FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

It’s a very good thing for the organization to diversify in terms of funding sources without doing things that unnecessarily puts the other 75% of the business at risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

How do you know? Do you work there?

I have zero information on RAND specifically being in more danger than anyone else beyond the DHS info posted up thread. The alternative sources of funding are public. MITRE is the bigger target. But I don't think any of the FFRDCs or UARCs are safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

How do you know? Do you work there?

I have zero information on RAND specifically being in more danger than anyone else beyond the DHS info posted up thread. The alternative sources of funding are public. MITRE is the bigger target. But I don't think any of the FFRDCs or UARCs are safe.

RAND is fine. The CEO is a smart, nice guy. He’s not political. It’s smart they pivoted away from USG contracts. All of the FFRDCs and UARCs will take a hit, but they have taken hits before and never went under. APL is probably the best situated in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

How do you know? Do you work there?

I have zero information on RAND specifically being in more danger than anyone else beyond the DHS info posted up thread. The alternative sources of funding are public. MITRE is the bigger target. But I don't think any of the FFRDCs or UARCs are safe.

RAND is fine. The CEO is a smart, nice guy. He’s not political. It’s smart they pivoted away from USG contracts. All of the FFRDCs and UARCs will take a hit, but they have taken hits before and never went under. APL is probably the best situated in the area.

I don't think they're going to go under. I just also don't think they're safe places to be or go to unless you're not going to be dependent on their government contracts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

Why do alt-FFRDC funders give an FFRDC $? What are they expecting to get in return?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

Why do alt-FFRDC funders give an FFRDC $? What are they expecting to get in return?

It is just Contract research. Some commercial firms might pick RAND instead of some university, to give a contrived example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

Why do alt-FFRDC funders give an FFRDC $? What are they expecting to get in return?

It is just Contract research. Some commercial firms might pick RAND instead of some university, to give a contrived example.

Hrmm… interesting…. Don’t FFRDCs have to be free from conflict if interest? That’s why my agency used them before… This sounds like it could turn into something where private “contract research” is just a backdoor for influencing agencies who sponsor FFRDCs?

I know nothing about FFRDCs except for being a COR for a few task orders that my SES wanted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

Why do alt-FFRDC funders give an FFRDC $? What are they expecting to get in return?

It is just Contract research. Some commercial firms might pick RAND instead of some university, to give a contrived example.

Hrmm… interesting…. Don’t FFRDCs have to be free from conflict if interest? That’s why my agency used them before… This sounds like it could turn into something where private “contract research” is just a backdoor for influencing agencies who sponsor FFRDCs?

I know nothing about FFRDCs except for being a COR for a few task orders that my SES wanted.

I am not a lawyer, but if State of California or some Random Corp wanted RAND to study some HR question for them, I do not see how that would be a conflict of interest with doing unrelated work for a Federal sponsor like DHS.

And remember not everyone who is an employee of RAND Corp. also is an employee of an FFRDC operated by RAND. There are internal boundaries. The hypothetical outside work would be done by people outside the FFRDC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Check out the Glassdoor reviews for MITRE. That place is messy.

Most employees despised the previous CEO, his constant talk of “growth,” attempts to stand up “alt-FFRDC” business lines, and his tone-deaf, foot-in-mouth communication style on many company-wide CEO calls. He explicitly encouraged the mess that was made on Glassdoor. Such an out of touch jerk.

New CEO seems like a breath of fresh air. Even before the Trump administration took office, we’re hearing about better focus on appropriate FFRDC work (e.g., emerging technologies and approaches, work with high risk of failure that others might avoid, hands-on prototyping that transitions to industry quickly), raising the bar very high on technical quality, and differentiation from other beltway contractors.

MITRE has always said no to plenty of work the government asks us to do because it’s not a good fit for our FFRDC role. I think that approach is going to increase, even with the government-driven contractions that are underway.

Glassdoor reviews will likely improve over time.

Sounds like RAND right now. Our new CEO is all about growth, AI, and is focused on alt-FFRDC work to the point where I wonder if they even want their FFRDCs anymore.

It is a very good thing for the organization that they diversified in terms of funding sources over the last few years. It will still be very painful for them if the FFRDCs are cut or eliminated, but it will not be existential.

Why do alt-FFRDC funders give an FFRDC $? What are they expecting to get in return?

It is just Contract research. Some commercial firms might pick RAND instead of some university, to give a contrived example.

Hrmm… interesting…. Don’t FFRDCs have to be free from conflict if interest? That’s why my agency used them before… This sounds like it could turn into something where private “contract research” is just a backdoor for influencing agencies who sponsor FFRDCs?

I know nothing about FFRDCs except for being a COR for a few task orders that my SES wanted.

I am not a lawyer, but if State of California or some Random Corp wanted RAND to study some HR question for them, I do not see how that would be a conflict of interest with doing unrelated work for a Federal sponsor like DHS.

And remember not everyone who is an employee of RAND Corp. also is an employee of an FFRDC operated by RAND. There are internal boundaries. The hypothetical outside work would be done by people outside the FFRDC.

DP and I'm not a lawyer, but what about philanthropic donors with business interests on the study topic who then gave money to MITRE or RAND knowing they had a special relationship with a gov agency? Seems suspicious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP and I'm not a lawyer, but what about philanthropic donors with business interests on the study topic who then gave money to MITRE or RAND knowing they had a special relationship with a gov agency? Seems suspicious

MITRE would never engage in a scenario like you’re suggesting. The alternative lines of business MITRE was pursuing, but has since stopped, were focused on topics that bridged government and industry interests. For example, securing the financial system takes solutions that require engagement from the banking industry and government. MITRE was trying to build new business around forming consortiums that would create technical solutions to tackle these problems, working with teams of big banks in this example. One of the requirements of those contracts was that the solutions developed needed to be shared openly for the greater good. It’s not a bad idea, but lots of staff didn’t like that it was a leadership focus that pulled MITRE away from its core FFRDC missions and sponsors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP and I'm not a lawyer, but what about philanthropic donors with business interests on the study topic who then gave money to MITRE or RAND knowing they had a special relationship with a gov agency? Seems suspicious

MITRE would never engage in a scenario like you’re suggesting. The alternative lines of business MITRE was pursuing, but has since stopped, were focused on topics that bridged government and industry interests. For example, securing the financial system takes solutions that require engagement from the banking industry and government. MITRE was trying to build new business around forming consortiums that would create technical solutions to tackle these problems, working with teams of big banks in this example. One of the requirements of those contracts was that the solutions developed needed to be shared openly for the greater good. It’s not a bad idea, but lots of staff didn’t like that it was a leadership focus that pulled MITRE away from its core FFRDC missions and sponsors.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/13/open-philanthropy-funding-ai-policy-00121362

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP and I'm not a lawyer, but what about philanthropic donors with business interests on the study topic who then gave money to MITRE or RAND knowing they had a special relationship with a gov agency? Seems suspicious

MITRE would never engage in a scenario like you’re suggesting. The alternative lines of business MITRE was pursuing, but has since stopped, were focused on topics that bridged government and industry interests. For example, securing the financial system takes solutions that require engagement from the banking industry and government. MITRE was trying to build new business around forming consortiums that would create technical solutions to tackle these problems, working with teams of big banks in this example. One of the requirements of those contracts was that the solutions developed needed to be shared openly for the greater good. It’s not a bad idea, but lots of staff didn’t like that it was a leadership focus that pulled MITRE away from its core FFRDC missions and sponsors.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/13/open-philanthropy-funding-ai-policy-00121362

oops. ignore, this article isn't about MITRE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/13/open-philanthropy-funding-ai-policy-00121362

That article has nothing to do with MITRE.

Don’t lump RAND and MITRE together. There’s a significant difference between how those two organizations operate. RAND is more of a think tank. MITRE focuses primarily on systems engineering and prototyping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DP and I'm not a lawyer, but what about philanthropic donors with business interests on the study topic who then gave money to MITRE or RAND knowing they had a special relationship with a gov agency? Seems suspicious

MITRE would never engage in a scenario like you’re suggesting. The alternative lines of business MITRE was pursuing, but has since stopped, were focused on topics that bridged government and industry interests. For example, securing the financial system takes solutions that require engagement from the banking industry and government. MITRE was trying to build new business around forming consortiums that would create technical solutions to tackle these problems, working with teams of big banks in this example. One of the requirements of those contracts was that the solutions developed needed to be shared openly for the greater good. It’s not a bad idea, but lots of staff didn’t like that it was a leadership focus that pulled MITRE away from its core FFRDC missions and sponsors.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/13/open-philanthropy-funding-ai-policy-00121362

ffrdcs shouldn’t be lobbying like this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:ffrdcs shouldn’t be lobbying like this

RAND was specifically mentioned in that article. An important fact is that RAND is not an FFRDC. It’s a company that does stuff and also operates a few FFRDCs on behalf of the government. Same goes for University of California, MIT, and Carnegie Mellon.

I assume RAND has a firewall or conflict of interest controls between its FFRDC and non-FFRDC business, but I don’t know that for sure as I don’t work there.