Managing Technology and Innovation: The “Not-Invented-Here”-Syndrome

NIH.

In 1966, an odd situation was happening in the U.S. Navy. It even required an outright intervention of President Theodore Roosevelt's time, who usually would not engage in deep specifics of how operations would be carried out.

The reason? Preventing shier inefficiency unfolding caused by what’s known as the “Not-Invented-Here”-Syndrome is known today (NIH).

But what exactly happened in 1966? What is NIH, and why is it essential in managing technology and innovation?

The Senior Naval Officers “Fell Ill” to NIH

The Senior Naval Officers were experts. For years they have worked on the technology, aided in development, and were part of the routines necessary to operate gun machinery equipment on ships. They took pride in their work with advanced gun technology at the time.

Then, a Junior Officer suggested improvements to the innovation of these guns. The upgrades would lead to significantly higher accuracy of the machinery already in place. What an idea! Excited as a kid, he presented the idea to his higher-ups, the experienced Senior Naval Officers. They will take care of the rest - right?

Unfortunately not. Very wrong, in fact. His bosses refused his idea outright. But why? Why should the higher-ups not include an improvement that objectively increases efficiency? This doesn’t make any sense!

Of course, sometimes “improvements” are either not that great, too costly, too time-consuming, too impractical… or simply not an objective improvement. But sometimes, even if it objectively benefits an organization, a great idea can still get refused. This is where research points to the so-called NIH syndrome.

In the case of the Senior Naval Officer, the reason lies in the NIH syndrome in the area of hierarchical order and attitude functions. The officers were somewhat offended. The idea did not come from them, the experienced and knowledgeable leaders. It was not invented “here” by us, the experts. “Why should a Junior Officer, who does not know nearly enough as us, have even the slightest idea of this technology, despite improving it?” is what a Senior Officer might say, showing that “attitude,” or NIH.

Only Roosevelt could break through this hierarchical NIH problem when he became knowledgeable about it.

Different dimensions.

Hierarchical or organizational externality, however, are not the only regions that can be seen as “external” and thus nurture an NIH syndrome thinking or attitude.

Different external boundaries that can lead to NIH behaviour.

While Antons, David/Piller, Frank T. (2015) have shown a deeper cube in their research, we want to stick to these three dimensions for this article. Keep in mind; however, externality can be perceived across multiple boundaries. For example, a person can be seen as external if they are working in a different department or team. That department or team could also be in another geographic region or even work in an other field of expertise.

1) Functional Boundary

We already touched on one case of the cube in the previous example: the functional boundary. Just as the Junior Officer was in a different hierarchical (different team and therefore function) place, Functional means that in an organization, working in an other group as an example can be seen as external in the context of the NIH.

“This idea didn’t come from our team. It came from the other. It can’t be good. They don’t know our issues.”

2) Geographic Boundary

Why do people in business still fly to other countries for important meetings if Zoom, Skype - you name it, exist? Because it is not the same. The distance is there. And for a quick, less critical meeting, it is a beautiful addition to the toolbox that does not only save time and money but, most importantly, creates a lesser strain on the environment than before.

However, there will probably be no quick Skype call for a multi-million dollar negotiation deal across the ocean. Calls sometimes dropping or not having the best video quality are just some reasons. This can also lead to a perception of externality in a business setting even if the divisions are within the same company and are working on the same goal.

3) Disciplinary Boundary

He is an engineer - you are a sales professional.

Does the engineer suggest what technical improvements you should talk to the customer to increase sales? The points which are “guaranteed” to close that deal?

“He has no idea what sales mean!” would be an answer from you that describes NIH deriving from a disciplinary boundary (while also crossing a functional border).

Why NIH is Important

When we suggest improvements, we also constantly critique someone else's work. It is inevitable. Therefore, it is not surprising to see rejection happening more frequently than accepting that grand new idea or improvement with white gloves.

In today’s world, teams from different backgrounds need to solve complex problems together. Having “fresh” ideas from different backgrounds have a great impact on team performance. However, there are many obstacles, limits, and attitudes to overcome. Acknowledging NIH can be beneficial when thinking about how to approach others.

Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Rost, K. (2010) describe the NIH bias to work in a way best described as an “inverted U-Shape” when it comes to innovation performance. Starting out, the curve is increased through the positive influence of knowledge from different boundaries of the cube described above. Still, it collapses the further one moves across the axis, defined as “cognitive distance”.

NIH is one factor forcing the inverted U-shape to go down and revert the positive effects on innovation performance.

Your experience?

Have you experienced NIH in your career? If so, was it in a functional area? Was the team located in a different region? Did you expect different responses to the surface when you presented an idea before, only to discover an unexplainable negative attitude that did not seem to come from an objective rejection?

Let me know in the comments below, or talk with me via the “Connect” button on the top. I’d love to hear from you.

Resources

Antons, David/Piller, Frank T. (2015). Opening the Black Box of “Not Invented Here”: Attitudes, Decision Biases, and Behavioral Consequences. Academy of Management Perspectives 29 (2), 193–217. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2013.0091.

Talke, K., Salomo, S., & Rost, K. (2010). How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields. Research Policy, 39(7), 907–918.

Wuyts, S., Colombo, M. G., Dutta, S., & Nooteboom, B. (2005). Empirical tests of optimal cognitive distance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58, 277–302.