Talk:Not invented here/Archive 1

Archive 1

Origin

Is any information known about the date of origin of the term? The further reading at the bottom of the article seems to imply the term was well established in the 1980s. Bathterror 13:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

NIH for one but not for the other

The article seems to imply that it is always bad to create your own products, when something else seems to do the job too. But there are cases where this is not true, which I think should be mentioned too. Examples from my experience are: still using a well working in-house developed system that was created long ago, when there was no product on the market; being unable to use a software for reasons that are no reasons for most other people, like bad licensing, unavailability of source code, needing that one feature (and not being able to add it as a plugin/patch); not a good marketing thing when using the product of a direct competitor; etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.61.9.75 (talk) 14:43, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Citations

I haven't got time to go and find the relevant quotes right now, but there are plenty of citations of NIH in inventor James Dyson's autobiography "Against the Odds" where he is attempting to license his technology - to the Germans in particular. [Steve] 87.115.181.59 (talk) 21:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

US Military

There seems to be some debate about whether the US military is guilty of NIH or not. I've trimmed down this massive essay and tried to make the section a bit more balanced, partly because the info on the Harrier is not right at all, partly because there is at least some doubt as to whether the military is guilty or not, and partly because its just too damned long. But here is the complete section:

"The syndrome is incorrectly thought to be common in the United States, though it actually has a long history of the reverse of the syndrome. The United States armed forces have a long history accepting weapons from overseas stretching back to the 1800s. A good example of mistaken NIH is the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. The U.S. ended up further developing the design into the Harrier, leading some to think the British design was not acceptable and the U.S. want its 'own'. However, what actually happened was that there was great interest in the plane (the Marines actually bought some). However, the design was having problems and was over budget, leading the British to abandon the project. The U.S. then restarted the project on its own, and then the British re-joined the project later (the resulting airplane was the AV-8 Harrier II). Foreign purchases are especially common with firearms, though many of these are very expensive projects, furthermore more many other items from aircraft to missiles won contracts.

The U.S. purchased the Krag-Jørgensen rifle in the 1890s over great protest from U.S. manufactures. Its replacement, the M1903 Springfield rifle, used a Mauser-locking bolt which the U.S. paid to license. The Luger competed in trials in the early 1900s for a automatic pistol (resulting in the famed American Eagle Lugers) and was a lead contender, though their New York office lost the paperwork for further tests. The competition ended up finishing later resulting the M1911 Colt pistol. In WW1 the U.S. purchased many French and British made machine guns such as the Hotchkiss machine gun. They also made huge numbers of M1917 Enfield rifles, a British developed design.

A great many modern firearms programs were won by foreign, mainly other NATO countries. Examples include the M9 (Italy), M11 (Swiss), MP5 ([{Germany|DE]]), M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (Belgium), M240 machine gun (Belgium), and the M136 AT4) (Sweden). Latest examples include the Mark 23(Germany), FN SCAR (Belgium) and XM320 (AG36 derivative (German)) and development work on the XM8 rifle (Germany), Accuracy International AS50 (Britain), and OICW (Germany/US). Its tempting to dismiss these as 'small' projects, however, many are in fact very expensive (over 500.000 M9 pistols were purchased for example). Many of these were not simply, but jointly developed with input and feedback or to carefully crafted requirements.

FN (Belgium) beat out Colt (US) to produces M16 rifles as of 2005, and a Canadian firm won the contract to produce the latest batch of M9 bayonets, beating out earlier U.S. firms. Israel and now Taiwan currently manufacture all 5.56 mm ammunition for the U.S. With respect to the 5.56 mm NATO round the U.S. currently uses, it is a design won by the Belgians (there were other contenders for the round, including a U.S. 5.56 mm). Some of special rounds used in U.S. 50-cal. sniper are also made in Europe, including a special armour-piercing one.

U.S. tanks during the Cold War were armed with a license made 105 mm British gun, and then a German 120 mm gun, which is currently on the M1 Abrams. The U.S. even attempted a joint U.S-German tank project in the 1960s, the MBT-70. The current LAV-25 and Stryker are derivatives the Mowag Piranha (Swiss). The Marines use the Austrian/German 290 GDT (see G class), which beat a competing U.S. firm. During the 1930s the U.S. also had a small series of Coastal Patrol boats made in China.

Furthermore, many other types of equipment are purchased. The latest example include Embraer of Brazil beating Boeing's 717 for a aircraft contract. Other examples include the Alenia C27 (the G222) light transport aircraft, and the T-45 Goshawk (the BAE Hawk) used as the main U.S. Navy training aircraft. The Coast Guard also uses the HH-65A Dolphin, a version of the Eurocopter Dauphin, and the MH-68A (the Italian 109M). Also, a heavily contested contract for VIP helicopters, including the presidential helicopter ('Marine One') went to the AgustaWestland EH101 (a UK/Italy design) 2005, beating entry from Sikorsky. The U.S. also use the Norwegian made Penguin missile as the AGM-119.

There are literally dozens of other examples in nearly every defense and military spending area. In the broader sense, as with every other large country, the bulk of contracts in the U.S. goes to the native country (many well justified, some less so). However, compared to other large countries the U.S. has had a long history of being among the most willing to accept foreign, especially European equipment of all sorts. To compare one example, while the U.S. uses the German 120 mm gun, France, Britain, and Italy all use their own 120 mm gun at considerable extra expense to themselves. Other countries that have had huge military budget, such as the Soviet Union, have used native designed and produced equipment near exclusively."

It is incorrect to say: partly because the info on the Harrier is not right at all,. At worst it is a oversimplification: it is a fact that the joint AV-16A advanced Harrier program had cost overruns and was abandoned, and that it was MD, not BA, that picked up the pieces and built the AV-8B. Also, in the old version, only sighting the speed change is a egregious misrepresentation of the H2s program goals and its overall performance. QwNET 18:47, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's still far too long, you only need a few examples. A US design manufactured in another country doesn't disprove NIH, because it was invented here, just produced overseas to save money. Items like bullets and rifle locking-bolts aren't very important in the scheme of things. Remember this is an article on NIH not a history of US military procurement. JW 09:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Surely virtually all the examples of the US military procurement are, in fact, examples of NIH. Take the Springfield rifle - they have a perfectly good foreign gun which they use. But the Army insists that it is redesigned in the US. NIH at work. Of course the Lugar did well, but they "lost" the paperwork and it lost out to an American gun. NIH at work. WW1 was a little different in that the US Army had no equipment and had to take what it could from the British and French. Since then it has gone strong. Take the M9. The Italians won the competition in the 1980s. The Army insisted they all failed. They held another. The Italians won again. The Army insisted they all failed. Only in the late 80s did they grudgingly accept the M(. NIH at work. Manufacturing the rifles is irrelevant - the government did crack down on over-priced contractors - this is an article on inventing. The German 120 mm gun was accepted only when the Army was forced to come up with something. Sure they tried to get German technology but only because they did not want to do the obvious thing and buy a German tank. Derivative of a Pirana - of course they did not want to buy a Swiss APC. They had to redesign it. The US military only very reluctantly and grudgingly takes foreign weapons. They usually insist on redesigning them. Even then, I agree, it is ironic that so many of their weapons come from overseas. But it is a phenomenon and can't be dismissed. I think the page needs to reflect that if no one objects I will change it Lao Wai 12:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

While we are at it, notice that the Americans could not just buy the BAE Hawk, they had to redesign it as the Goshawk. Nor could they just buy the EH101, they had to go into joint production with an American company, relabel it the US101 and completely redesign it again - American engines and navigation equipment for instance. Both of these are prime examples of NIH syndrome at work. The fact that the Coast Guard bought it is beside the point - they do not have a large bureaucracy that needs design work to stay in business. The US Army and Air Force do. Lao Wai 08:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for revert (not enough time for proper changes then). I have tried to explain many of issues you mention. For example, the redesigns are often needed to fit US needs and desires (such with the Hawk, proper features to land on US carrier). QwNET 17:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have seen some explanation but I find them deeply unconvincing. The Hawk may be an example of where real changes did need to be made. But if so it ought to be lifted from the article altogether. It would not be not an example of NIH (although I would like to see some more evidence), but it would not be an example of anything else either. The Harrier is clearly a case given that they ended up with a plane better suited to the Airforce than the Marine's desired CAS role. Lao Wai 17:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Look, please do not consistently revert without using the talk page. And if I am able to correct your English you are in trouble. This article should not contain as many unverifiable POV statements as it does. If you would like to discuss them then please do. But don't keep putting back the same sub-literate, inaccurate statements that I have tried to fix. Or at least talk about it first. Try to build a consensus. You do not even seem able to understand the point being made. If that is unfair I apologise, but let me try to explain it. Most countries prefer to design a weapon themselves, build it themselves and then use it in the military. But most countries are also too small to do this for most weapons. So they buy overseas. The Americans have a long history of buying a design from overseas, after failing to produce an adequate design themselves, redesigning it, putting it into production and then issuing it to their soldiers. This page is concerned with the redesign work alone. The American Army (in particular) has always insisted that foreign designs are not good enough and so redesigns them. They end up with pretty much all foreign weaponry anyway. Most of what you put in is irrelevant to that. Please stick to the topic. Lao Wai 11:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

You have done much the same, I think the POV needs to be removed though. QwNET

I should add small redesigns are common for many equipment purchases, its not unique to the U.S. Also, even if things were redesigned its still less guilty of NIH then other countries who often won't even consider certain contenders. QwNET 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I have tried to include whatever reasonable points you have made. I am, at least, making an effort. But as you are, in effect, denying the whole point of the article, it is difficult. Of course small redesigns are common. No one is saying it is unique to the US. What is unique is the scale and degree of the American approach and, of course, the fact they talk about it. I do not care if it is less guilty or not. You seem to think you are defending the US. If you want to talk about France, please do. That would be a good thing. But if you are just going to vandalise the page, then why bother? Lao Wai 09:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

OK. I have tried to make an effort to expand the China section - which is not, after all, a good example of NIH. I have done something with the French bit. I have deleted a few utterly irrelevant parts. Please don't just go and delete bits without talking about it first. If you have a problem with the entire concept please explain what it is. Lao Wai 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The us section is very long, I will place it in another page 84.164.89.130 20:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Two days ago, I substantially reworked the U.S. section to improve the writing and eliminate most of the pointless inventory of foreign contracts, and then someone blindly overwrote it an hour later with more of the same. This is exactly why I so rarely bother contributing to WP. rjmccall 23:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Most of the military examples seem to boil down to procurement decisions that one or more parties disagreed with, or at worst, perceived ignorance of or aversion to globalization, free trade, etc. Merely selecting between different vendors, requiring modifications that seem extraneous, or having a preference for or against those of the same nation is not NIH. Perhaps there are other faults. If you told me that the Army was going to manufacture their own spoons for the mess hall because they didn't like the ones available in the private sector - OK - NIH. Selecting one gun manufacturer over another, for even foolish reasons, not NIH —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cander0000 (talk • contribs)

Re NIH syndrome in academia

In academic environments, the motivation for the NIH effect is twofold: first, resources from student workers are often paid in a lump sum (as a stipend, scholarship, or fixed salary) resulting in no variable increase in pay for more requested work; and second, the drive for publication at some institutions may drive repetition of work done at other institutions or in industry so that the researcher (and institution) may publish about their (repeated) work.

This isn't necessarily a result of the NIH syndrome. It's also an important part of the scientific method: Scientific_method#Reproduction_and_record-keeping. --Kvaks 13:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

As a graduate student in computer science, I see the opposite: there is a strong motivation not to repeat any work. If it has already been done before, repeating it again won't get you published. To succeed as a researcher, you must have new, original ideas. It is necessary to base your work on previous work; this can't be avoided. However, there must always be something novel that you contribute to the field. -- Karmastan, 26 April 2006

Gnome vs KDE

There are many more reasons for the Gnome-KDE thing than NiH syndrome. Orignally the QT license was not really FSF or open source and the license had issues. In fact there are still licensing reasons at the heart. Finally there is a personal preferences.

Rather than state someone's opinion I think discussing the cultural phenomenon in open source of throwing it around as an accusation or the oddball believe that it should be avoided at all cost ;-)...but I guess that too would be POV Reboot 14:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

GNOME vs KDE was not originally a NIH culprit- KDE used to be based on a non-free library, thus anyone using KDE was using proprietary software. Had that not been done in the first place, we wouldn't have the split we have today.

Apple

The section about Apple doesn't seem to be very NPOV. "some people say" misses a citation, "innovations found in other operating systems" is not specified and the "single button mouse philosophy" isn't wrong per se as the last sentence suggests.

New Sections

Please do not delete the German NIH section, German is at least as important case of NIH (or lack there of) as France. QwNET 19:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

NASA (ESA, etc)

You're overlooking one of the most famous cases of NIH, which is the space program. Isn't that the origin of the term? Someone should check that out.

Quality issues

Frankly, the current version of this article stinks. I'm no expert in this field, so I can't provide citations myself, but citations are desperately needed here. The current version is full of weasel statements ("some say" and its ugly cousins).

I also suspect this article might be conflating distinct concepts. As I see it there are three concepts grouped together under the label "NIH" in the current version:

• The collective bias of a group or institution, resulting in the erroneous belief that ideas, concepts, technology, etc. developed at a given institution are either novel or at least drastically superior to anything developed earlier or elsewhere. Note that this is an unconscious bias: if an institution did some background research and reasonably concluded, based on evidence, that their ideas/products/whatnot are indeed superior to everybody else's, one wouldn't accuse them of NIH bias.
• A conscious strategy (see the Microsoft or Apple examples) that seeks to increase mind/market/etc. share, or simply to avoid copyright, patent, or trademark pitfalls.
• A desire for autarky and/or self-sufficiency, especially in the military and intelligence communities, where reliance on foreign suppliers can be associated with risks that are deemed unacceptable.

To me, these three concepts are clearly distinct and I see no reason to group them all under the label "NIH". However, I'm no expert and if someone can find citations that are evidence that all three (or more) concepts are commonly referred to as "NIH", then everything is fine. Absent citations, it's hard to make any progress, so I'm not ready to argue that this article should be split up. Anyway, citations are key: without them, we'd be arguing amongst ourselves trying to determine The Absolute Truth. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this article is horrible. Every "Some people say..." should be attributed to an authoritative source or removed. Some people say that I am the smartest person alive, but those people are idiots who don't know what they are talking about (I'm the smartest person ever, not just the smartest alive.)Not my leg 22:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete! Search for "define:NIH" on Google, and you will find only one "Not Invented Here" meaning, and that one links here. If you deleted, you would kind of delete one meaning. It'd rather be cleaned up than deleted. --86.101.155.195 19:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What a pointless entry. NIH is not a syndrome, it is a buzz word. None of the examples listed in this article are indicative of NIH Syndrome, it's all pure speculation, weasel words and POV. NIH Syndrome, as a term may well have a place in history and I'm not discouraging anyone from documenting it, but please don't try to sell it as something it isn't. Loose the examples because they are of no other value than 'pretend' NIH syndrome something more than it is. It's anecdotal at best.

The wikidictionary describes a "syndrome" as "a recognizable pattern of symptoms or behaviors". It seems to me that "a recognizable pattern of behavior" is an exact description of NIH. Obviously -any- example given of NIH will by nature always be challenged by those who do not want to see the truth behind this "buzz word". Mahjongg 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Rational versus irrational "redesigning the existing"

It occurs to me that, (especially with the military examples given here) there is often a rational reason why a state/country chooses to not use existing technology, but to design their own, but still these cases are often treated here as prime examples of NIH syndrome, and that is not the case at all! I think that in those cases it has nothing to do with the NIH syndrome. For example, it would be foolish for a state to be dependent on their enemies for the supply of their weapons! It is much smarter to (re-)design your own, so you can be sure you can produce the damn things when needed.

The NIH syndrome has nothing to do with that. Instead NIH as "a decision maker" is the often subconscious mind process not to use technology (or "a design") because you dislike doing so for some un-outspoken reason, a reason the decision maker does not know he is using! One example is that you do it simply because you dislike the country/person/company that is the origin of the design. When the decision is however a conscious one, backed with good reasons, it is NOT the NIH syndrome at work. Mahjongg 00:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to define NIH clearly and provide instances of how affects the decision making process. I suspect that this is well-nigh impossible as it would be original research. As such, this is more appropriate for a wiktionary definition and not an article in wikipedia at all. 206.193.225.70 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC).

I would think that -someone- -somewhere- must have theorized in writing about this somewhere, it is not as if NIH syndrome is all -that- obscure. From the german version, a few more literature links:

• Joel Spolsky: In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome
• Herwig Mehrwald: Das 'Not Invented Here' (NIH)-Syndrom in Forschung und Entwicklung, Wiesbaden, 1999.

Mahjongg (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

NIH in Software engineering - citations

I have two or three citations for that:

1. Yunwen Ye and Gerhard Fischer: Reuse-Conducive Development Environments; I am not sure about the publication date, but it must have been 2004 or 2005. They mention it four times in the paper. They seem to be thinking of it in a corporate context, but what they write can equally be applied to open source development. They cite "Joos, R. (1994). Software Reuse at Motolora. IEEE Software, 11(5): 42-47." in connection with the phrase.
2. Colin Atkinson and Oliver Hummel: Integrating Test-Driven Development and Reuse; from 2006 or 2007; they are also discussing it in a corporate or maybe academic context, but it could be applied to open source communities, too.

I am not sure how to put these citations into the article properly. --Sky Diva 13:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What is NIH?

This is either an extremely inclusive concept or this article needs repair. Based on the definitions and examples given, NIH seems to mean a ( company / institution / society / nation ) neglecting an ( idea / existing product or service ) because of ( ignorance / distrust / egotism ).

If that's not accurate, then this article is in severe need of trimming and clarifying. If it is accurate, then it should have a single coherent definition. Ariah 21:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I have heard this term mention in different places but it's used heavily in the book "Fumbling the Future: How Xerox Invented, Then Ignored, the First Personal Computer" ISBN 1583482660. Because of their deep pockets Xerox suffered heavily from NIH during the 70s and it was a major factor in them losing the market (copiers) they invented. —Preceding comment added by TravisO 13:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think some usage examples would help to make it more clear. "We don't use it if it's not invented here." It's an exclusionary principle, that is normally considered very inefficient. FriendlyDalek (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

bad examples

You cannot replace KDE with Gnome or vice versa. Its totally different way of using it ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.136.248.18 (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

In Computing

I removed the erroneous Apple section and replaced it with a Microsoft example that I am familiar enough with. Perhaps others can expand as needed. Thanks --Kibbled bits (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your change. Your replacement text was unsourced, biased, and poorly written, and this edit summary indicates that you either did not fully read or did not understand the text you were replacing. —phh (^t/_c) 03:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

what about picking some specific computing projects rather than the usual attacks on MS/apple? A key one to consider is protocols, where a good idea by one vendor was ignored/repeated because they didn't invent it. However, there are always strategic issues to consider too -the idea may be ignored because of royalties and the like. Which means it is very hard to say the cause of a decision is NIH, especially if the companies post-rationalise the decision themselves. For example, Windows NT has a very complex security mechanism, far more complex than the Unix one, hence rarely understood or used properly. Is that an NIH -Dave Cutler dismissing the unix security model as NIH, or was it just that davec's team thought that a more complex access control system was needed based on his experience with VMS. In which case the decision was more an example of the "second version syndrome", the one where the second version has too many features that don't make sense. SteveLoughran (talk) 17:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Reasoning in favor of the NIH approach includes...where are the reasons against it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.208.251.22 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In Media

How NIH applies to vertical integration within the media is unclear from proceeding sections. If the rationale for media decisions is the efficiency of vertical integration, this conflicts with the inherent irrationality associated with NIH perspectives.

The citation of CSI and Touchstone does not fit within an NIH article. The rationale for Touchstone pulling out was not because CSI was NIH, but because of the profitability of the contract.206.193.225.70 (talk) 21:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Bad?

"discontent with some aspect of the existing solution, or the desire to create for creation's sake".

How is that bad:

• If the existing solution does not satisfy one's need in some aspect, why is it considered bad to build your own? In an ideal FOSS world one would propose a patch to the existing solution, but what if it gets rejected by upstream? You'd be forced to live with it or fork. Alternatively what about if everyone proposes its variant, each one not being rejected, the software becoming some huge kitchensink? Besides everything is not open-source, so one could not always even fork-and-improve. In its current writing, this part seems to assume "black-or-white" situations.
• creating for creation sake is just where code meets art, or maybe craft. and sometimes you just want to code to explore a new language, a new area, or just do it in the hope of stumbling upon some unexpected approach, all of which requiring one to take the (re-)creation path.

Besides, I don't know how to phrase it but this article seems to take many things for granted WRT tho the reader's knowledge. What's more (and maybe related) while reading it, I couldn't help but think "spaghetti": all of this should be rephrased so that it fits together.

Lloeki (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. Also, because existing solutions often are generic solutions, they need to be refined for specific uses. This normal and necessary act of refinement is often the very thing that is interpreted as 'reinventing the wheel' or 'not invented here'. There is an unhealthy stigma in some software engineering circles in this regard. People are too paranoid about duplicating functionality that already exists, not seeing that there can also be benefits to that approach. It's not always a case of inexperience with existing solutions, as this article asserts. It is more often a case of the normal and healthy desire to create for creations sake, and to also put a different spin on the existing solution, perhaps even discovering something novel in the process.

Furthermore, in the act of creation, new ideas can be formed by the creator which have never existed. This is similar to the 'eureka' phenomenon in science. However, we seem to have a strong desire to box ideas into pre-existing categories. What can appear to an outside critic as 'not invented here' syndrome may actually be the process of a very important new discovery that can help many people. In hindsight, this new discovery would be considered an act of genius, but during the process of creation, how could it? Things cannot be compared to the new idea if the new idea does not yet exist. So instead, they get compared to something that seems close, but misses the point of what the creator is really trying to do. If we're not careful with this attitude, the person working on this new idea will begin to believe the critics, and give up the task, or lose the creative spark of that important new idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snellcode (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC) e

"discontent with some aspect of the existing solution, or the desire to create for creation's sake" is not bad, but its also not the "Not invented here Syndrome"! Its only the syndrom when you reject a solution based on WHO invented the solution or WHERE the solution originated, all other reasons are irrelevant to "Not Invented Here" and their mention should be removed from the article as irrelevant distractions. Mahjongg (talk) 23:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Clean-up: Bias or exlusion in general

This article needs to be cleaned-up with an unambiguous decision and message of whether NIH refers to a cognitive bias (e.g. "Japanese cars suck! Go GM!") or includes cases of _rational_ exclusion (cf. e.g. the section on media). 88.77.154.90 (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree, IMHO the real name of this article should perhaps be "Not Invented Here Syndrome", and should describe the psychological (often unconscious) rejection mechanism. Note that because of psychological barriers, (that sometime cause cognitive dissonance) often unimportant but real reasons are stated as the reason, while the true, real, (but unstated) reason is the NIH-syndrome. Mahjongg (talk) 08:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Japanese products beat American made things at times?

The computer reference seems ridiculous. Wasn't there a time when cheaper mass produced IBM Clones from Japan dominated the industry? Americans started buying Japanese cars more than American made ones at one point because they were cheaper and of better quality. While some may prefer to buy something from their own nation, its mostly do to quality level, cost, and marketing. If the computers listed in the example are to be proven valid, you need to show how much the companies spent marketing their computer in the other nations, versus how much their competition did, and compare the price and speed of the machines. Dream Focus 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You are missing the point! This is about design, not production! Its about choosing one design over another, its not about where a specific product is produced, if a nearly identical product can be produced in one place, or another place there is no "invention" involved, only production. In such cases any national feeling is overcome by the feeling in the wallet. Mahjongg (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In Academia

This entire section is laden with bias, throw-away opinions and absurd conspiracy theories (Ivy league snobbery controls nobel prizes? really?). I'm removing the section, if someone thinks it has merit then I encourage them to write original contributions rather than reverting the entire edit. Even a few words by an interested editor is going to be an improvement on the nonsense there now. 220.233.38.237 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

@@@@ Reverted and added references @@@@ to well-known/well-cited material on the matter. I believe those wishing to uphold the status-quo or see nothing wrong with it, despite the evidence presented to them, are guilty of using "NIH" by sexual, racial and class discrimination. They are complaining too much and scream "conspiracy theory" to protect one of their last remaining bastions - white male dominance in the sciences and engineering. They either ignore people's contributions, or as the line in the song 9-to-5 goes: "They just use your mind and they don't give you any credit".

We are concerned to bring about a society that reflects and respects the achievements of all its citizens.

Wholesale destructive edits and deletions (rather than constructive or corrective edits) is vandalism and will not be tolerated from racists and sexists - did you supply any counter references, add balance to sentences where, purportedly, there was none? No, you didn't like what you saw and you felt personally threatened by it, so you had to obliterate all of it as befits a person in-denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.185.235 (talk) 12:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you may not like what you see... you are free to add sentences giving an opposing or "balanced" viewpoint. Be constructive. Your destructiveness to what is written speaks volumes...

The article is not a mere stub and the psychology of those whom are afflicted with this NIH mental-trait is worthy of understanding and an encyclopaedia article. Indeed, the opening gambit attributes it to "nationalism" and this wasn't contested. If it can be attributed to nationalism/xenophobia, it can also be attributed to sexism, racism, class snobbery or management doltishness, the Captain George Mainwaring/old school tie/Old boy network syndrome that has blighted much of Britain's competitiveness, for instance and elsewhere with women muscled out of engineering and science subjects seen as traditionally "male" or unfeminine.

Sarek edit of 2nd May 2012. Taken from his talk page and placed here.

Dear Sarek,

I'm undoing you're reformatting because the article must read like a scholarly wikipedia article. One moves from principles, to the general, to the specific.

In computing is better off as part of a general "In industry" section. Various sub headings could then give examples of NIH "In computing", "In the motor industry", etc. etc.

Regards, I will set up an account soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.185.235 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

All,

Let's not fight. Let's turn this into a 1st class, well structured article that goes from mid-level importance to high-level.

The current entries are too stubby. I am an academic; you want to give first principles, generalise those principles then move to the specific in an encyclopaedia article. It shouldn't look like an ad-hoc shopping list of collected, random examples.

Have a look right at the bottom of this page as to how we could have various section headings and sub-headings where we can fit in the specific.

The "in computing" is waaaay too stubby. Guide the reader from characteristics of NIH in this field to specifics. What about format wars? OS wars? History? The reader then walks away thinking, I know what NIH looks like in computing and what the issues are. For instance NIH in computing may be different than in the motor industry. In the later case it is to do with all the tooling and massive investment in the manufacturing plants. In software it may be due to having to retrain people who use the software to new software or OS platforms, not to mention the programmers.

For instance, you could have a similar section "in consumer goods" or micro-electronics. Once again format wars - say Blue Ray and that other one I've already forgotten or Betamax vs. VHS. NIH may be due to the public traditionally perceiving certain brands as more fashionable, despite technical merit such that CEOs of manufacturing companies choose one format over another.

All slightly different flavours of NIH.

From the general principles, to the specific, the reader is then guided as to the motivating factors of NIH. Some are human factors, others are conflicts of interest and investment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes

Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.185.235 (talk) 21:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Not Invented Here → Not invented here –

Per WP:CAPS ("Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization") and WP:TITLE, this is a generic, common term, not a propriety or commercial term, so the article title should be downcased. Lowercase will match the formatting of related article titles. Tony (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose it is not a generic common term, it is a specific concept. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 11:34, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Being a specific concept, like hypostatic abstraction, is no reason to capitalise. Tony (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support house style. Dualus (talk) 20:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support per MOS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The Routledge dictionary of business management lower cases this phrase. Kauffner (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
• Support. MoS and Routledge seem like a valid arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 20:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In Academia / Bias

The In Academia section seems designed to present an extremely biased view.

Various political theories and debates exist on these issues and this section seeks to bypass these debates, draw conclusions and present political opinion as fact.

Many of the issues addressed here, as well as the references that are used, are a matter for political debate however, the writer consistently presents only one side of the debate as if it were fact. There is no other information to indicate that the piece is an opinion piece, or to indicate any possible alternative theories. As a result of this bias, the section appears to be nothing more than an expression of one individuals subjective opinion.

The section has been deleted and restored several times by several different individuals, so I would consider that this is an ongoing issue that needs to be resolved.

195.137.85.54 (talk) 10:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Section clearly doesn't belong here, and I've removed it. If it comes back, we'll sit down and grind it out. -- LWG ^talk 00:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@@@@ Reverted and added references @@@@ to well-known/well-cited material on the matter. I believe those wishing to uphold the status-quo or see nothing wrong with it, despite the evidence presented to them, are guilty of using "NIH" by sexual, racial and class discrimination. They are complaining too much and scream "conspiracy theory" to protect one of their last remaining bastions - white male dominance in the sciences and engineering. They either ignore people's contributions, or as the line in the song 9-to-5 goes: "They just use your mind and they don't give you any credit".

We are concerned to bring about a society that reflects and respects the achievements of all its citizens.

Wholesale destructive edits and deletions (rather than constructive or corrective edits) is vandalism and will not be tolerated from racists and sexists - did you supply any counter references, add balance to sentences where, purportedly, there was none? No, you didn't like what you saw and you felt personally threatened by it, so you had to obliterate all of it as befits a person in-denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.185.235 (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you may not like what you see... you are free to add sentences giving an opposing or "balanced" viewpoint. Be constructive. Your destructiveness to what is written speaks volumes...

The article is not a mere stub and the psychology of those whom are afflicted with this NIH mental-trait is worthy of understanding and an encyclopaedia article. Indeed, the opening gambit attributes it to "nationalism" and this wasn't contested. If it can be attributed to nationalism/xenophobia, it can also be attributed to sexism, racism, class snobbery or management doltishness, the Captain George Mainwaring/old school tie/Old boy network syndrome that has blighted much of Britain's competitiveness, for instance and elsewhere with women muscled out of engineering and science subjects seen as traditionally "male" or unfeminine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.185.235 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup / Restructuring / Generalisation / More Scholarly article ? 30/4/2012

I am considering a whole restructuring of the article as per the sub-heading to turn it more into a wikipedia article rather than the stub like, ad-hoc nature it has at the moment. NIH goes beyond "inventing" and "industry", it is a wider phenomenon of human interaction and rejection of new ideas and practices. Any suggestions? Much of what is already written would be subsumed into appropriate logically flowing sections rather than the ad-hoc random format it has at the moment. Any suggestions? I will be back with a permanent login to do this. Here's my suggestion:

DRAFT LAYOUT

Phenomenon of rejection of new ideas and practices for reasons of conservatism, ignorance, bias, conflict of interest, nationalism, racism, sexism, class snobbery. Phenonenom of human interaction, branch of psychology and sociology.

Many in high levels of corporate governance who set the example of staff interpersonal relationship are trained at universities, academies, medical schools, militrary academies so we start here first with the analysis of NIH in academia.

1) In Academia

2) In Medicine

Obviously very conservative practice. Penalties are lawsuits and criminal actions.

Very similar demographics to academia, hence same concerns.

Standard model of western reductionism rejects much Eastern and "alternative" treatments and theories despite efficacy.

Traditional bias of care for men (perhaps). Ethnic minorities, transgender, even children. Research not championed or funded as much.

3) In industry

Obviously very conservative practice. Penalties are lawsuits and criminal actions.

Very similar demographics to academia, hence same concerns.

Standard model of western reductionism - or what we think we know.

Much investment in pre-existing equipment to upset apple-cart. cite fab plants, motor industry.

Various sub-industries:

Aviation: cite Wright brothers starting out.cite Burt Rutan and composites.

Mechanical and motor industry.

Computing: format and OS wars.

Semiconductor: cost of fab plants. cost conservatism.

4) In Law (NEED HELP FILING OUT)

Clash between new and old in light of commonsense and modern times.

Clash between English and Napoleonic system. Double jeopardy, habeas corpus and terrorists, Silly things like judges and wigs, solicitor/barrister split and invention of solicitor advocates and how that was blocked. Cameras in court.

Other arcane and dotty traditional stuff that really has no place in this day and age but is blocked just "because that the way it's always been done".

5) In the military (NEED HELP FILING OUT)

Class system and "donkies" of WWI.

Officer rank not so restrictive today.

Disastrous military campaigns for want of utilisation of new ideas and technology

6) In the media

Conservative music promoters. High price of failure if product doesn't take off.

Music: Jazz and Armstrong/Paul Whiteman/Dailymail citation from 1920s - white audiences couldn't believe jazz was black invented. Merseybeat rehashing of black R and B. Prince and rock music. Michael Jackson - extradordinary lengths to gain mass appeal. Rebound reverse racism of rejection of "blue eyed soul" and white acts on R and B charts. Eurovision seen as naff and off British/American axis.

Film: Bollywood and "foreign" cinema and actors lack universal appeal unlike western variants.

7) In sport

Quirks of the past, US not into "soccer", cricket, snooker, F1. Brits not into grid-iron, pool, NASCAR. Brit/US antagonism.

Great sportsmen not recognised across codes or cultures.

Tennis: grass, clay, concrete debate.

8) In popular culture

@@@ Although it appears to digress from the topic of NIH, we are not stressing right or wrong here but just the clash of new ideas with the old and how this appears to be NIH. Debate is pushed out into other wikipedia sections.

We are trying to stress the pattern in NIH thought.

Any backers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.185.235 (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to be your soapbox or a place to host your personal essay. The introduction of original research is not allowed. The reference you are misusing do not [[WP:V|verify the text you are trying to introduce. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sez you. Methinks you doth protest too much. Read Not Invented Here. You don't like other people writing on Wikipedia because you consider it YOURS. The article as it stood before the new content was a STUB. It had little intellectual content and needed expanding. Surely NIH is a concept that goes beyond mere "inventing" but to the assimilation of new practices in other areas.

Also you keep removing the material about racism, sexism, snobbery yet you didn't remove the material about nationalism. A component of nationalism is xenophobia, racism, fascism. If you can't see that, you are either intellectually very limited or just complaining too much.

Leave the article alone and stop the wholesale deletions. I will complain to the senior editors AND I HAVE ASKED TO RESOLVE DISPUTES. You supply no reasons and just delete.

Good day. 188.28.239.98 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sez reality. Most of the material you added or restored has no sources. You should not put it back without sources. Other parts misuse sources, eg Kirkup, James. "Nick Clegg challenges middle-class domination of universities". The Telegraph. does not mention Not invented here. (ps. to complain go here). duffbeerforme (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

PFE vs. IH

At the end of the first paragraph the "opposite" of NIH is given as PFE or IH, which are equated. But PFE and IH are themselves opposites, IH is the mirror image of NIH, and NIH is the opposite of PFE. An NIH organization does not use stuff that is NIH and does use stuff that is IH, but tries not to use stuff that is PFE. A non-NIH organization has no problem using stuff that is PFE (<> NIH), and may also use stuff that is IH, but not to the exclusion of better products or ideas that are PFE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.254.107.229 (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, I came here by way of the Submarine Patents wiki. It looks like the first section of this article has regressed to be very biased and without any citation. In fact one of the cited articles is in support of "NIH" mentality in business. As someone without any prior knowledge of "NIH" it appears that this article does not fairly describe "NIH". Previous versions of this section, while less elegant, were more impartial and informative. I hope someone with a better understanding of reverting edits can revert back to the unbiased second sentence, which is an opinion, not a fact of N.I.H. mentality. "False pride often drives an enterprise to use less-than-perfect invention in order to save face by ignoring, boycotting, or otherwise refusing to use or incorporate obviously superior solutions by others." Say's Who? -Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.46.3.176 (talk) 05:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Examples

Looking through the history, many examples have come and gone, stemming from what appears to be a combination of disagreements and poor referencing.

One example I propose would be to highlight a case where many pieces of software strive to accomplish the same thing but lack functional reasons as to their co-existence. For example the 100+ different "unit converters" in the Google play store. I've tried many of them in search for the 'best' and they mostly strive to do the same thing but with varying degrees of quality and functionality (ie many of them are redundant). The only issue is I don't have a reference for this and up to now it is merely my own observation/opinion. And so if there is a consensus or a decent reference is found, then it can be added. Devon (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

If there are ojective reasons, it is not "NIH".

The lead says

• "is a stance adopted by social, corporate, or institutional cultures that avoid using or buying already existing products, research, standards, or knowledge because of their external origins and costs, such as royalties. The reasons for not wanting to use the work of others are varied, but some can include a desire to support a local economy instead of paying royalties to a foreign license-holder, fear of patent infringement.."

This is not correct. The term is not used if there are rational reasons to prefer the in-house option. It is used when the decision is irrational, e.g. due to emotional motives or to the internal social-political dynamics of the entity. Thus only the final reasons, would qualify:

• "... lack of understanding of the foreign work, an unwillingness to acknowledge or value the work of others, jealousy, or forming part of a wider turf war"

To which one might add: reluctance to disappoint the authors of the local solution, the desire by leaders to appear brilliant, leave their mark, or assert their authority, personal or institutional hostility against the authors of the external solution, etc.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the title be "NIH syndrome"?

I have always seen the term mentioned as "NIH syndrome", implying that it is a management disease. See for example

• Technopedia
• ZDnet
• Developer.com
• R&D Management Journal
• Cambridge Dictionary
• Scott Amber book, More Design...

--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)