FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.



I very much doubt that you hear this from anyone relevant to this decision.
—Longtime RAND staffer

It is a bad sign when employees are betting on their CEO's job or their own.

[Anonymous]

Jason thought he could revolutionize RAND by replacing his "loser" legacy staff with his tech bro friends and AI. After Trump was elected, he realized these losers were the ones keeping the entire place solvent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.

Put it on Manifold then.

Isn’t Manifold Markets associated with EA?

Sure. Even better, right? Think of it as betting against them. If you actually believe this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.

Put it on Manifold then.

Isn’t Manifold Markets associated with EA?

Sure. Even better, right? Think of it as betting against them. If you actually believe this.

Wasn’t Manifold funded by SBF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.

Put it on Manifold then.

Isn’t Manifold Markets associated with EA?

Sure. Even better, right? Think of it as betting against them. If you actually believe this.

Wasn’t Manifold funded by SBF?

I don't think so, but I'm not exhaustively tracking what he funded. Do you believe it's 20% or do you not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RAND's CEO in the news...again.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/technology/3781667/howard-lutnick-cuts-biden-chips-act-funding-dispenser/

The article is not Jason's fault because it stems from his previous position in the Biden administration, but his incompetence as a leader is still undeniable. Nobody trusts his leadership, a fact that is universally acknowledged at RAND.

Long time RAND staffer here and new poster with no relationship with Jason, other than he runs my company. I don’t hear anyone blaming him for RAND’s current troubles, which are (obviously to everyone but some posters here) attributable to changes in Federal priorities that have hurt ALL companies offering science and analysis consulting.

I have some complaints about his management, focus and choices, but he is not why we are suffering right now.

Is it obvious to everyone? Jason's failures to manage the internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis due too Trump is the reason for RANDs very serious troubles right now.

I have no idea what you mean by the "internal and reputational fallout during the external industry crisis". The market for science and analysis changed very abruptly and very dramatically. Projects were not just not renewed, they were cancelled over the coarse of a couple months. All related firms experienced this. Was RAND hit more? I have no information to suggest that is true, but information is scarce, so maybe? Seems like our competitors were hit hard and took earlier losses.

As I said before, I am not uncritical of Jason’s choices and management. President and CEO Jim Thompson had all research division directors report to him. Too many direct reports? Maybe, but he loved the research, and wanted to know what was interesting and important that RAND was doing. Michael Rich was deeply involved in research unit activities until he became president, and created a layer between himself and the units. But he still wanted to be involved in Division reviews where divisions could highlight their interesting work and important challenges.

From what I hear (possibly wrong) Jason does not participate in Division reviews, and has minimal one-on-one contact with division leaders. Unlike prior presidents, he reportedly does not help vet and shape research briefings for our Board of Trustees. I worry that if these are true, he may be too far removed from our research strengths and current challenges to effectively design a value proposition that distinguishes us from Booz Allen. If we stop publishing (it’s happening), if we stop trying to have our work make impact through press releases, Congressional outreach, op Ed’s and commentaries, I don’t know how we are different and worth the higher costs. Publication keeps us transparent, honest, and critically reviewed. Publication is what allows us to hire the best young people who aspire to make names for themselves in the academic and policy worlds.

So, I hope it’s clear I am not an apologist here. I just don’t think the market can be blamed on Jason.

Board of Trustees meeting is happening in November and I hear that Jason has a 20% chance of keeping his job.

Put it on Manifold then.

Isn’t Manifold Markets associated with EA?

Sure. Even better, right? Think of it as betting against them. If you actually believe this.

Wasn’t Manifold funded by SBF?

I don't think so, but I'm not exhaustively tracking what he funded. Do you believe it's 20% or do you not?

I'm a different person and don't know anything about RAND or its CEO (or care). It looks like Manifold was funded by Sam Bankman Fried's scammy philanthropy according to wikipedia.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jason thought he could revolutionize RAND by replacing his "loser" legacy staff with his tech bro friends and AI. After Trump was elected, he realized these losers were the ones keeping the entire place solvent.

Disagree. Jason got rid of some heritage toxic leadership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason thought he could revolutionize RAND by replacing his "loser" legacy staff with his tech bro friends and AI. After Trump was elected, he realized these losers were the ones keeping the entire place solvent.

Disagree. Jason got rid of some heritage toxic leadership.

Like who?

[Anonymous]

I have never dealt with RAND, but taking posts here at face value, maybe the CEO does not want to be an FFRDC and instead wants to be one of those independent DC "think tanks".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jason thought he could revolutionize RAND by replacing his "loser" legacy staff with his tech bro friends and AI. After Trump was elected, he realized these losers were the ones keeping the entire place solvent.

Disagree. Jason got rid of some heritage toxic leadership.

At least these toxic leaders created jobs instead of cutting them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have never dealt with RAND, but taking posts here at face value, maybe the CEO does not want to be an FFRDC and instead wants to be one of those independent DC "think tanks".

This tracks what I am seeing.

[Anonymous]

Anyone know what fraction of RAND’s budget is FFRDC work? And how that compares to decades past?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone know what fraction of RAND’s budget is FFRDC work? And how that compares to decades past?

Our reliance on federal funding (FFRDC and non-FFRDC) remains high: 75% in 2022 (Michael's tenure) versus 70% in 2024 (Jason's tenure). The 5% diversification is negligible for covering FFRDC losses today.

[Anonymous]

More carnage at MITRE today. Mass furloughs and questions about solvency

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More carnage at MITRE today. Mass furloughs and questions about solvency

I’m sorry to hear this.

All paths lead back to Jason P and his “crew”. Mitre should investigate, clawback, and continue to consolidate/streamline. Giving back trash cans is not enough to fix this issue.