never knew that IAC had been posited as an opponent of his bill, which encompassed a diversity of rules more substantial than the competition rider. But IAC was quietly elevated, and membership began to grow, especially after the more ensconced trade associations had poorly represented the wishes of those companies in the GSA matter.

To be sure, the details on this are a bit hazy to me after nearly 25 years. I’m not sure if it was Livingston who confounded Conyers’ bill, or where the story of IAC opposition originated. It was a story quietly told in IAC circles, relayed from member-company legislative coordinators and lobbyists. Call it apocryphal – I cannot promise that it is any more than a story I heard at the time. But it does add some spice to our history.

Dare we learn from history? An Anniversary Blog on ACT-IAC

With the 35^th anniversary of ACT and the 25^th anniversary of IAC being celebrated next month, I thought members of each organization would be intrigued in the antecedents of the organization. As the de facto historian for ACT-IAC, I will be jotting my hindsights on both organizations rooted on my personal knowledge and experiences form the early days. Hopefully, this will provide some perspective on where we have been as an organization, and on where we might be going in the future.

I hope that members, both government and industry, will find some interest in this.

“De facto historian” – I lay claim to that title based on my long-time participation in both organizations. I attended my first ACT event – although it was then called the Federation of Government Information Processing Councils, or FGIPC, which was pronounced “Fuh-Gypsy “- in 1987, the Management of Change conference in Dallas, Texas. I was inspired by the event and the mission, and became a regular attendee thereafter. In 1988, I joined FGIPC as a lifetime member. I was member number 124. The only remaining life member in our community that I am aware of is Izzy Feldman, who I will talk about in later blogs. I also was author and co-editor of the ACT-IAC brochure created for the 2009 30/20 Anniversary, and author and editor of “Twenty Years of Partnership”, a book about the Executive Leadership Conference.

When FGIPC elected to form an industry consortium in 1988, I was involved, in terms of supporting the concept, and commenting on the charter. I became a participant in the inaugural IAC meetings, ultimately cajoling my company to join in 1990.

I attended the first Executive Leadership Conference in 1991 in Charlottesville, and all since. I was appointed to the IAC Executive committee to fill a vacancy in 1994, and elected to that committee for four consecutive terms, serving through 2004.

And so I lay claim to the designation of Historian. But this blog is NOT going to be about me. It will delve into the why’s, what’s, how’s, and who’s of ACT-IAC over my 27 years of engagement. I hope some find it interesting, enlightening, and engaging.

Please feel free to add your own remarks and memories, insights and conclusions