MITRE reviews

MITRE is classified as a not-for-profit Federally Funded Research & Development Center (FFRDC). As such MITRE does not bid on or compete for contracts. Its funds are allocated by Congress and are disbursed by the government agencies that are its sponsors, supposedly to perform work that would be a conflict of interest for a private, for-profit Professional Services Contractor. However, in many cases, it is only at the dual headquarters of Bedford, MA and McLean, VA that one is likely to perform cutting edge research or systems engineering studies for the U.S. government. All too often, at other MITRE sites, the government customers (sponsors) see MITRE staff as completely interchangeable with the PSC staff that MITRE is not allowed to compete with. And to avoid losing government work and government dollars, MITRE management does not push back hard enough to enforce the bright line required by law. Although there were certainly reasons for my departure that were entirely my own fault, at least 40% of the reason, was that MITRE only paid lip service to my complaints that we were not being treated any differently than the other PSCs (such as Booz Allen Hamilton) that were supporting our U.S. Army sponsors. Although we held weekly MITRE teleconferences on this topic, there was no attempt to raise these issues with the U.S. Army civilian in charge of this particular group for fear of losing future sponsor opportunities.

Many companies experience this, but MITRE is among those that tend to be all over the map with decision making and organizational speed. Some internal programs and new processes are ridiculously slow to implementation, whereas others are developed and pushed through so quickly they come off as ill-conceived, half-cocked, and incomplete to staff. It largely boils down to which center you’re in and the personal style of its leadership. … And this goes hand-in-hand with a noticeable lack of collaboration these days between certain MITRE executives and centers. Similar initiatives are regularly executed in multiple centers/divisions when only one collaborative, corporate-level effort should suffice, and tendency is for these outputs to fall flat and result in widespread confusion that inevitably increases animosity towards leadership.