Conservative tendencies stifle creativity and change. 

 The inertia of institutions and projects is hard to 

 break. R&D facilities and programs can go for years 

 without producing any significant results. Above all, 

 the isolation of research from production decreases 

 technological innovation and causes problems in de- 

 livery. The American S&T structure, though not as 

 stable, is more flexible and dynamic. The greater 

 stress on results and ultimate use as well as the 

 closer industrial connection keeps research and de- 

 velopment both responsive and relevant to the chang- 

 ing demands of the customer. Though it does not per- 

 mit the same security for performers and continuity 

 for projects that institutional funding does in the 

 USSR, the American mode of project funding coupled 

 with external peer review provides a more independent 

 and flexible instrument for terminating unproductive 

 R&D and initiating new programs. In general, the 

 market environment causes the research sector to make 

 painful adjustments from time to time to direct capa- 

 bilities to where they are needed. 



The two systems differ fundamentally in their ap- 

 proaches to integrating research, development, and 

 innovation. In the USSR integration is a bureaucrat- 

 ic function assigned to a hierarchy of special agen- 

 cies. There is little direct collaboration among in- 

 stitutional R&D performers. Most external transac- 

 tions are managed through superior ministerial offi- 

 ces and departments. Interorganizational linkages, 

 therefore, are essentially administrative. The ac- 

 cent throughout is on hierarchical organization, ex- 

 tensive use of rules, multiple clearances, and long 

 approval routes. Coordination across organizational 

 boundaries and functional subsystems is particularly 

 complex and difficult. 



In the US the conduct and coupling of R&D take 

 place under different operating conditions. The ver- 

 tical relationship between organizations and plans 

 for S&T activities is abbreviated because there are 

 few steps in the chain of command between the setting 

 of goals and the performance of R&D. Further, there 



306 



