FFRDCs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

Wait a minute. Are you saying RAND might actually not have HSOAC?? You’re one of the few posts defending Jason/GER so you probably are in the know…. maybe management yourself? If we actually lose HSOAC there is a lot of ppl that are about to lose their jobs…. Why isn’t management communicating this clearly??

I'm not at RAND. I know zero inside anything. But how do you not know that HSOAC is a mess? Also, I have lots of RAND complaints, they're just different ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

Wait a minute. Are you saying RAND might actually not have HSOAC?? You’re one of the few posts defending Jason/GER so you probably are in the know…. maybe management yourself? If we actually lose HSOAC there is a lot of ppl that are about to lose their jobs…. Why isn’t management communicating this clearly??

I'm not at RAND. I know zero inside anything. But how do you not know that HSOAC is a mess? Also, I have lots of RAND complaints, they're just different ones.

I knew it’s a mess but didn’t realize it’s going away. Wasn’t it the largest unit at RAND?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

Wait a minute. Are you saying RAND might actually not have HSOAC?? You’re one of the few posts defending Jason/GER so you probably are in the know…. maybe management yourself? If we actually lose HSOAC there is a lot of ppl that are about to lose their jobs…. Why isn’t management communicating this clearly??

I'm not at RAND. I know zero inside anything. But how do you not know that HSOAC is a mess? Also, I have lots of RAND complaints, they're just different ones.

I knew it’s a mess but didn’t realize it’s going away. Wasn’t it the largest unit at RAND?

Read through the beginning of this thread. There was someone (probably) at S&T commenting on this months ago. I do not know if anything definitive has happened, but the RAND and former RAND people I've talked to thought it was likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Terrible leadership buys terrible results.

Perfect description of RAND right now.

The only hope to save the place as even a semblance of its former self would be top level leadership replacement.

Seems to be the consensus. If there's another RIF, they need to remove Jason and shutdown the horror show of GER.

I'm sure it's the consensus of the voices in your head that if you lose the DHS FFRDC it'll be because of GER, but responding to your own comments here is not going to get anyone fired.

Wait a minute. Are you saying RAND might actually not have HSOAC?? You’re one of the few posts defending Jason/GER so you probably are in the know…. maybe management yourself? If we actually lose HSOAC there is a lot of ppl that are about to lose their jobs…. Why isn’t management communicating this clearly??

I'm not at RAND. I know zero inside anything. But how do you not know that HSOAC is a mess? Also, I have lots of RAND complaints, they're just different ones.

I knew it’s a mess but didn’t realize it’s going away. Wasn’t it the largest unit at RAND?

Read through the beginning of this thread. There was someone (probably) at S&T commenting on this months ago. I do not know if anything definitive has happened, but the RAND and former RAND people I've talked to thought it was likely.

Oh, I haven’t been following this thread and figured it was just like other FFRDCs affected by DOGE. That sucks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did the Aug MITRE RIF happen? How many effected?

I heard (from a current MITRE employee) 600 people. But no idea how accurate that number is, it may include some from earlier in the month, like with the ATT&CK and CTID restructuring.

[Anonymous]

Very sorry for those affected. That is terrible news

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are focusing on the Navy/Marine side of CNA...what about IPR (their government contracting division)? Contracts are being lost.

IPR is not an FFRDC. Thread is specifically about FFRDCs

Yes, but IPR, with approximately 200 employees, remains a vital part of CNA as a whole. IPR is losing contracts, which is affecting CNA's bottom line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jason Matheny took necessary risks, but the timing was off. If Biden or Harris was elected, his strategy would have been amazing. With Trump, these risks are causing a lot of problems for RAND.

It's ironic that a long-term risk expert failed to prepare for the political risks from the 2024 presidential election.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a key contrast in how FFRDCs are navigating the current climate. The quiet, mission-focused approach of organizations like CNA, IDA, and Aerospace seems more stable. In contrast, the public, growth-oriented strategy of Mitre and Rand Corp, particularly Mitre, has shown some vulnerability, as evidenced by recent, publicly-reported layoffs. This suggests that a singular focus on core government sponsors may be a more resilient business model for weathering today's challenges. My intuition is that the former group is faring better in revenue, RIFs, and overall morale.

Taking the thread overall at face value, the above seems to be the case, particularly the bit about "singular focus" (as different from trying to solve everything to every part of the USG).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a key contrast in how FFRDCs are navigating the current climate. The quiet, mission-focused approach of organizations like CNA, IDA, and Aerospace seems more stable. In contrast, the public, growth-oriented strategy of Mitre and Rand Corp, particularly Mitre, has shown some vulnerability, as evidenced by recent, publicly-reported layoffs. This suggests that a singular focus on core government sponsors may be a more resilient business model for weathering today's challenges. My intuition is that the former group is faring better in revenue, RIFs, and overall morale.

Taking the thread overall at face value, the above seems to be the case, particularly the bit about "singular focus" (as different from trying to solve everything to every part of the USG).

I think the issue has more to do with USG vs non-USG sponsors. It’s smart to diversify USG work since there’s a lot of overlap in problems that different agencies confront.