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 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 the creditability of using or implementing it. As a result, much effort and money is wasted on a solution that in many cases was already developed elsewhere.

The concepts of NIH should 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.

Silicon Graphics was also heavily critized in the late 1990s for sticking with their proprietary operating system and CPUs when it was becoming clear that commodity x86 hardware had a better price-to-performance ratio.

In the Open Source Community

Many in the open source community have been accused of demonstrating the NIH syndrome as well. Hackers and open source programming groups often "re-invent the wheel" many times over.^{[citation needed]} At any one time, there are several programmers and/or groups working on different projects that, in effect, accomplish the same things as an existing solution. This is usually due to pride, ignorance, discontent with some aspect of the existing solution, or simply the desire to create for creation's sake. An example of that is KDE versus GNOME. Also the mutiple messengers can be a good example, Trillian,AIM,MSN Messenger...

Many free software licenses, such as copyleft licenses, can also contribute to this problem, in that a company may be too afraid to take on the risk of being forced to open-source their project in the future, even if a complete free solution exists.^{[citation needed]} Over time this has led some large companies to reject almost all free software under any license, even for purely internal work, although such use might result in massive savings in both the short-term (development costs) and long-term (maintenance costs and costs associated with poor quality of the internal tool).^{[citation needed]}

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 be an important of countries developing there own 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 native 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. This includes the Minimi, the Pamas, and some joint aircraft development.

The German Military and NIH

Like France, Germany has long and strong tradition of refusing to make foreign arms purchases. The few exceptions have been for equipment from the United States or for joint-projects (such as the Eurofighter.

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.

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 common in the United States military as is thought by some, it actually has a long history of accepting weapons from overseas stretching back to the 1800s (see Invented Here).

Foreign purchases are especially common with firearms. 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 should be purchased, or at least produced in one's own country, to ensure availabilty. Compared to some other countries, and especially other large countries like China or the Soviet Union (though China has copied many Soviet designs), the United States has accepted many foreign designs, but usually needs to do small redesigns so they better suit US requirements. Other countries are known to display similar or worse NIH behavior. The United States Armed Forces have a long history of accepting adequate weapons from overseas, sometimes due to political reasons as there are often superior local equipment available.

There have been some purchases in times of war when demand is high, though they are outnumbered by peace time purchases. 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. Its replacement, the M1903 Springfield, used a Mauser-locking bolt which the U.S. paid to license- though the overall rifle design was totally different the Mauser rifles of the time. Also, even the locking system had some improvements. The overall design quite different from Mauser, or for that matter other rifles of the era when comparing features besides the locking system (which itself was not identical). In retrospect a rifle locking system may seem trivial, but in an era before tanks and aircraft, the abilities a single soldier's rifle was especially critical to a Army's capabilities. The adoption of a new rifle was common during this period by other countries and the US was no different.

The German Luger competed in trials in the early 1900s for an automatic pistol and 1000 were purchased from DWM. Later in the process the New York office lost the paperwork for further order place by the US of a updated version. The competition resulted with the American M1911, which outperformed other contenders. The Army made huge numbers of M1917 Enfield rifles. The factory was already producing the basic design in British caliber for the British who had placed a contract for WW1. Rather then re-tool for an all-new American design, they simply converted the design to 30-06. Some might suggest directly purchasing rifles from the British- however the the British were not actually making the design- it was a US company that had been making them. Some of these would M1917 eventually be given to the British Home guard in WW2. The British L16 81mm mortar caught the attention of the US Army, which adopted it as the M252 Mortar. As with most equipment some small changes were needed to fit US needs.

Many 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. A improved model, the 92F won the Army trials and after a total of six Army trials was officially adopted. A SIG design also completed the trials, but had a more expensive bid. A dangerous safety problem with slide appeared in early models, in personal had bad face injuries from the slide flying of into their face. More production was delayed until the introduction of the 92FS version by the Italians. Also of note is that many thousands of the first models were made in Italy, until production shifted to the US.

The U.S. adopted the Belgian M249 in 1984, over many US SAW candidates. The M240 was first adopted in 1977 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. Another is the Accuracy International AS50 (Britain). The German Mark 23 into service in 1991 after it beat an entry from [Colt]. The XM320 (Germany) (AG36 derivative) in 2006. They also adopted the Swedish M136 AT4. The Swiss M11 is in service with the Navy SEALs. The German Heckler & Koch MP5 started out as a design in the 1960s and underwent improvements. This lead to a lot of smaller use leading to official adoption by many branches. The Air Force uses various MP5 versions. It was then redesigned for use by the US Navy. 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 US requirements.

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 lead to the XM25. Technical failures were among the cited reasons for cancellation, with neither the OICW and XM8 meeting weight requirements. Some might suggest it a lack of Congressional support for foreign manufacturers with no local ties- but they would be forgetting the HK had a plant in Georgia for XM8 to made setup for production (aside from its other US production facilities) and the prime contractor for the OICW was AAI, a American company.

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 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). In 2005 one Swedish firm won a multi-million dollar contract for their armour-piercing 5.56 mm cartridge. Some of special rounds used in U.S. 50-cal. sniper are also made in Europe, including a special armour-piercing one.

During the Cold War most American tanks were armed with a license-made 105 mm British gun, and later the German 120 mm gun, which is currently used on the M1 Abrams. 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. The U.S. even 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. The U.S. military adopted the LAV-25 and the Stryker, both of which can trace back to the Swiss Mowag Piranha family. In both cases the US designs are specialized to US needs, and different configurations and features compared to what was available at the time. Some might wonder why the US didn't buy the Mowag directly- again, they were developed to US requirements for the role. There is no Mowag version with feature set needed, and the Swiss were not going to spend hundreds of millions in research for the US to do so.

The US Navy and Air Force 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 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. 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. Without changes, the aircraft would not be able to land properly (e.g arresting cable), nor have the needed level of compatibility with US electronic systems. This is not unique to the US, even for things less dramatic as landing on aircraft carrier- when Aircraft are purchases they must have small changes done to suit a particular Air Forces needs. (see versions of the Tornado, or Harrier II)

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 10 EC120 helicopters, with options for up to 55 which was reported as a total value of US$ 75 million[1]. This would put the unit cost at $ 1.36 million. 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.

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 United States has had a long history of being among the most 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 native designed and produced equipment almost exclusively. This was they were at war with Western countries- though they often did not accept weapons from each other (though china has copied many Russian designs). In the U.S however, everything from the helicopter the President will fly in, to the actual bullets fired by a single soldier have come from elsewhere.

Harrier II and debated NIH Syndrome with US and UK

A example of the controversy that can develop over a joint military project is Harrier development. 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, 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 higher range, among other improvements- however, this nearly didn't happed because the British pulled out of the joint development program with the US because the UK could not afford it.

Some casual observers might find grounds for doubting this the importance of the changes made by MD for the Marines- however, the engineers and military tactictions that crafted the requirments for the AV-8 are generally credited with having more authoratative opinions on the subject.

McDonnell Douglas (US), in partnership with British Aerospace, set out to develop a very advanved AV-16 design. The British pulled out as it was to expensive for them. MD, on its own, ended up making a less ambituous 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 features. The weight savings in this case were put into payload and range capabilty, the later British aircraft would put the extra weight into other things.

The British used the US redesign as a starting point for further British developments of the aircraft line that were more adopted for the particular jobs the Brits used them for, who were not as interested in the ground attack role. The complicated nature of development has somtimes 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 an 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.