2009 Review of IAC Shared Interest Groups July 9, 2009

Agenda Charter Outcomes Success Factors Lessons Learned Committee Membership Interview Process Interview Slate Schedule/Timeline Q&A

Charter Review the agenda and structure of the IAC Shared Interest Groups in order to ensure that the SIGs are: – Addressing the most relevant issues affecting the government’s use of IT – Are providing thought leadership on emerging issues – Are structured and operating in a manner that maximizes the opportunity for industry and government executives to participate in the activities of the SIGs. In conducting its review the SIG Structure Working Group shall consider the following sources of information: – The agenda of the new administration – The ACT government-wide strategic agenda – The reports of the IAC Transition Study Group – Such other documents and reports as are relevant to this activity

Outcomes A proposed structure for the SIGs; A proposed agenda of issues to be addressed by the SIGs; Recommendations for engaging a wide range of government involvement in GAPs and encouraging IAC member involvement in the SIGs Recommendations for improving the participation of subject matter experts in the SIGs; and Such other recommendations as may be appropriate to improve the relevance and operation of the SIGs.

Success Factors The extent to which government and industry executives and practitioners are involved in the activities of the SIGs; The extent to which subject matter experts are involved in the SIGs; The extent to which government executives see the SIGs as a resource and request their assistance; The impact of SIG white papers and other products

Lessons Learned Good understanding of the Government priorities – Think about whether the government did not articulate some trend that they should have Identify gaps with the current SIG line-up Coordinate with the SIG chairs early and through-out the process Vet the new SIG alignment with Government Ensure IAC EC is constantly involved Change Management – SIGs are used as a stepping stone into IAC – SIGs are managed by volunteers Communications, Communications, Communications!!!

Members Rosa Caldas, Zemitek Chris Chroniger, NetStar-1 Ellen Glover, ICF Michael Klimkiewicz, HPTi Andrew Lieber, Grant Thornton Venkatapathi Puvvada, Unisys Paul Strasser, Pragmatics Michael Tiemann, FEAC Institute Michelle, Tranter, EDS/HP Deepak Hathiramani, Vistronix Ken Allen, IAC Dan Twomey, Executive Committee John Shaw, IAC

Interview Process Input solicited through multiple channels – In-person Interviews – Concise on-line questionnaire open to membership, GAP members, Past SIG Chairs and potential other government staff for approximately 30 days Interviews will be conducted during the months of July – August – Conducted by Five teams of two (Team Lead + partner) – Approximately 30 in-person interviews – Questionnaire provided prior to interview – Interviews designed to last approximately 45 – 60 minutes – Potential/perceived Conflicts of Interest to be avoided

Interview Slate Slate – SIG Chairs – SIG Vice Chairs – GAP Members – ACT Board – Other related government vested interest groups e.g. CIO Council, Chief Acquisition Council, etc. – Other Industry and Government individuals as deemed necessary SIG Chairs and Vice-Chairs interviewed independently Please see attachment for final list of interviewees

Timeline May 28 – Kick-off meeting May 30 – Finalize SIG Review Committee membership June 4 – Brief IAC Executive Committee June 12 – Finalize Process; Brief IAC SIG Vice-Chairs July 9 – Brief IAC Executive Committee July 10 – Brief IAC SIG Chairs July 14 – Brief ACT BOD July 22 – Brief Membership June - August – Conduct Interviews August 14 – Brief IAC SIG Vice-Chairs August – Develop Findings and Preliminary Recommendations – Working group briefs IAC Executive Committee on findings and preliminary recommendations – Findings and recommendations circulated to appropriate individuals for review September 11 – Brief IAC SIG Chairs September – Final report of Working Group presented to IAC Executive Committee for action October 26 – New SIG structure and agenda presented at Executive Leadership Conference Dec SIGs hold elections for 2010 Leadership (no recent precedent on how to hold elections for new SIGs) January 1, 2009 – New SIG structure implemented

Q&A

Appendix

SWOT STRENGTHS – Critical part of IAC – Provide a platform for skills development for member companies – Strong & Unique Reputation within the Federal domain – All volunteer organization – Strong Leadership – Cost Neutral – Improved collaboration between SIGs – High Return –on-Investment (ROI) for IAC based on the investment in staff resoruces

SWOT WEAKNESSES – Volunteer Organization – Not addressing relevant areas/skill-sets/roles of government Some SIGs more successful than others – Leadership – Not-Invented-Here (NIH) Culture – Structure/Model of SIGs Lack of Focus Outcome is not even across SIGs See Structure/Model of SIGs under Opportunities

SWOT OPPORTUNITIES – Expand member organization management buy-in by recognizing the value proposition of IAC & SIGs Expand involvement beyond Business Development to include management and SMEs – Improve Model/Structure of SIG Do we have to many SIGs? Do we have to many sub-committees? Review/Replicate Enterprise Architecture SIG model SIGs should be outcome driven & time-bound – Improved collaboration with new administration – Expand constituents through relationships with CXO councils – Expand geographic reach of SIGs by engaging SMEs across the country – Improve ability to be in a leadership position within the technology domain Positions SIGs to be on the leading edge of technology enhancing our ability to align the use of technology with government initiatives

SWOT OPPORTUNITIES (contd.) – Explore the concept of Communities-of-Interest Considering our membership consists of a majority of Small Business, should we consider a program, cross cutting across all SIG, to assist small businesses? Should the Small Business SIG be a Community-of-Interest? Current SB SIG has strong leadership and very engaged GAP Should we consider an Innovation SIG or Community of Interest? – Leverage technology (Sharepoint, webniars, etc.) to facilitate increased collaboration – Create a Technical/Professional Development environment for Government/Members Use Partners/Voyagers as a springboard Leadership Development Leverage member company SMEs – Use of Web 2.0 for SIGs Expanding reach with Government Collaboration

SWOT THREATS – Perception as a BD organization – Decreasing relevance if key government initiatives not addressed in a short time-frame Healthcare, Cyber-security, Web 2.0 – Are we ready to be engaged in a Web 2.0 environment?

Supplemental Documentation 2009 Review of IAC Shared Interest Groups 2009 Federal Government IT Strategic Agenda 2009 SIG Leadership, Mission & Structure Transition Study reports SIG SOPs 2004 Report of the IAC SIG DIG 2004 Interview Guide