FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

I have no clue who is anti-what here, but I work at RAND and will chime in. There are parts that are doing very very well. If you work on topics that the CEO cares about like China and AI the place has never been better. That’s where donor $ is going toward.

If you don’t work on those topics, nobody at the top really seems to care. It’s demoralizing. But that is what you get when the CEO only wants to run 10% of the company. That is probably why RANDites seem anti-RAND IRL or on this forum.

But the difference is also that at other organizations, if you don't like the leadership and direction, you leave. At RAND, people stay and then complain.

Maybe they complain bc they want the board to actually do something about the mess the new leadership has created? Several leaders at RAND have no business running such a large organization.

It's been more than two years. Wouldn't it feel better to go someplace better aligned with your values rather than to trash your organization in public?

This has nothing to do with values. It's about mismanagement.

Regardless, it's weird that people just stay there. Leave! There's a whole world out there.

[Anonymous]

Different poster not associated with rand... it's weird to me the only response to concerns about poor leadership is to leave the job. Maybe poor leaders should leave too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some FFRDCS (Mitre we are looking at you) stray too far from their core mission by taking non-gov money. This is very different than what you described.

What are you talking about “taking non-gov money”? I’ve worked at MITRE for a long time and provide leadership to staff that work across hundreds of projects. If what you write is happening, it’s so rare that I couldn’t give you an example of it.

Example that is fairly obvious is Mitre monetizing its ATT&CK cyber stuff with revenue from commercial cyber firms.

That is very obvious. Mitre is shady.

Stop beating up on MITRE. Other FFRDCs do far worse things than ATT&CK. Case in point: https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-ai-doomers-have-infiltrated-washington/

It's funny that the anti-MITRE people are not at MITRE, but the anti-RAND people are still at RAND. You know you're allowed to leave, right?

I have no clue who is anti-what here, but I work at RAND and will chime in. There are parts that are doing very very well. If you work on topics that the CEO cares about like China and AI the place has never been better. That’s where donor $ is going toward.

If you don’t work on those topics, nobody at the top really seems to care. It’s demoralizing. But that is what you get when the CEO only wants to run 10% of the company. That is probably why RANDites seem anti-RAND IRL or on this forum.

I used to work at RAND. Loved it! Most folks there are great and the new head was a really thoughtful hire. Seems like he's trying to diversify sponsors, which is probably a REALLY good thing given the hit that science and analysis is taking. I'm glad I'm old and retired and don't have to deal with this stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Different poster not associated with rand... it's weird to me the only response to concerns about poor leadership is to leave the job. Maybe poor leaders should leave too?

One of those you can control and one you can't, though. One of the problems with a culture of lifetime employment is people stick around when they're unhappy and undermine their organizations and colleagues instead of just finding a new job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Different poster not associated with rand... it's weird to me the only response to concerns about poor leadership is to leave the job. Maybe poor leaders should leave too?

One of those you can control and one you can't, though. One of the problems with a culture of lifetime employment is people stick around when they're unhappy and undermine their organizations and colleagues instead of just finding a new job.

I don't think RAND's internal labor market creates a "culture of lifetime employment," quite the opposite.

[Anonymous]

Mitre is only laying off 4.9%.

They had at least that much bloat even before losing any contracts. Likely more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mitre is only laying off 4.9%.

They had at least that much bloat even before losing any contracts. Likely more.

You claim to have insight into all the “bloat” that MITRE has, but you don’t even have the right number on the RIF. This round was at least 6%, maybe 7%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mitre is only laying off 4.9%.

They had at least that much bloat even before losing any contracts. Likely more.

You claim to have insight into all the “bloat” that MITRE has, but you don’t even have the right number on the RIF. This round was at least 6%, maybe 7%.

The % will vary with the denominator one chooses. The same number of people laid off might be x % of McLean staff, y % of Virginia staff, or z % of the whole company.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The % will vary with the denominator one chooses. The same number of people laid off might be x % of McLean staff, y % of Virginia staff, or z % of the whole company.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The PP did not qualify their statement beyond the most general “MITRE is only laying off,” so your point is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The % will vary with the denominator one chooses. The same number of people laid off might be x % of McLean staff, y % of Virginia staff, or z % of the whole company.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. The PP did not qualify their statement beyond the most general “MITRE is only laying off,” so your point is irrelevant.

Don’t be mean. This is a stressful time for a lot of people.

[Anonymous]

Any truth of rumors about more layoffs at Mitre?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any truth of rumors about more layoffs at Mitre?

True. More next week per CEO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Any truth of rumors about more layoffs at Mitre?

True. More next week per CEO.

What about RAND and Aerospace?

[Anonymous]

Think there will be layoffs soon at my national lab.

[Anonymous]

Lots of people struggling to find coverage at RAND.