WHY an Industry Advisory Council?

So why was the Industry Advisory Council formed by ACT (FGIPC, at the time)?

ACT (I’m going to use the current nomenclature from now on) was not a government organization, although it was formed by government personnel, with official sanction, to meet government needs. As such, it had little funding. The Management of Change conference was the main revenue producer, and it did not produce much profit. Once industry was invited to attend MOC – my first year was 1987, and the event was 90 percent government attendees – ACT realized that industry could boost scholarships and other expenses. [There will be another blog on “other expenses” soon!]

In 1988, ACT offered a paid membership to allow industry to join ACT. “Lifetime Membership” was attainable to industry supporters for a modest sum – somewhere around $500 as I recollect. Since I was member number 124, it is a safe bet that ACT coffers swelled by more than $62,000 that year. That was a lot of spare change for the ACT Executive Board, and things got more interesting. Talk about forming an industry component began to get serious, and the premise of the Industry Advisory Council took on substance.

It was a simple equation – ACT needed a more robust funding mechanism, and industry was anxious to get closer to the government information technology community. At that time, there was very little socialization between the two communities in any organized forum, so everyone stood to gain, with several companies willing to make a small investment in building closer ties to their best customers. To be sure, ACT executives also saw value in better communications – hence the term “advisory” in the IAC name. But the real motivation was fiscal. It is also notable that the first IAC Chair was Jim Ridgell, who had lately departed government and was no longer eligible to serve as an ACT executive. Jim had coincidentally been the first President of ACT, and wanted to remain involved in the fraternity. He remains the only person to have served as head of both ACT and IAC.

The relationship of ACT and IAC as separate and separable entities got even more interesting over time.