to specify objectives, and to evaluate alternative 

 ways of accomplishing these goals. 



In the United States several specialized planning 

 (e.g., PPBS) and project management (e.g., PERT and 

 CPM) methods came into use during the 1960s. They 

 were designed primarily for large development programs 

 in aerospace and defense-related fields — that is, in 

 sectors which operate much like command economies. The 

 magnitude and complexity of these programs demanded 

 sophisticated and high-capacity management control 

 systems. Although only the largest companies and the 

 military use PERT techniques and only on the most com- 

 plex projects, systems thinking is a prominent feature 

 of the research management environment in general in 

 the United States. The inherent uncertainties in R&D 

 and the difficulties of trying to quantify social ben- 

 efits, however, generally rule out the application of 

 highly quantitative systems planning and management 

 techniques. 



In the USSR a similar systems movement burgeoned 

 in the 1970s. The demand for techniques which view 

 projects in a total systems perspective began to be 

 clearly felt as the regime launched a number of crash 

 development programs to speed technological innova- 

 tion. Formal program-type planning methods appeared 

 along the lines of PERT and other sophisticated Amer- 

 ican models. These techniques were developed, in par- 

 ticular, for application in the complex interbranch 

 S&T programs of national priority, which previously 

 suffered from faulty systems planning and management, 

 and to improve management effectiveness in general. 



Such sophisticated planning and control techniques 

 are compatible with the Soviet predilection for high- 

 ly structured activities. Used for some time in the 

 defense sector, such methods have not generally been 

 applied in civilian R&D which is constrained by the 

 structural and administrative fragmentation of the re- 

 search-to-production cycle. Formal procedures for 

 multiagency planning, financing, and management are 

 still confined largely to the interbranch programs 

 and complex projects, although a few ministries have 



321 



