Not Invented Here
From Free net encyclopedia
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.
Contents |
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.Template:Fact 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.
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.Template:Fact 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).Template:Fact
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.
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 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
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 should be 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. 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 given 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 redesigned it 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.
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. 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. The Swiss M11 is in service with the Navy SEALs.
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 requirments. 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, 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. 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 British Rolls-Royce Merlin engine, although this was a modification made by the British themselves. 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.
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 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 native designed and produced equipment almost exclusively. Admittedly 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.
Harrier II and the NIH Syndrome
An 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. 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 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
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[1]