Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Not invented here

Not invented here (NIH) syndrome denotes an entrenched organizational and cognitive bias wherein individuals or groups systematically devalue or reject externally sourced ideas, technologies, standards, or knowledge, favoring internally generated alternatives irrespective of objective superiority.^[1] This phenomenon manifests as a form of parochialism, often rooted in overconfidence in proprietary capabilities and aversion to perceived loss of control or prestige associated with adoption of outsiders' contributions.^[2] Empirical analysis traces its formal identification to a 1982 study by Katz and Allen, who examined 50 R&D project groups and linked NIH tendencies to prolonged group tenure, diminished external communication, and resultant inferior performance metrics.^[3] In practice, NIH syndrome impedes innovation pipelines by prompting redundant internal development, escalating costs, and foreclosing synergies from broader knowledge ecosystems, as evidenced in sectors from manufacturing to software engineering.^[4] For instance, high-tenure R&D teams exhibiting insularity underperform due to monopolistic self-perceptions of expertise, bypassing potentially transformative external inputs.^[1] Subsequent research confirms its persistence, associating NIH with weakened social capital formation and barriers to open innovation, where biases against foreign origins erode trust and collaborative efficacy.^[5] Mitigation approaches emphasize deliberate exposure to external stimuli, such as incentivized cross-pollination or structural rewards for integration of "proudly found elsewhere" solutions, as pioneered by firms like Procter & Gamble in shifting from resistance to proactive sourcing.^[6] Despite these countermeasures, NIH endures as a causal drag on adaptive capacity, particularly in hierarchical entities prone to echo chambers that amplify internal echo over empirical validation.^[7]

Definition and Core Characteristics

Conceptual Definition

Not invented here (NIH) syndrome denotes the aversion of individuals, teams, or organizations to adopt, integrate, or credit external ideas, technologies, processes, or knowledge, irrespective of their demonstrated superiority in performance, cost-efficiency, or reliability.^[8] This bias favors internally generated alternatives, frequently prompting redundant efforts to replicate or approximate external solutions rather than leveraging them directly.^[9] Observable in decision-making patterns, NIH manifests as systematic devaluation of outside innovations based on origin rather than merit, such as dismissing validated methodologies from competitors or collaborators in favor of bespoke developments that yield comparable or inferior outcomes.^[10] At its core, NIH arises from a prioritization of internal locus of control—encompassing perceived ownership, customization potential, and group cohesion—over objective assessments of efficacy grounded in data like benchmarks, adoption rates, or failure metrics.^[4] This leads to causal distortions where provenance trumps utility, as groups exhibit reluctance to external inputs despite evidence of their advantages, exemplified in sectors like software where teams forgo established open-source tools with proven scalability for proprietary recreations, incurring higher development timelines and error rates.^[11] Such patterns underscore a rejection mechanism detached from empirical validation, perpetuating inefficiencies in resource allocation and innovation velocity.^[1] Empirical observations across industries, particularly in research and development settings, reveal NIH as a recurrent barrier, with analyses of project groups indicating its influence on communication insularity and output stagnation over time.^[12] In these contexts, the syndrome correlates with heightened internal focus, often measurable through reduced external citations in project documentation or prolonged timelines for equivalent advancements.^[4]

Distinctions from Similar Biases

The Not Invented Here (NIH) bias specifically manifests as resistance to adopting or valuing ideas, technologies, or knowledge originating from external sources, often irrespective of their objective merits, due to a preference for internal provenance. In contrast, the Not Sold Here (NSH) syndrome involves an analogous but inverse reluctance within organizations to commercialize or share internally developed innovations with external parties, stemming from concerns over control, intellectual property, or perceived incompatibility with market needs.^[13]^[14] This outbound orientation of NSH differs fundamentally from NIH's inbound aversion, as evidenced in open innovation frameworks where NIH hinders knowledge absorption while NSH impedes dissemination.^[15] NIH is distinct from broader cognitive biases such as confirmation bias, which entails selectively seeking or interpreting information to affirm preexisting beliefs, without a necessary emphasis on the source's origin. While both can lead to undervaluation of disconfirming evidence, NIH's mechanism is uniquely anchored in the perceived external "otherness" of the idea, triggering devaluation based on provenance rather than mere inconsistency with prior views; decision-making models in innovation management highlight this origin-specific trigger as a separate pathway.^[4] Similarly, NIH diverges from groupthink, a conformity-driven process within cohesive groups that suppresses internal dissent and rationalizes flawed collective decisions, often amplifying in-group favoritism but not inherently tied to rejecting external inputs. NIH, by comparison, operates through an explicit bias against outsider-generated content, even when it challenges internal consensus, as opposed to groupthink's primary focus on internal homogenization.^[16] Hybrids of NIH may emerge in scenarios where loyalty to internally originated solutions persists despite their obsolescence or inferiority, sometimes termed variants like "Invented Here But Obsolete," wherein organizations cling to outdated internal technologies over superior external alternatives, blending origin preference with inertia against reevaluation. This underscores NIH's core as a provenance-based rejection, distinguishable from mere status quo bias by its accentuation of internal invention as the litmus test for acceptability.^[17]

Origins and Historical Context

Etymology and Early Usage

The phrase "not invented here," often abbreviated as NIH, originated in mid-20th-century American engineering and R&D contexts to describe organizational resistance to externally developed technologies or ideas, particularly evident in post-World War II manufacturing where firms rejected supplier innovations despite potential efficiencies. Independent inventor Samuel Ruben, active from the 1930s to 1960s, explicitly identified the "Not Invented Here" factor as the inherent reluctance of large companies' technical staff to license or adopt outside inventions, citing it as a persistent barrier in his dealings with prospective licensees.^[18] The term's early usage reflected broader inefficiencies in U.S. industrial R&D, where internal preferences led to redundant development efforts amid growing external knowledge flows. While informal references appeared in engineering discussions during the 1950s and 1960s, the first systematic academic definition and empirical analysis came in 1982 with a study by Ralph Katz and Thomas J. Allen, which examined 50 stable R&D project groups and characterized NIH syndrome as the belief in a monopoly of domain knowledge, correlating it with declining performance after prolonged team tenure and reduced external communication.^[1]^[19] In business literature by the early 1980s, consultants adopted the phrase to critique siloed corporate structures that impeded knowledge transfer, marking its transition from ad hoc engineering observations to a recognized concept in management diagnostics.^[1]

Development in Management Theory

The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome evolved from informal observations in research and development settings during the mid-20th century to a formalized concept within management theory by the late 1980s and 1990s, as scholars began integrating it into models of organizational learning and innovation processes. Early theoretical attention emphasized NIH as a cognitive and structural resistance to external ideas, shifting focus from isolated anecdotes to systematic barriers in knowledge flows. This period marked a transition toward structured frameworks that positioned NIH as a causal factor in limiting firms' ability to leverage outside innovations, particularly in closed R&D paradigms dominant at the time.^[2] A pivotal incorporation occurred in knowledge management theories through Cohen and Levinthal's 1990 formulation of absorptive capacity, which defined it as a firm's ability to recognize, assimilate, and apply external information for commercial ends, explicitly linking diminished capacity to attitudes akin to NIH that prioritize internal developments over external ones. Their model demonstrated causally how prior related knowledge influences the recognition of valuable external inputs, with NIH manifesting as an underappreciation or rejection of such inputs due to insufficient internal alignment or perceived threats to organizational identity. This framework established NIH not merely as bias but as a dynamic inhibitor of learning curves, where cumulative internal focus erodes the prerequisites for effective external integration. By the early 2000s, NIH featured prominently in innovation management paradigms, notably Chesbrough's open innovation framework introduced in 2003, which contrasted traditional closed models by advocating purposeful inflows and outflows of knowledge, while identifying NIH as a primary attitudinal barrier that sustains inefficient self-reliance in R&D. Chesbrough argued that overcoming NIH requires deliberate boundary-spanning mechanisms to validate and incorporate external technologies, thereby enhancing innovation efficiency in knowledge-abundant environments.^[20] Post-2010 theoretical advancements refined NIH's role within broader management constructs, particularly in addressing failures in adopting disruptive external solutions during periods of rapid technological change, such as digital transformations where internal legacies amplify resistance to non-proprietary tools and platforms. These refinements underscore NIH's interplay with organizational inertia, positing it as a scalable phenomenon that intensifies under conditions of high uncertainty, prompting calls for hybrid models blending internal competencies with vetted external inputs to mitigate causal disruptions in adaptive capacity.^[21]

Underlying Causes

Psychological Mechanisms

The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome at the individual level manifests through in-group favoritism, whereby individuals preferentially value ideas or knowledge originating from their own group while devaluing external alternatives, rooted in social identity theory that heightens internal identification and resistance to outsiders.^[22] This bias aligns with broader patterns of in-group bias observed in human cognition, where stronger self-identification with a group amplifies rejection of competitor-sourced inputs perceived as threats to group status.^[2] Complementing in-group favoritism is the endowment effect, in which internally developed ideas acquire inflated value due to perceived ownership and sunk cognitive or emotional investments, leading to reluctance to relinquish them for potentially superior external options.^[23] This overvaluation stems from loss aversion, a core element of prospect theory, where the psychological pain of parting with an "owned" idea outweighs equivalent gains from adoption, even when utility assessments suggest otherwise.^[24] Such attachment ties internal innovations to personal identity, fostering dismissal of outsiders' contributions as inferior despite objective merits. Pride and autonomy further drive NIH by framing external ideas as challenges to individual self-efficacy and control, prompting defensive rejection to preserve a sense of mastery and volition in decision-making.^[5] When autonomy feels compromised, individuals exhibit heightened aversion to incorporating foreign inputs, interpreting them as erosions of personal agency rather than opportunities for enhancement.^[25] Lab-based manipulations, such as inducing perspective-taking toward out-group sources, demonstrate causal mitigation of these attitudes without altering underlying beliefs, underscoring the motivational role of ego protection in sustaining NIH.^[4] From a neurocognitive perspective, NIH evokes territorial instincts analogous to evolutionary adaptations favoring resource defense, where "ownership" of ideas triggers prioritization of self-generated outputs over external ones, independent of comparative utility.^[26] This heuristic, shaped by ancestral pressures for in-group loyalty and boundary maintenance, manifests in modern contexts as instinctive suspicion of non-proprietary knowledge, bypassing rational evaluation in favor of proprietary allegiance.^[27]

Organizational and Cultural Drivers

In hierarchical cultures prevalent in many large firms, career progression is often linked to visible endorsement of internal developments, incentivizing managers to dismiss external innovations to signal loyalty and preserve departmental silos. This structural reward system fosters a perceived "monopoly of knowledge" internally, where objective evaluation of outsider ideas is subordinated to maintaining group cohesion and authority gradients. Empirical analysis of R&D teams indicates that such hierarchies correlate with reduced external knowledge integration, as promotion criteria emphasize internal advocacy over cross-boundary merit.^[28] ^[29] Resource allocation mechanisms in NIH-prone organizations systematically favor in-house initiatives, as decision-makers prioritize controllable internal projects to mitigate risks associated with external dependencies and short-term performance metrics. This bias manifests in budgetary skews, where funds are disproportionately directed toward redundant internal R&D rather than acquiring proven external solutions, leading to opportunity costs in innovation efficiency. Research on open innovation processes documents how this pattern arises from causal fears of diluted control and integration challenges, empirically reducing absorptive capacity in firms with rigid internal funding protocols.^[4] ^[5] Cultural inertia in established organizations exacerbates NIH by embedding resistance to paradigm shifts, as seen in the automotive sector where legacy firms delayed electric vehicle (EV) adoption in favor of refining internal combustion technologies. Traditional automakers, burdened by decades of sunk investments in proprietary engine designs, exhibited NIH-driven aversion to external battery and electrification advancements, contrasting with agile entrants like Tesla that integrated global tech without historical encumbrances. This inertia, verifiable through comparative innovation timelines from 2000 to 2020, resulted in market share erosion for incumbents, as NIH reinforced path dependency over adaptive sourcing.^[30] ^[31]

Empirical Research and Evidence

Foundational Studies

One of the earliest empirical investigations into the not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome was conducted by Ralph Katz and Thomas J. Allen in 1982, analyzing communication patterns, tenure, and performance across 50 R&D project groups in a large industrial laboratory.^[3] Their study revealed that project group performance peaked around 1.5 years of tenure before declining by the fifth year, correlating with reduced external communication as groups aged and isolated themselves, fostering a belief in possessing a monopoly on relevant knowledge.^[3] This pattern indicated NIH as a structural outcome of prolonged group stability rather than isolated arrogance, with quantitative measures showing communication rates dropping significantly after initial high-innovation phases.^[32] Building on such findings, Matthias Mehrwald's 1999 survey of 51 R&D managers and 89 scientists across 53 large German firms provided broader quantitative evidence of NIH prevalence in European contexts.^[2] Respondents reported systematic resistance to external knowledge, particularly from competitors, with NIH attitudes linked to overconfidence in internal capabilities and reluctance to incur perceived integration risks.^[33] The study quantified these biases through attitudinal scales, highlighting how they contributed to suboptimal knowledge absorption, though it noted variability based on firm size and R&D maturity without establishing precise causal delays in innovation timelines.^[2] These pre-2000 studies established NIH's empirical footprint via correlational data on communication decay and survey-based attitudes, demonstrating negative associations with long-term project efficacy but emphasizing group dynamics over individual psychology.^[3] ^[2] They debunked simplistic views of NIH as mere hubris by tying it to measurable declines in external inputs, suggesting rational elements like familiarity with internal processes could justify partial resistance amid high assimilation costs, though overall evidence pointed to net innovation impairments from excessive insularity.^[34]

Contemporary Findings (2010s–Present)

A 2022 empirical study utilizing survey data from 93 employees in knowledge-intensive firms identified key antecedents of not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome at individual, managerial, and organizational levels, including suboptimal person-organization fit and leader-member exchange, which jointly exacerbate NIH attitudes.^[29] These attitudes were found to negatively correlate with innovative work behavior, limiting employees' propensity to generate and implement novel ideas.^[29] In open innovation contexts, a 2023 analysis of 250 firms across France, Italy, Spain, and Sweden demonstrated that NIH syndrome undermines inbound knowledge flows by biasing teams against external ideas, thereby eroding external social capital and indirectly reducing overall innovation performance.^[5] This effect was mediated through diminished relationship-building and communication with partners, though a fostering innovation climate moderated the bias, enhancing receptivity to collaborative inputs.^[5] NIH has emerged as a documented barrier in digital technology adoption, particularly in healthcare settings undergoing digital shifts. A 2023 survey of 165 German ambulatory physiotherapists revealed significantly lower adoption rates for externally originated digital health innovations (β = -0.93, p < 0.01), attributed to resistance against ideas lacking internal involvement, with qualitative interviews confirming persistent devaluation of physician-driven tools.^[35] High interprofessional collaboration and proactive job crafting behaviors were shown to attenuate this effect (β = 0.24 and 0.72, respectively, both p < 0.05).^[35] Within artificial intelligence applications, NIH syndrome manifests as organizational reluctance to integrate external AI solutions, notably in human resource management, where cultural, power, and competency constraints foster resistance to "foreign" technologies.^[36] Similarly, in small and medium-sized enterprises pursuing digital transformation, NIH interacts adversely with digital orientation and employee AI awareness, heightening resistance and constraining innovation outcomes through routines that prioritize internal capabilities over external adoption.^[37] These findings, drawn from regression-based models, highlight NIH's role in delaying tech uptake amid rapid advancements in AI and digital platforms.

Real-World Examples

Corporate and Technological Instances

In the technology sector, Microsoft demonstrated the not invented here (NIH) syndrome during the early 2000s by largely avoiding open-source software in favor of developing proprietary developer tools, even when superior external alternatives existed.^[38] This resistance stemmed from a cultural preference for internally created solutions, exemplified by then-CEO Steve Ballmer's 2001 characterization of Linux and open-source licensing as a "cancer" that threatened Microsoft's business model.^[39] The company gradually shifted toward embracing open-source contributions by the late 2000s, joining the Open Source Initiative in 2009 after years of internal development duplication.^[38] In the automotive industry, General Motors (GM) exhibited NIH during the development of the Chevrolet Vega in the early 1970s, where engineers rejected proven external engine designs and supplier technologies to create a novel aluminum-block inline-four cylinder from scratch.^[40] This approach prioritized internal innovation over adopting reliable existing components, resulting in production of approximately 2.3 million Vega vehicles from 1970 to 1977, many plagued by engine failures due to design flaws like inadequate cooling.^[40] Broader NIH tendencies among U.S. automakers, including GM, involved dismissing innovations from foreign competitors and suppliers during the 1980s and 1990s, contributing to a decline in domestic market share from over 80% in the 1960s to around 50% by the early 2000s.^[41] More recently in technology infrastructure, Amazon Web Services (AWS) displayed NIH by heavily investing in proprietary custom chips like the Graviton processors starting in 2018, delaying fuller integration of external Nvidia GPUs despite their dominance in AI workloads.^[42] This internal focus led to criticism for underutilizing established third-party hardware, with AWS only significantly expanding Nvidia support in late 2023 amid competitive pressures from Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud.^[42] In parallel, some enterprises in the 2010s opted to reinvent cloud storage and compute tools internally rather than leveraging AWS services, duplicating efforts in areas like object storage despite mature external options.^[43]

Public Sector and Academic Cases

In the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome has contributed to persistent resistance against adopting external software solutions, favoring bespoke developments that inflate costs and timelines. This pattern, evident throughout the 2000s, involved DoD practitioners afflicted by what internal reports described as the "Not Invented Here disease," leading to redundant reinvention rather than leveraging commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) technologies suitable for non-critical applications.^[44] By 2021, the departing U.S. Air Force Chief Information Officer, Nicolas Chaillan, publicly attributed cybersecurity shortcomings to the entrenched NIH bias in DoD, where leadership's unwillingness to prioritize external integrations perpetuated vulnerabilities in legacy systems.^[45] Public healthcare sectors exhibit similar NIH-driven barriers to external collaboration, particularly in adopting innovations from private or foreign sources. A 2023 empirical study of German ambulatory physiotherapists revealed that the provenance of digital health tools—whether domestically or externally developed—significantly influenced adoption rates, with external origins triggering irrational skepticism and lower uptake despite equivalent efficacy.^[35] Echoing this, a 2024 analysis of collaborative research dynamics found that public healthcare organizations often demand firms adapt commercialization strategies to circumvent NIH attitudes, as bureaucratic silos devalue outsider knowledge and stifle knowledge transfer in interdependent care delivery models.^[46] In academic institutions, NIH manifests through departmental silos that reject interdisciplinary or external research inputs, leading to inefficient grant processes and duplicated efforts. Pre-2010, funding panels frequently dismissed proposals incorporating outsider methodologies, prioritizing insular paradigms that reinforced knowledge isolation across disciplines.^[47] This extends to operational practices, where universities routinely devise in-house courses, administrative systems, and research protocols instead of integrating validated external alternatives, a tendency formalized in public management literature as a core driver of academic inefficiency.^[48]

Consequences and Impacts

Adverse Outcomes

The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome fosters innovation stagnation by prompting organizations to reject or undervalue external ideas, thereby delaying the integration of proven technologies and slowing market entry. This bias creates a causal pathway where initial dismissal of outside innovations leads to prolonged internal development cycles, as teams prioritize self-generated solutions over faster assimilation of external ones. A survey of 565 innovation projects worldwide revealed that only 16% escaped NIH influences entirely, with affected initiatives showing diminished performance metrics, including extended timelines for commercialization.^[7] Similarly, empirical analysis of R&D groups demonstrated that NIH attitudes correlate with lower project success rates, as reduced external communication hampers timely adoption of industry advancements.^[3] Consequently, firms exhibiting strong NIH tendencies face heightened competitive disadvantages, as rivals accelerate progress through open knowledge inflows. Resource inefficiencies stem from NIH-driven reinvention of externally available solutions, diverting substantial R&D budgets toward redundant efforts. The syndrome's resistance to external inputs compels organizations to replicate foundational work, inflating costs and timelines without commensurate value addition. Research on knowledge management identifies NIH as a key barrier to efficient resource allocation, where biased attitudes toward outside knowledge result in duplicated investments across projects.^[4] In service firms, for instance, NIH has been linked to overestimated negative impacts on innovation routines, yet consistently tied to higher operational waste through avoided collaborations.^[49] This pattern perpetuates opportunity costs, as funds expended on internal replication could instead enhance core competencies. Broader harms arise from NIH's erosion of absorptive capacity—the organizational ability to identify, assimilate, and exploit external knowledge—which undermines long-term adaptability and growth. Pathological NIH behaviors, such as declining external orientation over time, directly impair this capacity, leading to missed technological trajectories and reduced innovative output. Integrative frameworks confirm that firms with pronounced NIH exhibit weaker financial and innovative performance, as lowered absorptive thresholds heighten vulnerability to environmental shifts and correlate with elevated failure probabilities in dynamic markets.^[50] Over time, this causal chain—from knowledge rejection to capacity atrophy—exacerbates strategic rigidity, constraining sustained competitive positioning.^[29]

Situations Where NIH May Confer Advantages

In high-security environments such as defense and critical infrastructure, adherence to NIH principles can enhance protection against vulnerabilities inherent in third-party software. For instance, the U.S. Department of Defense emphasizes the need for mission owners to maintain deep understanding and control over software in national security systems to build trust and mitigate risks from opaque external code, as external solutions may introduce unverified backdoors or dependencies that compromise operational integrity.^[51] Similarly, in-house security operations centers (SOCs) enable faster incident response through on-site access and tailored configurations, reducing latency compared to outsourced models reliant on external providers.^[52] In the pharmaceutical industry, NIH-driven internal R&D preserves intellectual property by avoiding the disclosure risks associated with licensing external innovations, allowing firms to retain full control over proprietary compounds and processes. This approach safeguards trade secrets during development, where external partnerships could necessitate revealing sensitive data that competitors might exploit, thereby maintaining competitive barriers built through exclusive IP ownership.^[53]^[54] External solutions frequently fail to adapt to unique internal contexts, as demonstrated by merger and acquisition (M&A) outcomes where cultural and operational mismatches lead to significant value erosion. Studies indicate that 70-90% of M&A deals fail to deliver expected synergies, often due to integration challenges including rejection of acquired entities' practices, resulting in productivity losses and talent attrition that destroy 10-30% or more of deal value on average.^[55]^[56]^[57] Selective NIH can cultivate deep core competencies and proprietary advantages, particularly in technology ecosystems requiring tight integration. Apple's vertical integration strategy, involving in-house design of hardware, software, and chips, exemplifies this by enabling optimized performance, supply chain resilience, and user lock-in through a cohesive proprietary environment that differentiates products and sustains market dominance.^[58]^[59] This internal focus has historically allowed Apple to avoid dependency on fragmented external suppliers, fostering innovations like custom silicon that enhance efficiency and security within its closed ecosystem.^[60]

Strategies for Mitigation

Internal Reforms

Organizations implement incentive redesign by incorporating the adoption and integration of external ideas into employee performance metrics and reward systems, such as bonuses tied to the successful implementation of outside innovations rather than solely internal developments. This structural shift counters NIH by aligning personal motivations with broader organizational goals of openness, as evidenced in case studies where firms using such KPIs reported higher rates of external technology assimilation.^[7] ^[11] Bias-awareness training programs, including workshops focused on recognizing NIH tendencies, equip employees with tools to evaluate external ideas on merit rather than origin. Empirical assessments of similar cognitive bias interventions in innovation contexts demonstrate causal links to improved decision-making, with participants showing greater willingness to adopt proven external solutions post-training.^[4] Establishing cross-functional teams mandated to conduct external benchmarking integrates diverse internal perspectives with systematic reviews of outside practices, reducing insular thinking. Research on open innovation implementation highlights that such teams, blending technical and business expertise, achieve higher success rates in external knowledge absorption compared to siloed groups.^[61]^[62]

External Collaboration Tactics

Joint ventures and licensing agreements enable organizations to co-develop innovations with external partners, fostering trust and integrating outside knowledge while diminishing resistance rooted in NIH syndrome. Corporate innovation hubs, by facilitating such partnerships, effectively mitigate both NIH (aversion to external inventions) and NSH (reluctance to commercialize internal ideas externally) attitudes, as demonstrated in a 2021 empirical analysis of structured collaboration mechanisms that enhance knowledge absorption and market orientation.^[13] Technology licensing from external sources, including public research institutions, further supports this by allowing incremental adaptation of foreign innovations, thereby reducing perceived threats to internal expertise and promoting successful knowledge transfer in R&D-intensive firms.^[63] Pilot integrations in isolated testing environments, such as digital sandboxes, permit low-stakes evaluation of external technologies, which has been shown to lower adoption barriers by providing tangible proof of compatibility and value before full-scale implementation. In enterprise AI projects, initiating pilots with cross-functional involvement secures early stakeholder buy-in and circumvents NIH resistance during scaling, as internal teams witness performance gains firsthand.^[64] Similarly, AI incubators employ pilot rollouts to embed external solutions organization-wide, countering "not invented here" biases through demonstrated efficacy and gradual cultural acclimation.^[65] Cultural exchanges, including embedding guest experts from partner organizations or hosting collaborative events like hackathons, accelerate familiarity with external ideas and erode NIH predispositions by humanizing knowledge sources and encouraging joint problem-solving. These tactics prove particularly effective in small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) adopting AI technologies, where localized open innovation initiatives—such as shared workshops and expert rotations—address resistance by aligning external inputs with internal needs and building relational capital.^[66] In high-tech SMEs, founder-led participation in such exchanges further normalizes external sourcing, leading to higher openness in innovation practices as of studies through 2021.^[67]

References

[1]
Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the ...
Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R & D Project Groups. Ralph Katz,.
[2]
[PDF] In Search for the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome
The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome refers to internal resistance in a company against externally developed knowledge. Although previous research has shown ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[3]
Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome - ResearchGate
Aug 9, 2025 · This phenomenon may be the result of the "not invented here" (NIH) syndrome described in (Katz & Allen, 1982; Bessant, 2023). Architectural ...
[4]
Containing the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome in external knowledge ...
This paper builds new theory and provides supporting evidence to contain the Not-Invented-Here Syndrome (NIHS) – a persistent decision-making error.
[5]
Enhancing open innovation: Managing not invented here syndrome ...
Not-invented-here syndrome impedes the development of external social capital. •. Bias against external ideas hampers relationship-building and communication ...
[6]
Connect and Develop: Inside Procter & Gamble's New Model for ...
We needed to move the company's attitude from resistance to innovations “not invented here” to enthusiasm for those “proudly found elsewhere.” And we needed ...
[7]
Beating 'Not Invented Here' Syndrome
Aug 5, 2024 · To get employees with not-invented-here syndrome to open up to new ideas, companies may have to incentivize or push them.Missing: studies | Show results with:studies
[8]
What is Not Invented Here Syndrome? – BMC Software | Blogs
Apr 24, 2020 · Not-invented-here syndrome (NIH) can be defined by a tendency for people and organizations to avoid things that they didn't create themselves.
[9]
NOT-INVENTED-HERE SYNDROME definition - Cambridge Dictionary
NOT-INVENTED-HERE SYNDROME meaning: the idea that a product, system, etc. that was developed somewhere else cannot be as good as one…. Learn more.
[10]
3 tips for combatting not-invented-here syndrome - CIO
Sep 14, 2021 · “The Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syndrome is defined as the tendency of a project group of stable composition to believe it possess a monopoly ...
[11]
What is “Not Invented Here” Syndrome and How Does It Impact ...
Jul 4, 2023 · "Not invented here" syndrome can significantly hinder progress, innovation, and collaboration within organizations. By underestimating external ...Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[12]
(PDF) An empirical test of the Not Invented Here (HIH) Syndrome
An empirical test of the Not Invented Here (HIH) Syndrome : a look at the performance, tenure, and communication patterns of 50 R&D project groups.
[13]
Mitigating not-invented-here and not-sold-here problems: The role of ...
In particular, organizations often experience Not-Invented-Here (NIH) and Not-Sold-Here (NSH) problems, i.e. negative attitudes towards absorbing external ...
[14]
Is Your Company Ready for Open Innovation?
Sep 21, 2011 · Not-invented-here and not-sold-here attitudes are frequently well intended. Employees are often convinced of the superiority of exclusively ...
[15]
Open Innovation vs. Closed Innovation
Jul 24, 2023 · Open Innovation vs. ... not-invented-here syndrome (or NIH syndrome). Less well known than NIH syndrome is not-sold-here syndrome (or NSH syndrome) ...
[16]
Groupthink - Inc. Magazine
Feb 6, 2020 · But when new perspectives are rejected (as in the “not invented here” syndrome), it is hard to correct errors. And if the social support is ...
[17]
In Defense of Not-Invented-Here Syndrome - Joel on Software
Oct 14, 2001 · The Not-Invented-Here Syndrome is considered a classic management pathology, in which a team refuses to use a technology that they didn't create ...
[18]
[PDF] Independent Inventors in an Era of Burgeoning Research ...
rejected what Ruben called the “Not Invented Here” factor—that is, “the inherent reluctance of the technical staff of [a] prospective licensee to accept.
[19]
[PDF] Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at ...
Katz, T. Allen; Published 1982; Business, Engineering; R & D Management. The Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syn- drome is defined as the tendency of a project group of ...
[20]
The Era of Open Innovation - MIT Sloan Management Review
Apr 15, 2003 · 3 This approach is a long way from the “not invented here,” or NIH, syndrome that afflicts many large, successful industrial organizations.
[21]
[PDF] Digital Transformation of Global Business Processes
Reduce 'not invented here' syndrome. Low organizational acceptance. Distrust in the organization. In the theme of internal embeddedness, evolutionary processes ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[22]
In search for the not‐invented‐here syndrome: the role of knowledge ...
Apr 8, 2015 · The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome refers to a negative attitude of employees against externally developed knowledge.<|separator|>
[23]
Opening the Black Box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes, Decision ...
Aug 9, 2025 · The not-invented-here syndrome (NIH) describes a negative attitude toward knowledge (ideas, technologies) derived from an external source.
[24]
[PDF] The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias
This suggests that the main effect of endowment is not to enhance the appeal of the good one owns, only the pain of giving it up. ' ~ h e s ecurves were ...
[25]
Does Your Organization Have the Not Invented Here Syndrome?
Mar 26, 2015 · The Not Invented Here Syndrome is the negative attitude towards knowledge (ideas, technologies) derived from an external source.Missing: origins | Show results with:origins
[26]
Evolution of in-group favoritism | Scientific Reports - Nature
Jun 21, 2012 · In-group favoritism is a central aspect of human behavior. People often help members of their own group more than members of other groups.
[27]
How Hardwired Is Human Behavior? - Harvard Business Review
Evolutionary psychology, in identifying the aspects of human behavior that are inborn and universal, can explain some familiar patterns.Missing: adoption | Show results with:adoption
[28]
Ideas trump hierarchy | Game-Changer
The NIH (not invented here) syndrome rules the day. And businesses that are run in a hierarchical way are not designed to innovate. A culture of innovation ...
[29]
Antecedents and innovation outcomes of not‐invented‐here ...
Jul 18, 2022 · Opening the black box of “not invented here”: Attitudes, decision biases, and behavioral consequences. Academy of Management Perspectives ...
[30]
EVs: The Manufacturing Revolution | by Frederic Filloux | Monday Note
Aug 30, 2020 · Legacy carmakers might have a hard time keeping up with innovation. Long development cycles, the “not invented here” syndrome, pre-existing ...
[31]
Open Innovation in Automotive: The Cadillac Paradox - PreScouter
The answer is simple: Due to years of inertia, many automakers suffer from NIH syndrome. NIH stands for not invented here, and it is a syndrome where ...
[32]
[PDF] Investigating the Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome: A look at ... - MIT
By Ralph Katz and Thomas J. Allen. Sloan School of Management M.I. T. Cambridge, USA. Abstract: The Not-Invented-Here (NIH) syn- drome is defined as the ...
[33]
[PDF] Dilemmas in Not Invented Here Syndrome - PDXScholar
Not Invented Here syndrome has many negative effects on the performance of companies. However, there are several ways companies can work to overcome NIH ...
[34]
[PDF] Not Invented Here? Innovation in Company Towns - Ajay Agrawal
Katz and Allen · (1982) popularized the so-called NIH Syndrome in their study of the propensity of research ... Mehrwald (1999)) have identified systematic biases ...<|separator|>
[35]
Overcoming the not-invented-here syndrome in healthcare
Dec 27, 2023 · We asked the participants to rate the perceived degree of co-decision making in the treatment planning (two items) and the communication ...Missing: R&D | Show results with:R&D
[36]
Barriers and Enablers of AI Adoption in Human Resource ... - MDPI
The Not Invented Here (NIH) syndrome—a reluctance to absorb foreign ideas impacted by organizational limits including power, competency, and culture—was the ...Missing: resistance | Show results with:resistance
[37]
Digital Transformation and Innovation Performance in Small - MDPI
When employees' AI awareness is high, the Not-invented-here Syndrome negatively affects digital orientation and Innovation Performance. ... Designing digital ...Missing: resistance | Show results with:resistance
[38]
When Open Source Came to Microsoft - CODE Magazine
Jun 9, 2021 · ... Not-Invented-Here syndrome, Microsoft tended to build tools for developers even when there were excellent open source tools available. The ...
[39]
Microsoft has not invented here syndrome | ZDNET
Aug 10, 2010 · Microsoft has not invented here syndrome. Microsoft in the post-Gates era is looking increasingly like IBM in the post-Watson era. But ...
[40]
GM's Deadly Sin #2: Chevrolet Vega - GM's First Deadly Sin
May 29, 2025 · The “not invented here” maxim maximized, especially as regards the engine. Chevy's Engine Group already had a conventional small four banger ...
[41]
Experts' view: automakers will grow - with changes - CSMonitor.com
'' They suffered from the so-called ''not-invented-here syndrome,'' rejecting foreign auto ideas, argues Mr. Anderson. They were protected from overseas ...
[42]
Following MSFT & GOOG Lead, AWS Embraces Nvidia And ... - Forbes
Nov 29, 2023 · Over the last few years, we have been increasingly disappointed in what appeared to be Not-Invented-Here (NIH) behavior at AWS, the world's top ...Missing: computing reinvention
[43]
Not invented here, revisited - The Engineering Manager
Jul 26, 2018 · Not Invented Here, or NIH for short, is a mindset that embodies a reluctance to reuse or purchase existing products or technologies because they originate from ...
[44]
[PDF] DoD Related Software Technology Requirements, Practices ... - DTIC
Sep 19, 2025 · particularly afflicted by the "Not Invented Here" disease that makes practitioners think that they have developed or can develop something ...
[45]
Air Force software is so bad the guy in charge of it all is about to quit
Sep 3, 2021 · “The 'not invented here' syndrome is powerful in DoD and our leadership is not willing to stop it.” The 'not invented here' problem refers to a ...
[46]
Collaborative research in healthcare: uncovering the impact of ...
Mar 28, 2024 · Firms' reshaping of commercialization practices to overcome the 'not invented here' phenomenon in public healthcare organizations. The ...
[47]
The not-invented-here syndrome in academia - how to measure and ...
Thus, this paper concentrates on the Not-Invented-Here syndrome in academia. We develop a robust measurement model and test this construct and 8 potential ...
[48]
Not-Invented-Here (NIH) Syndrome - Atlas of Public Management
Mar 16, 2018 · “Not invented here” syndrome is the tendency of colleges and universities to develop their own courses, programs, systems and processes rather than looking ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[49]
not-invented-here syndrome and innovation performance
Aug 7, 2025 · Currently, it is commonly accepted that the not-invented-here syndrome (NIHS) refers to internal resistance against external knowledge, ...Missing: prevalence | Show results with:prevalence
[50]
Absorptive capacity and firm performance: an integrative framework ...
Jan 8, 2016 · KEYWORDS: Absorptive capacity, knowledge-based view (KBV), financial performance, firm performance, not-invented-here, desorptive capacity ...
[51]
[PDF] Closing the Software Understanding Gap - DoD
Jan 16, 2025 · To maintain confidence in national security and critical infrastructure systems, mission owners and operators should be able to trust the system ...
[52]
Pros and Cons of In-House vs. Outsourced SOC - ScienceSoft
Nov 4, 2023 · In-house SOCs can respond quickly to security incidents because they are present on-site and have immediate access to the organization's ...
[53]
Intellectual property protection - Pharmaceuticals - PwC
Intellectual property (IP) is a pharmaceutical or biotech company's most valuable resource, and its protection is a key to that company's future success.
[54]
[PDF] the role of intellectual property in the biopharmaceutical sector | ifpma
As increased intellectual property protection leads to more R&D investments and an increase in the number of drugs brought to the market, patent laws have ...
[55]
[PDF] Perspectives on merger integration. - McKinsey
Anyone who has researched merger success rates knows that roughly 70 percent of mergers fail. Over time, this statistic has created an entire culture and ...
[56]
We analyzed 40,000 M&A deals over 40 years. Here's why 70-75% fail
They are the authors of THE M&A FAILURE TRAP: Why Most Mergers and Acquisitions Fail and How the Few Succeed. November 13, 2024 at 3:26 PM EST.
[57]
The Human Factor in M&A Transactions | Foley & Lardner LLP
Apr 30, 2025 · 30% of failed M&A transactions can be attributed to cultural integration issues as the root cause. Deloitte also points to the loss of key talent.
[58]
Why Apple's ecosystem is its biggest competitive advantage
Feb 6, 2014 · Vertical integration has given Apple a competitive advantage, as it owns chip manufacturers, controls manufacturing, follows extremely strict software ...
[59]
Apple Stock: Strongest Competitive Advantage (NASDAQ:AAPL)
Jan 3, 2022 · c) Apple's focus on vertical and horizontal integration (self-sustainability) giving it much stronger power and influence over product ...
[60]
Vertical Integration Works for Apple - But It Won't for Everyone
Mar 14, 2012 · Vertical integration dictates that one company controls the end product as well as its component parts. In technology, Apple for 35 years has ...Missing: proprietary | Show results with:proprietary
[61]
[PDF] External Innovation Implementation Determinants and Performance ...
• The team's project management skills. • The team was cross-functional and had a mix of technical and business skills. • The team's level of teamwork in ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[62]
Investigation of Factors Contributing to the Success of Cross ...
Aug 6, 2025 · The author's results also show that increased use of cross‐functional teams in new product development is related to higher project success.Missing: NIH | Show results with:NIH
[63]
Not Invented Here: Technology Licensing, Knowledge Transfer and ...
Aug 7, 2025 · Not Invented Here: Technology Licensing, Knowledge Transfer and Innovation Based on Public Research. July 2011; Journal of Evolutionary ...Missing: Ruben | Show results with:Ruben
[64]
From Pilot to Production: Scaling AI Projects in the Enterprise
Mar 30, 2025 · Gaining this buy-in early avoids the “not invented here” syndrome later. Creating Compelling Business Narratives for AI Project Support.
[65]
Gathering the ingredients for a successful AI incubator | Kearney
Jul 10, 2025 · This helps overcome resistance and the “not invented here” syndrome when incubator projects are rolled out to the broader company. Moreover ...
[66]
Local Open Innovation: A means for public policy to increase ...
... adoption in SMEs. This is done by investigating perceptions of barriers, benefits, and organisational resistance to openness, such as the not-invented-here ...
[67]
Open innovation within high-tech SMEs: A study of the ...
Opening the Black Box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences. Article. Full-text available. May 2015.