FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

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.

So, your CEO is checked out?

[Anonymous]

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

O wow... across the board or targeting specific centers?

[Anonymous]

So, your CEO is checked out

?

Is his engagement with research divisions different than what is seen from presidents at MITRE, Aerospace or elsewhere? IDK

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

So, your CEO is checked out

?

Is his engagement with research divisions different than what is seen from presidents at MITRE, Aerospace or elsewhere? IDK

I’m sure Tanya engages with her VPs at Aerospace. No idea about Mitre, but that’s a low bar for comparison.

[Anonymous]

Can you please expand on "giving up trash cans"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you please expand on "giving up trash cans"?

Last year, MITRE took away individual trash cans in offices, requiring staff to use centralized trash/recycling in the common kitchen areas. We assume this was a cost-cutting measure to reduce custodial staff, but leadership guised the change as part of a “green” initiative. Leadership often does that, for example framing “return to office” as an effort to increase innovation instead of leveling with employees that we have significant facilities expenses within our wrap rate that need to be justified to our government sponsors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you please expand on "giving up trash cans"?

Last year, MITRE took away individual trash cans in offices, requiring staff to use centralized trash/recycling in the common kitchen areas. We assume this was a cost-cutting measure to reduce custodial staff, but leadership guised the change as part of a “green” initiative. Leadership often does that, for example framing “return to office” as an effort to increase innovation instead of leveling with employees that we have significant facilities expenses within our wrap rate that need to be justified to our government sponsors.

This was justified as a pursuit of some sort of LEED certification to reduce waste. To be fair, private sector companies do this, or try to, as well. In reality the money was just funneled to sustainability, etc. The “sustainability” vp and HR nutcase who dreamed up this and other mad schemes while giving themselves massive raises were fired by the new CEO who is trying to cleaning house and bring back sanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

O wow... across the board or targeting specific centers?

Ugh. I was looking to return there.

[Anonymous]

How much of MITRE was impacted on Friday?

[Anonymous]

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.

So, your CEO is checked out?

Jason has destroyed RAND's soul. No one I've spoken to supports him, and while the Board seems convinced by his salesmanship and slick talk, the organization is finished. It's a depressing place to work these days.

[Anonymous]

CNA is touting AI... but because of that, it may not need some staff in both the FFRDC and IPR departments.

Also, CNA needs to reduce overhead to be competitive in their gov contracts (IPR-side).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:CNA is touting AI... but because of that, it may not need some staff in both the FFRDC and IPR departments.

Also, CNA needs to reduce overhead to be competitive in their gov contracts (IPR-side).

Isn’t AI an opportunity for the FFRDCs? Impartial, conflict-free advice to help the federal government determine how to best leverage/harness/introduce new technologies into aging infrastructure and workstreams.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much of MITRE was impacted on Friday?

No total number provided, but for corporate staff and Air Force staff it was significant. Firmwide email just went out saying 600 more people for next week. CEO says company is currently around 6,500 employees, so 10% additional furloughed next week is jarring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much of MITRE was impacted on Friday?

No total number provided, but for corporate staff and Air Force staff it was significant. Firmwide email just went out saying 600 more people for next week. CEO says company is currently around 6,500 employees, so 10% additional furloughed next week is jarring.

6,500???? omg... it was either at or just under 10,000 in early 2024 (when i left)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA is touting AI... but because of that, it may not need some staff in both the FFRDC and IPR departments.

Also, CNA needs to reduce overhead to be competitive in their gov contracts (IPR-side).

Isn’t AI an opportunity for the FFRDCs? Impartial, conflict-free advice to help the federal government determine how to best leverage/harness/introduce new technologies into aging infrastructure and workstreams.

Yes, but then do you need a lot of research/analytical staff?