Talk:Not invented here

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)