The Soviet Union also faces new complexities in 

 creating an integrated approach to technological in- 

 novation in the domestic civil sector, especially the 

 economy. Integrative capabilities, both analytical 

 and administrative, are much more deficient in civil- 

 ian than in military R&D. The problems of securing 

 collaborative and coordinated actions across depart- 

 mental boundaries are particularly complex and dif- 

 ficult because of the strongly vertical axis of the 

 Soviet system. Yet such cooperation will be neces- 

 sary to accomplish the numerous interbranch develop- 

 ment projects and massive modernization programs re- 

 quired to solve domestic problems. The bureaucracy 

 of government is not congruent with contemporary S&T 

 problems. But Kremlin authorities hope that modern 

 management methods and systems engineering can pro- 

 vide solutions. Given the importance of bureaucratic 

 levers in driving the Soviet innovation process, im- 

 provements are being sought through new administra- 

 tive measures. Although the project planning ap- 

 proach might be good for certain specific programs, 

 it does not seem to be suitable for R&D as a whole. 

 The relevance of R&D to achieving industrial effi- 

 ciency and quality must be assured; at the same time, 

 the general health of science and technology must be 

 maintained. Soviet science policy simply did not 

 have to address these issues, at least not in present 

 terms, earlier. 



In their approaches to contemporary problems of 

 science policy design and management, both superpow- 

 ers seem to be experimenting to some extent with 

 practices of the other. In the US there is growing 

 concern with centralizing certain functions, such as 

 data storage, while in the USSR attempts are being 

 made to introduce some form of competitive pressure 

 and greater local initiative to stimulate decentral- 

 ized innovation and diffusion. Each system is seek- 

 ing a new balance between centralized and decentral- 

 ized modes of operation without altering, however, 

 its basic system design and approach. As we have 

 seen, many differences between the two systems are 

 rooted in fundamental differences in management phi- 



330 





