Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand how the same finance team that got MITRE into this mess hasn’t been impacted at all by the “cleaning house”

Agreed completely

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t understand how the same finance team that got MITRE into this mess hasn’t been impacted at all by the “cleaning house”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

RAND cut staff (11% layoffs in addition to buyouts/quiet firing) and is hiring a LOT of seasonal student interns right now. It looks like they are moving away from using full-time research staff to interns who use AI. Is it cheaper? Probably. Would I trust AI-slop reports and memos they deliver to my office? Not a chance.

What's the last thing your office did substantially differently because of a RAND report?

Their work on defense acquisition reform has been very helpful to my office on more than one occasion. Interns w/ ChatGPT, I'd gues, would not be as useful to us. I could be wrong

What was helpful to you? Was it key findings like "the United States has changing national priorities", or more like "managing the acquisition cost of systems is a challenge for DoD"? What did you do differently? Defense acquisition reform is clearly going so well, so which part of that can we thank RAND for?

We use a lot of the space acquisition work by RAND in my office.

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.

Given the low staff/management ratios in certain entities on the civilian side who is doing the actual work?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

RAND cut staff (11% layoffs in addition to buyouts/quiet firing) and is hiring a LOT of seasonal student interns right now. It looks like they are moving away from using full-time research staff to interns who use AI. Is it cheaper? Probably. Would I trust AI-slop reports and memos they deliver to my office? Not a chance.

What's the last thing your office did substantially differently because of a RAND report?

Their work on defense acquisition reform has been very helpful to my office on more than one occasion. Interns w/ ChatGPT, I'd gues, would not be as useful to us. I could be wrong

What was helpful to you? Was it key findings like "the United States has changing national priorities", or more like "managing the acquisition cost of systems is a challenge for DoD"? What did you do differently? Defense acquisition reform is clearly going so well, so which part of that can we thank RAND for?

warranties for weapon systems

Yeah, there was some good work on that in the late 80s.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

RAND cut staff (11% layoffs in addition to buyouts/quiet firing) and is hiring a LOT of seasonal student interns right now. It looks like they are moving away from using full-time research staff to interns who use AI. Is it cheaper? Probably. Would I trust AI-slop reports and memos they deliver to my office? Not a chance.

What's the last thing your office did substantially differently because of a RAND report?

Their work on defense acquisition reform has been very helpful to my office on more than one occasion. Interns w/ ChatGPT, I'd gues, would not be as useful to us. I could be wrong

What was helpful to you? Was it key findings like "the United States has changing national priorities", or more like "managing the acquisition cost of systems is a challenge for DoD"? What did you do differently? Defense acquisition reform is clearly going so well, so which part of that can we thank RAND for?

warranties for weapon systems

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

RAND cut staff (11% layoffs in addition to buyouts/quiet firing) and is hiring a LOT of seasonal student interns right now. It looks like they are moving away from using full-time research staff to interns who use AI. Is it cheaper? Probably. Would I trust AI-slop reports and memos they deliver to my office? Not a chance.

What's the last thing your office did substantially differently because of a RAND report?

Their work on defense acquisition reform has been very helpful to my office on more than one occasion. Interns w/ ChatGPT, I'd gues, would not be as useful to us. I could be wrong

What was helpful to you? Was it key findings like "the United States has changing national priorities", or more like "managing the acquisition cost of systems is a challenge for DoD"? What did you do differently? Defense acquisition reform is clearly going so well, so which part of that can we thank RAND for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

RAND cut staff (11% layoffs in addition to buyouts/quiet firing) and is hiring a LOT of seasonal student interns right now. It looks like they are moving away from using full-time research staff to interns who use AI. Is it cheaper? Probably. Would I trust AI-slop reports and memos they deliver to my office? Not a chance.

What's the last thing your office did substantially differently because of a RAND report?

Their work on defense acquisition reform has been very helpful to my office on more than one occasion. Interns w/ ChatGPT, I'd gues, would not be as useful to us. I could be wrong

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:CNA just laid off more staff today. All from IPR.

Very sorry for those folks. That's terrible news

Agree.

IPR is outside the FFRDC and largely does SETA work. While now is a tough job market for anyone, those IPR folks probably have more marketable skills than many of the folks on the FFRDC side (who have spent many years developing narrow but deep DoN-specific knowledge and generally are less hands-on technical).

On the FFRDC side, CNA leadership should be working hard to increase the number of people attached to Navy activities, particularly forward deployed (OCONUS) and afloat. Those analysts are CNA's differentiator and largest value-add for DoN.

OCONUS Examples: Have analysts placed at JICPAC, at Wahiawa / Kunia, in Okinawa on the MEF staff, at Molesworth, at Menwith Hill, and at Digby.

Afloat Examples: Every deployed CSG has a CNA analyst on the flag staff. Expand this by having a CNA analyst assigned to every deployed ESG/ARG.

CONUS Examples: Put someone at the NIFE, at IWTC, and at Whidbey Island.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

RAND cut staff (11% layoffs in addition to buyouts/quiet firing) and is hiring a LOT of seasonal student interns right now. It looks like they are moving away from using full-time research staff to interns who use AI. Is it cheaper? Probably. Would I trust AI-slop reports and memos they deliver to my office? Not a chance.

What's the last thing your office did substantially differently because of a RAND report?

Anonymous wrote:CNA just laid off more staff today. All from IPR.

As IPR shrinks, CNA will need to find some way to cut overhead expenses. Otherwise, the FFRDC might become too expensive for its DoN customers.

One of the original reasons CNA created IPR (which is the part of the company outside the FFRDC) was to spread the overhead costs across a larger number of employees.

Anonymous wrote:CNA just laid off more staff today. All from IPR.

Very sorry for those folks. That's terrible news

Anonymous wrote:

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?

RAND cut staff (11% layoffs in addition to buyouts/quiet firing) and is hiring a LOT of seasonal student interns right now. It looks like they are moving away from using full-time research staff to interns who use AI. Is it cheaper? Probably. Would I trust AI-slop reports and memos they deliver to my office? Not a chance.

CNA just laid off more staff today. All from IPR.