Not invented here

Not Invented Here (NIH) is a pejorative term used to describe a persistent corporate or institutional culture that either intentionally or unintentionally avoids using previously performed research or knowledge because the research and developed knowledge was not originally executed in-house. While the etymology is perhaps apocryphal, the American National Institutes of Health (NIH) is said either to be the direct inspiration for the term -- as a play on its acronym -- or simply as one of the examples of the culture of "Not Invented Here" where the phenomenon occurs most often.

In many cases, Not Invented Here occurs as a result of simple ignorance, as many companies simply never do the research to know whether a solution already exists. Also common, however, are deliberate cases where the organization's staff rejects a known solution because they don't take the time to understand it fully before rejecting it; because they would have to embrace new concepts in infrastructure or terminology; because they believe they can produce a superior product; or because they would not get as much credit for finding an existing solution as inventing a new one.

As a result of subcontracting, outsourcing, and other practices, an NIH culture within a company may also create conflict that prevents the adoption of solutions developed even by the company or its partners. For instance, if a Dutch company outsourced its software development to India, embedded technologies to Poland, and obtained hardware from Taiwan, should the Dutch employees resist dealing with workers in the other countries, the NIH culture could disrupt the efforts of all companies involved.

The concepts of NIH may be contrasted with the opposite: the Invented Here philosophy.

Usage in computing

The computer industry has seen many examples of Not Invented Here syndrome.

For example, some people say that Apple, during the evolution of the Mac OS through OS 9, did not copy many user interface innovations found in other operating systems simply because they went against or were not discussed in Apple's original human interface guidelines. These critics say that this was an example of Apple irrationally rejecting any change not invented by themselves. Apple's long held single button mouse philosophy is arguably one example (up until they introduced Apple Mighty Mouse, at least).

In the free software community

Many in the free software / open source community have been accused of demonstrating the NIH syndrome because at any one time, there can be several programmers and/or groups working on different projects that, in effect, accomplish the same things as an existing solution. When a new program is written for task A because all existing programs that accomplish task A are not free, this is not NIH; but when it is done out of reasons that are not purely technical or legal, then it is referred to as "reinventing the wheel".

Reasons to reinvent a program can include pride, ignorance, discontent with some aspect of the existing solution, or simply the desire to create for creation's sake. These traits are in no way particularly specific to open source programmers; many programmers of proprietary software exhibit them as well.

The open source community may initially seek to provide the needed alternative to some fully or partially closed source implementation. However, later this closed implementation may also be released under an open source license, resulting two competing open source projects. Examples of such situations could be Apache Velocity and WebMacro or, on a larger scale, KDE and GNOME. In other cases, two projects that can be classified as both free and open source just pick incompatible licenses (like GNU Classpath and Apache Harmony).

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.

The quality of academic products developed out the NIH effect is widely varied, mostly for the forementioned reasons.

Usage in the Military

Among the main examples of the NIH syndrome are the world's armed forces. Some observers have suggested that the need to keep designers and bureaucrats in work plays an important part in such decisions. National security is also affected by the ability to produce, and to a lesser extent design, more advanced arms. Many countries often try to produce their own designs especially if they feel they do not have reliable suppliers.

NIH can play an important role in the development of a country's arms abilities. For example, India has worked on the Tejas Light Combat Aircraft at great expense, despite better designs being around. However, it stimulated the Indian aircraft industry. The Chinese usually made foreign designs also, but have changed over to making more locally-sourced designs.

The French Military and NIH

Among the major modern powers, France has the longest and strongest tradition of refusing to make foreign arms purchases. Since Charles De Gaulle's withdrawal from NATO and insistence on French autonomy, the French have designed and produced nearly all their own military equipment. Recently there have been a few exceptions. These include the Minimi, the Pamas, and some joint aircraft development. The French participated in the early stages of what would become the Eurofighter, but pulled out in the 1980s to build the Rafale. During the cold war, and for a time after, they flew the U.S. Vought F-8 Crusader aircraft, even past its retirement by U.S. forces.

The Chinese Military and NIH

By way of contrast the People's Republic of China is noted for not suffering from the NIH syndrone. It purchases most weapons and weapon designs from overseas. The People's Liberation Army has a poor record in design work and so usually uses weapons that have been purchased abroad or produced locally under licence. The main firearms used by the PLA are of Soviet origin and include the Chinese Type 56 Carbine (a copy of the Soviet SKS carbine), the Chinese Type 56 Assault Rifle (a local of the AK-47 assault rifle), the RPD light-machine gun, the Tokarev TT-33 pistol, the DShK heavy machine gun, and the Makarov PM series pistols. Their main tank has been the Type 59 which is a copy of the Soviet T-55. They have upgraded this themselves to produce the Type 69 and Type 79 tanks, but it was not until the fall of the Soviet Union that they were able to buy advanced technology from Serbia and the Ukraine to produce the Type 80, Type 85 and Type 98. For many decades the PLA Airforce relied on the Shenyang J-5 a copy of the Soviet Mig 17, the Shenyang J-6 a copy of the Mig 19 and the Chengdu J-7, a copy of the Mig 21. It was not until 1979 that China first produced its own fighter in the Shenyang J-8 following the cutting of aid from the Soviet Union. In bombers it has also relied on locally-made copies of the Il-28 and Tu-16.

German Military and NIH

Germany has historically been highly dedicated to NIH, though not as much as the French. Most of the execeptions are for U.S. equipment, or joint projects with which it is partially involved. What little it does use is often made under license in Germany, rather then directly imported.

The U.S. Military and the NIH

File:T-45 Goshawk.jpg

A T-45 Goshawk landing aboard the USS Harry S. Truman, a version of the BAE Hawk

The syndrome is not as common in the United States military as often thought. The United States does not reject foreign purchases to the degree the French do, but neither are they as open as the Chinese. It has a long history of accepting weapons from overseas stretching back to the 1800s (see Invented Here).

Foreign purchases are especially common in times of war. However, most of these contracts have gone to western European countries, with a criticism being that rather than a pure NIH, a sort Euroamerican NIH exists, with a 'here' including Europe.

There are sound strategic reasons to buy weapons from home, and a certain amount are purchased, or at least produced in one's own country, to ensure availabilty. Compared to some other countries, and especially the Soviet Union which had problems buying weapons overseas, the United States has accepted many foreign designs, but usually insists on redesigning them.

There have been many purchases in times of war when demand is high, but purchases during peace-time are not unknown. During the U.S. Civil War in the 1860s many British and French firearms were bought by both sides such as the Enfield. In WW1 the U.S. purchased many French and British made machine guns such as the Hotchkiss machine gun, though they had also just bought the French model 1909 some years earlier

The U.S. selected and purchased the Krag-Jørgensen rifle in 1894 despite protests and law suits from U.S. manufacturers. The better armed Filipino insurgents showed the Americans the advantages of the Mauser design. Rather than just buy the German rifle, the American Army adopted the M1903 Springfield which used a Mauser-locking bolt which the U.S. paid to license although the overall rifle design was somewhat different to the Mauser rifle. Since then foreign weapons have done poorly in American trials and some authors have claimed that the competition is rigged against them.

The German Luger competed in trials in the early 1900s for an automatic pistol and did very well, but withdrew in controversial circumstances. The competition ended up with the American M1911, which outperformed the other American contender. The Army made huge numbers of M1917 Enfield rifles, a British-developed design. Rather than buy British or re-tool for an all-new American design, they simply produced a redesigned British weapon. Some of these would eventually be supplied to the British Home Guard in WW2. When the US Army needed a light mortar, the Army did not purchase the British L16 81mm mortar, but rather made some minor changes by re-designing to produce the M252 Mortar.

Some modern firearms programs have been won by foreign manufacturers, mainly other NATO countries. In the late 1970s what would become designated as the M9 Pistol, an Italian weapon, won the first set of pistol trials run by the Air Force, but the U.S. Army rejected the result and insisted on their own trials. The Army insisted that a dangerous safety problem with slide delayed introduction and the Italians had to modify it to the 92FS standard. An improved model, the 92F won the Army trials, but was rejected again by the Army. After a total of six Army trials it was officially adopted in 1988. A SIG design also completed the trials, but had a more expensive bid. Production was delayed until the introduction of the 92FS version by the Italians. Also of note is that many of the first models were made in Italy, until production shifted to the US.

The US military has accepted some foreign designs especially after the issue was raised in Congress during the Reagan years. The U.S. adopted the Belgian Fabrique Nationale's M249 in 1984, although it was manufactured in South Carolina. The FN M240 was first adopted as a tank gun in 1979 by the Army, and was adopted for many other roles in the following decades. The FN SCAR was adopted in 2005, the Belgian FN winning a SOF competition. The German Mark 23 went into service in 1991 after it beat an entry from Colt and the German XM320 (AG36 derivative) will be adopted in 2006. They also adopted the Swedish M136 AT4. The Swiss M11 is in service with the Navy SEALs. The German Heckler & Koch MP5 is a design dating from the 1960s but it was not until the American branch of Heckler and Koch redesigned it that the US Airforce accepted it in 1991. It was then redesigned for use by the US Navy. The Army also adopted the Swedish M136 AT4.

Some foreign companies have had mixed success winning research contracts. The German XM8 won a contract but was cancelled 2004. The OICW weapons contract was won by a company which had HK as a subcontractor though it was cancelled 2005. This program led to the XM25. Technical failures were among the cited reasons for cancellation, with neither the OICW and XM8 meeting weight requirements. It is also likely that a lack of Congressional support for foreign manufacturers with no local ties played a role.

During the Cold War American tanks were noted for their lag time in adopting new technology. Unable to design adequate tank guns the American Army has been forced to turn to foreign designs. Most American tanks were armed with a license-made 105 mm British gun (as did many other nations), or more recently the German Rheinmetall L44 smoothbore 120 mm gun, which is currently used on the M1 Abrams. The United States attempted a joint U.S-German tank project in the 1960s, the MBT-70 for each of the country's next generation tank. The joint project failed but resulted in some useful technology sharing which went into the M1 Abrams. Although the American Army expressed an interest in the German Leopard 2 tank in 1976, and the Germans produced a prototype to US specifications, the Americans went ahead with the M1 Abrams instead. This had two unfortunate side effects: the refusal of the Americans to adopt the Leopard meant there was no chance of a common NATO main battle tank and the introduction of a 120 mm gun, first introduced by the Germans on the Leopard 1, was delayed until 1985. Rather than buy a member of the highly successful Swiss Mowag Piranha family, the United States military adopted the LAV-25 and the Stryker, both redesigns of the Pirahna. In both cases the US designs are justified by claiming they are specialized to US needs, and different configurations and features compared to what was available at the time. It is noticeable that the Stryker has not been able to meet many US Army requirements.

The problem is not so extreme in other branchs of the military. The US Navy and Airforce have also purchased and used some foreign equipment. During the 1930s the U.S. even had a small series of Coastal Patrol boats made in China. The Marines use the Austrian/German 290 GDT (see G class), which beat a competing U.S. firm.

The U.S. has used some other types of aircraft as well. They even used limited numbers of Spitfires during World War II. The P-51 Mustang was powered by a license built British design, the Rolls-Royce Merlin, following modification made by the British to aircraft they had purchased. The latest example is Embraer of Brazil which beat Boeing's 717 for an aircraft contract for the Aerial Common Sensor. Another example is the Italian Alenia C27 (the G222) light transport 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. Israeli made decoy glider bombs have also been used. Yet even here the NIH syndrome appears to exist. The T-45 Goshawk, an American re-design of popular BAE Hawk, is used as the main U.S. Navy training aircraft. The Navy claims that one of the main reasons it was redesigned was that it had to be specialized to work with US aircraft carriers and meet US specifications.

Other recent cases include the U.S. Coast Guard purchase of Spanish CASA CN-235. In 2006, the United States Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection ordered ten 10 Eurocopter EC120 helicopters, with options for up to fifty five[1]. The helicopter is based on the Eurocopter Colibri and was jointly developed in China and Europe. The CASA C-212 was also bought and serves as the C-41. The USCG also uses the Dassault Falcon 20 as the HU-25.

In the broader sense, as with every other large country, the bulk of contracts in the U.S. goes to the native country. However, compared to some other large countries, the United States has had a long history of being willing to accept foreign, especially European, equipment of all sorts. Other countries that have had huge military budget, such as the Soviet Union, have used locally designed and produced equipment almost exclusively. This was mainly because Western countries refused to sell them weapons. What is unusual about the United States has been the reluctance to accept foreign designs together with the inability to produce adequate designs locally. This means that the average American soldier is invariably issued with weapons developed in Europe, but redesigned in the United States, and introduced some times decades after entering service elsewhere.

Harrier II and debated NIH Syndrome with US and UK

An example of the controversy that can develop over a joint military project is the development of the Harrier II "jump jet". The U.S. partially-funded early Harrier development through the Mutual Weapons Development Program (MWDP), an innovative way for NATO allies to cooperate on weapons development during the Cold War. The resulting Hawker-Siddeley Harrier inspired a great deal of interest. The U.S. Marines bought some, but claimed it was lacking for the job they wanted it for, mainly close air-support (CAS), and in particular it had too low a payload and short range. The design eventually adopted by the US had over double the payload and much longer range, among other improvements. There are some grounds for doubting this was a reason, however, as small payloads and short ranges are not a problem for CAS work. The Marines needed a plane that could support Marine ground operations. By definition this requires many highly precise payloads delivered at short notice. Air forces, which have traditionally not wanted to do CAS work, prefer to do a few deep penetration raids. For such raids long ranges and large payloads are important.

McDonnell Douglas (US), in partnership with British Aerospace, set out to develop a very advanced AV-16 design. The British pulled out as it was too expensive for them. MD, on its own, ended up making a less ambitious design from US funding, resulting in the Harrier II. This design did have a much increased range and near double the payload capacity, as well as new features like FLIR and a special bombing system, though was slower due to the added weight of the new features.

The British used the US redesign as a starting point for further British developments of the aircraft line that were more adapted for the UK-specific roles. The complicated nature of development has sometimes led some to think one side or another of NIH, though the reality may be a workable joint development program where each side got the aircraft they wanted. There may have actually been some NIH - they both passed up a French VTOL design capable of supersonic speeds, the only prototype VTOL design to do so up until the VTOL version of the JSF. In fairness, the French design was essentially a fighter and far removed from the role the Marines needed, and had different performance goals.

In popular culture

• GSV Not Invented Here is a mind in Iain M Banks' Culture novels.

See also

• FUTON bias

Further reading

• Katz & Allen, Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) Syndrome: a look at the performance, tenure and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups. R&D Management vol. 12, pp. 7-19, 1982.

• Joel Spolsky, In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome^[2]