Hubbry Logo
Not invented hereNot invented hereMain
Open search
Not invented here
Community hub
Not invented here
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Not invented here
Not invented here
Not invented here
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Not invented here (NIH) is the tendency to avoid using or buying products, research, standards, or knowledge from external origins. It is usually adopted by social, corporate, or institutional cultures. Research illustrates a strong bias against ideas from the outside.[1]

The reasons for not wanting to use the work of others are varied, but can include a desire to support a local economy instead of paying royalties to a foreign license-holder, fear of patent infringement, lack of understanding of the foreign work, an unwillingness to acknowledge or value the work of others, jealousy, belief perseverance, or forming part of a wider turf war.[2] As a social phenomenon, this tendency can manifest itself as an unwillingness to adopt an idea or product because it originates from another culture, a form of tribalism.[3]

The term is typically used in a pejorative sense. The opposite predisposition is sometimes called "invented here",[4] "not invented there",[5] "proudly found elsewhere" (PFE)[6] or "invented elsewhere".

Scientific study

[edit]

A 1982 study by Ralph Katz and Thomas J. Allen provides empirical evidence for the "not invented here" syndrome, showing that the performance of R&D project groups declines after about five years, which they attribute to the groups becoming increasingly insular and communicating less with key information sources outside the group.[7]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Not invented here

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Not invented here (NIH) syndrome denotes an entrenched organizational and wherein individuals or groups systematically devalue or reject externally sourced ideas, technologies, standards, or knowledge, favoring internally generated alternatives irrespective of objective superiority. This phenomenon manifests as a form of , often rooted in overconfidence in proprietary capabilities and aversion to perceived loss of control or prestige associated with of outsiders' contributions. 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. 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 to . For instance, high-tenure R&D teams exhibiting insularity underperform due to monopolistic self-perceptions of expertise, bypassing potentially transformative external inputs. Subsequent research confirms its persistence, associating NIH with weakened formation and barriers to , where biases against foreign origins erode trust and collaborative efficacy. 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 in shifting from resistance to proactive sourcing. Despite these countermeasures, NIH endures as a causal drag on , particularly in hierarchical entities prone to echo chambers that amplify internal echo over empirical validation.

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 , irrespective of their demonstrated superiority in , cost-efficiency, or reliability. This favors internally generated alternatives, frequently prompting redundant efforts to replicate or approximate external solutions rather than leveraging them directly. Observable in 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 developments that yield comparable or inferior outcomes. At its core, NIH arises from a of internal —encompassing perceived ownership, customization potential, and group cohesion—over objective assessments of efficacy grounded in like benchmarks, adoption rates, or failure metrics. This leads to causal distortions where trumps , as groups exhibit reluctance to external inputs despite of their advantages, exemplified in sectors like software where teams forgo established open-source tools with proven for recreations, incurring higher development timelines and error rates. Such patterns underscore a rejection mechanism detached from empirical validation, perpetuating inefficiencies in and velocity. Empirical observations across industries, particularly in settings, reveal NIH as a recurrent barrier, with analyses of project groups indicating its influence on communication insularity and output stagnation over time. 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.

Distinctions from Similar Biases

The Not Invented Here (NIH) bias specifically manifests as resistance to adopting or valuing ideas, technologies, or originating from external sources, often irrespective of their objective merits, due to a preference for internal . In contrast, the Not Sold Here (NSH) involves an analogous but inverse reluctance within organizations to commercialize or share internally developed innovations with external parties, stemming from concerns over control, , or perceived incompatibility with market needs. This outbound orientation of NSH differs fundamentally from NIH's inbound aversion, as evidenced in frameworks where NIH hinders knowledge absorption while NSH impedes dissemination. NIH is distinct from broader cognitive biases such as , 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; models in highlight this origin-specific trigger as a separate pathway. Similarly, NIH diverges from , a conformity-driven process within cohesive groups that suppresses internal dissent and rationalizes flawed collective decisions, often amplifying 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 's primary focus on internal homogenization. Hybrids of NIH may emerge in scenarios where to internally originated solutions persists despite their or inferiority, sometimes termed variants like "Invented Here But Obsolete," wherein organizations cling to outdated internal technologies over superior external alternatives, blending origin with against reevaluation. This underscores NIH's core as a provenance-based rejection, distinguishable from mere by its accentuation of internal invention as the litmus test for acceptability.

Origins and Historical Context

Etymology and Early Usage

The phrase "not invented here," often abbreviated as NIH, originated in mid-20th-century American 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 to , explicitly identified the "Not Invented Here" factor as the inherent reluctance of large companies' technical staff to or adopt outside inventions, citing it as a persistent barrier in his dealings with prospective licensees. 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 flows. While informal references appeared in discussions during the and , the first systematic academic definition and empirical analysis came in 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 , correlating it with declining performance after prolonged team tenure and reduced external communication. In business literature by the early , consultants adopted the phrase to critique siloed corporate structures that impeded , marking its transition from engineering observations to a recognized in diagnostics.

Development in Management

The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome evolved from informal observations in settings during the mid-20th century to a formalized within by the late and , as scholars began integrating it into models of organizational learning and 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. A pivotal incorporation occurred in theories through and Levinthal's 1990 formulation of , 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 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 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 paradigms, notably Chesbrough's 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 in R&D. Chesbrough argued that overcoming NIH requires deliberate boundary-spanning mechanisms to validate and incorporate external technologies, thereby enhancing in knowledge-abundant environments. Post-2010 theoretical advancements refined NIH's role within broader constructs, particularly in addressing failures in adopting disruptive external solutions during periods of rapid , such as digital transformations where internal legacies amplify resistance to non-proprietary tools and platforms. These refinements underscore NIH's interplay with organizational , positing it as a scalable that intensifies under conditions of high , prompting calls for hybrid models blending internal competencies with vetted external inputs to mitigate causal disruptions in .

Underlying Causes

Psychological Mechanisms

The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome at the individual level manifests through , whereby individuals preferentially value ideas or knowledge originating from their own group while devaluing external alternatives, rooted in that heightens internal identification and resistance to outsiders. 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. Complementing is the , in which internally developed ideas acquire inflated value due to perceived and sunk cognitive or emotional investments, leading to reluctance to relinquish them for potentially superior external options. This overvaluation stems from , a core element of , where the psychological pain of parting with an "owned" idea outweighs equivalent gains from adoption, even when utility assessments suggest otherwise. Such attachment ties internal innovations to , fostering dismissal of outsiders' contributions as inferior despite objective merits. Pride and further drive NIH by framing external ideas as challenges to individual and control, prompting defensive rejection to preserve a of mastery and volition in . When feels compromised, individuals exhibit heightened aversion to incorporating foreign inputs, interpreting them as erosions of personal agency rather than opportunities for enhancement. Lab-based manipulations, such as inducing toward out-group sources, demonstrate causal mitigation of these attitudes without altering underlying beliefs, underscoring the motivational role of ego protection in sustaining NIH. From a neurocognitive perspective, NIH evokes territorial instincts analogous to evolutionary adaptations favoring defense, where "" of ideas triggers of self-generated outputs over external ones, independent of comparative . This , 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.

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 and preserve departmental silos. This structural fosters a perceived "monopoly of knowledge" internally, where objective evaluation of outsider ideas is subordinated to maintaining group cohesion and gradients. Empirical analysis of R&D teams indicates that such hierarchies correlate with reduced external integration, as promotion criteria emphasize internal advocacy over cross-boundary merit. 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 metrics. This 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 processes documents how this pattern arises from causal fears of diluted control and integration challenges, empirically reducing in firms with rigid internal funding protocols. Cultural in established organizations exacerbates NIH by embedding resistance to shifts, as seen in the automotive sector where legacy firms delayed (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 advancements, contrasting with agile entrants like Tesla that integrated global tech without historical encumbrances. This , verifiable through comparative innovation timelines from 2000 to 2020, resulted in erosion for incumbents, as NIH reinforced path dependency over adaptive sourcing.

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. 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. 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. Building on such findings, Matthias Mehrwald's 1999 survey of 51 R&D managers and 89 across 53 large German firms provided broader quantitative evidence of NIH prevalence in European contexts. Respondents reported systematic resistance to external , particularly from competitors, with NIH attitudes linked to overconfidence in internal capabilities and reluctance to incur perceived integration risks. The study quantified these biases through attitudinal scales, highlighting how they contributed to suboptimal absorption, though it noted variability based on firm size and R&D maturity without establishing precise causal delays in timelines. 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 over . They debunked simplistic views of NIH as mere 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 impairments from excessive insularity.

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. These attitudes were found to negatively correlate with innovative work behavior, limiting employees' propensity to generate and implement novel ideas. In contexts, a 2023 analysis of 250 firms across , , , and demonstrated that NIH syndrome undermines inbound knowledge flows by biasing teams against external ideas, thereby eroding external and indirectly reducing overall performance. This effect was mediated through diminished relationship-building and communication with partners, though a fostering climate moderated the , enhancing receptivity to collaborative inputs. 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 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. High interprofessional and proactive behaviors were shown to attenuate this effect (β = 0.24 and 0.72, respectively, both p < 0.05). Within applications, NIH syndrome manifests as organizational reluctance to integrate external AI solutions, notably in , where cultural, power, and competency constraints foster resistance to "foreign" technologies. Similarly, in small and medium-sized enterprises pursuing , 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. 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, demonstrated the not invented here (NIH) syndrome during the early 2000s by largely avoiding in favor of developing proprietary developer tools, even when superior external alternatives existed. This resistance stemmed from a cultural preference for internally created solutions, exemplified by then-CEO Steve Ballmer's 2001 characterization of and open-source licensing as a "cancer" that threatened Microsoft's . The company gradually shifted toward embracing open-source contributions by the late 2000s, joining the in 2009 after years of internal development duplication. In the automotive industry, (GM) exhibited NIH during the development of the in the early 1970s, where engineers rejected proven external designs and supplier technologies to create a novel aluminum-block inline-four cylinder from scratch. 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 failures due to flaws like inadequate cooling. Broader NIH tendencies among U.S. automakers, including GM, involved dismissing innovations from foreign competitors and suppliers during the and , contributing to a decline in domestic market share from over 80% in the 1960s to around 50% by the early 2000s. More recently in technology infrastructure, (AWS) displayed NIH by heavily investing in proprietary custom chips like the processors starting in 2018, delaying fuller integration of external GPUs despite their dominance in AI workloads. This internal focus led to criticism for underutilizing established third-party hardware, with AWS only significantly expanding support in late 2023 amid competitive pressures from and Google Cloud. In parallel, some enterprises in the opted to reinvent and compute tools internally rather than leveraging AWS services, duplicating efforts in areas like despite mature external options.

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 , involved DoD practitioners afflicted by what internal reports described as the "Not Invented Here disease," leading to redundant reinvention rather than leveraging (COTS) technologies suitable for non-critical applications. By 2021, the departing U.S. , 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. 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 of digital health tools—whether domestically or externally developed—significantly influenced adoption rates, with external origins triggering irrational and lower uptake despite equivalent . Echoing this, a 2024 of collaborative dynamics found that healthcare organizations often demand firms adapt commercialization strategies to circumvent NIH attitudes, as bureaucratic silos devalue outsider knowledge and stifle in interdependent care delivery models. In academic institutions, NIH manifests through departmental that reject interdisciplinary or external inputs, leading to inefficient grant processes and duplicated efforts. Pre-2010, panels frequently dismissed proposals incorporating outsider methodologies, prioritizing insular paradigms that reinforced isolation across disciplines. This extends to operational practices, where universities routinely devise in-house courses, administrative systems, and protocols instead of integrating validated external alternatives, a tendency formalized in public management literature as a core driver of academic inefficiency.

Consequences and Impacts

Adverse Outcomes

The not-invented-here (NIH) syndrome fosters stagnation by prompting organizations to reject or undervalue external ideas, thereby delaying the integration of proven technologies and slowing market entry. This creates a causal pathway where initial dismissal of outside s leads to prolonged internal development cycles, as teams prioritize self-generated solutions over faster assimilation of external ones. A survey of 565 projects worldwide revealed that only 16% escaped NIH influences entirely, with affected initiatives showing diminished metrics, including extended timelines for . Similarly, empirical of R&D groups demonstrated that NIH attitudes correlate with lower success rates, as reduced external communication hampers timely of industry advancements. Consequently, firms exhibiting strong NIH tendencies face heightened competitive disadvantages, as rivals accelerate progress through 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 identifies NIH as a key barrier to efficient , where biased attitudes toward outside knowledge result in duplicated investments across projects. In service firms, for instance, NIH has been linked to overestimated negative impacts on routines, yet consistently tied to higher operational waste through avoided collaborations. 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 , as lowered absorptive thresholds heighten vulnerability to environmental shifts and correlate with elevated failure probabilities in dynamic markets. Over time, this causal chain—from knowledge rejection to capacity atrophy—exacerbates strategic rigidity, constraining sustained competitive positioning.

Situations Where NIH May Confer Advantages

In high-security environments such as defense and , 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 systems to build trust and mitigate risks from opaque external code, as external solutions may introduce unverified backdoors or dependencies that compromise operational integrity. Similarly, in-house operations centers (SOCs) enable faster incident response through on-site access and tailored configurations, reducing latency compared to outsourced models reliant on external providers. In the , NIH-driven internal R&D preserves 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. 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 losses and talent attrition that destroy 10-30% or more of deal value on average. 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, , and user lock-in through a cohesive proprietary environment that differentiates products and sustains market dominance. This internal focus has historically allowed Apple to avoid dependency on fragmented external suppliers, fostering innovations like custom that enhance efficiency and security within its closed .

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 of outside innovations rather than solely internal developments. This structural shift counters NIH by aligning personal motivations with broader organizational goals of , as evidenced in case studies where firms using such KPIs reported higher rates of external assimilation. 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 interventions in contexts demonstrate causal links to improved , with participants showing greater willingness to adopt proven external solutions post-training. Establishing cross-functional teams mandated to conduct external integrates diverse internal perspectives with systematic reviews of outside practices, reducing insular thinking. Research on implementation highlights that such teams, blending technical and business expertise, achieve higher success rates in external knowledge absorption compared to siloed groups.

External Collaboration Tactics

Joint ventures and licensing agreements enable organizations to co-develop innovations with external partners, fostering trust and integrating outside 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 mechanisms that enhance knowledge absorption and market orientation. Technology licensing from external sources, including research institutions, further supports this by allowing incremental adaptation of foreign innovations, thereby reducing perceived threats to internal expertise and promoting successful in R&D-intensive firms. 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. Similarly, AI incubators employ pilot rollouts to embed external solutions organization-wide, countering "not invented here" biases through demonstrated efficacy and gradual cultural acclimation. 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 initiatives—such as shared workshops and expert rotations—address resistance by aligning external inputs with internal needs and building relational capital. In high-tech SMEs, founder-led participation in such exchanges further normalizes external sourcing, leading to higher in practices as of studies through 2021.

References

  1. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9310.1982.tb00478.x
  2. https://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp11048.pdf
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229760377_Investigating_the_Not_Invented_Here_NIH_syndrome_A_look_at_the_performance_tenure_and_communication_patterns_of_50_R_D_Project_Groups
  4. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733319301428
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166497223001906
  6. https://hbr.org/2006/03/connect-and-develop-inside-procter-gambles-new-model-for-innovation
  7. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/beating-not-invented-here-syndrome/
  8. https://www.bmc.com/blogs/not-invented-here-syndrome/
  9. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/not-invented-here-syndrome
  10. https://www.cio.com/article/189215/3-tips-for-combatting-not-invented-here-syndrome.html
  11. https://www.hypeinnovation.com/blog/what-is-not-invented-here-syndrome
  12. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/5175534_An_empirical_test_of_the_Not_Invented_Here_HIH_Syndrome_a_look_at_the_performance_tenure_and_communication_patterns_of_50_RD_project_groups
  13. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166497221001589
  14. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/is-your-company-ready-for-open-innovation/
  15. https://www.lead-innovation.com/en/insights/english-blog/open-innovation-vs.-closed-innovation
  16. https://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/groupthink.html
  17. https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2001/10/14/in-defense-of-not-invented-here-syndrome/
  18. https://thebhc.org/sites/default/files/hintz.pdf
  19. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Investigating-the-Not-Invented-Here-%28NIH%29-syndrome%253A-Katz-Allen/c827fe9e418cb4e7891d5f77feb018be5accf8f4
  20. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-era-of-open-innovation/
  21. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/context/management-faculty-publications/article/1078/viewcontent/Whitaker_Digital_Transformation_of_Global_Business_Processes.pdf
  22. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/radm.12136
  23. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280237888_Opening_the_Black_Box_of_Not_Invented_Here_Attitudes_Decision_Biases_and_Behavioral_Consequences
  24. https://kahneman.scholar.princeton.edu/document/9
  25. https://www.hypeinnovation.com/blog/the-not-invented-here-syndrome
  26. https://www.nature.com/articles/srep00460
  27. https://hbr.org/1998/07/how-hardwired-is-human-behavior
  28. https://www.game-changer.net/2011/10/12/ideas-trump-hierarchy/
  29. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/kpm.1725
  30. https://mondaynote.com/evs-the-manufacturing-revolution-40a7f246696
  31. https://www.prescouter.com/2019/02/open-innovation-automotive-cadillac-paradox/
  32. https://macro.media.mit.edu/share/NotInventedHere.pdf
  33. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2147&context=etm_studentprojects
  34. https://amir-sariri.squarespace.com/s/SSRN-id1498919-jg9j.pdf
  35. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10752560/
  36. https://www.mdpi.com/2078-2489/16/1/51
  37. https://www.mdpi.com/2079-8954/13/1/43
  38. https://www.codemag.com/Article/2009041/When-Open-Source-Came-to-Microsoft
  39. https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/microsoft-has-not-invented-here-syndrome/
  40. https://www.curbsideclassic.com/gm-deadly-sin-2/gms-deadly-sin-2-chevrolet-vega-gms-first-deadly-sin/
  41. https://www.csmonitor.com/1983/0901/090149.html
  42. https://www.forbes.com/sites/karlfreund/2023/11/29/following-msft--goog-lead-aws-embraces-nvidia-and-upgrades-own-chips/
  43. https://www.theengineeringmanager.com/growth/not-invented-here-revisited/
  44. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA145493.pdf
  45. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/air-force-cybersecurity-nicolas-chaillan/
  46. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10961-024-10083-9
  47. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287245065_The_not-invented-here_syndrome_in_academia_-_how_to_measure_and_manage_it
  48. https://www.atlas101.ca/pm/concepts/not-invented-here-nih-syndrome/
  49. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311160579_NOT-INVENTED-HERE_SYNDROME_AND_INNOVATION_PERFORMANCE_THE_CONFOUNDING_EFFECT_OF_INNOVATION_CAPABILITIES_AS_ORGANISATIONAL_ROUTINES_IN_SERVICE_FIRMS
  50. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09537325.2015.1131258
  51. https://media.defense.gov/2025/Jan/16/2003629074/-1/-1/0/Joint-Guide-Closing-the-Software-Understanding-Gap.PDF
  52. https://www.scnsoft.com/security/outsourced-vs-in-house-soc
  53. https://www.pwc.com/il/en/pharmaceuticals/intellectual-property-protection.html
  54. https://www.ifpma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/i2023_2022_The-role-of-IP-in-the-biopharmaceutical-sector.pdf
  55. https://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/organization/latest_thinking/~/media/1002A11EEA4045899124B917EAC7404C.ashx
  56. https://fortune.com/2024/11/13/we-analyzed-40000-mergers-acquisitions-ma-deals-over-40-years-why-70-75-percent-fail-leadership-finance/
  57. https://www.foley.com/insights/publications/2025/04/human-factor-m-a-transactions/
  58. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-apple-ecosystem-biggest-competitive-014319100.html
  59. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4477686-apple-stock-strongest-competitive-advantage
  60. https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/vertical-integration-works-for-apple-but-it-wont-for-everyone/
  61. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0338/31e4b28717bb3414a6c87e0a6ac58d2693a8.pdf
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227972376_Investigation_of_Factors_Contributing_to_the_Success_of_Cross-Functional_Teams
  63. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/45140043_Not_Invented_Here_Technology_Licensing_Knowledge_Transfer_and_Innovation_Based_on_Public_Research
  64. https://agility-at-scale.com/implementing/scaling-ai-projects/
  65. https://www.kearney.com/service/digital-analytics/article/gathering-the-ingredients-for-a-successful-ai-incubator
  66. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162518315403
  67. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349183190_Open_innovation_within_high-tech_SMEs_A_study_of_the_entrepreneurial_founder%27s_influence_on_open_innovation_practices
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.