Talk:Invented Here
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale |
|
|
This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Stub | rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale |
| Low | rated as Low-importance on the assessment scale |
 |
To-do list for Invented Here: | edit · history · watch · refresh | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
This is not the opposite of NIH! Why do both pages say this? NIH is a pejorative attitude to that which was Not Invented Here. IH is an unjustified bias toward that which was Invented Here. Double-negative adds up to equivalence. This page and/or the Not Invented Here page need some fixing! (Comment added by unregistered user 64.180.24.7 on 29 Nov 2006)
[edit] Following revision of page
I believe you are right: NIH and IH are different examples of misguided management: NIH favours the work done in-house, IH insists that work is done by outsiders. I have rewritten the IH article to reflect my understanding of the situation. IH is reputed to be rarer as a management policy, but I remain unconvinced. Ringbark 12:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I am inclined to say this page should be deleted if we can't even agree on what the term means. The first comment indicates it is a unfair bias towards that which is developed in-house, the second indicates it is an unfair bias against that which is developed in-house. Two of the sources portray it as the latter (which I am inclined to agree with), the third source is actually about the benefit that a company got by going to a more qualified designer, and is not an indication of IH, it is a justified bias toward an externally produced solution. Not my leg 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that there have been some that seem to think "not invented here" and "invented here" are manifestations of the same philosophy, while in fact they are opposites. The first comment here from 64.180.24.7 is the one that spurred me to fix it, so doesn't refer to the current version of the page. The third reference, I suggest, is still an example of invented-here, even if choosing the outsider is sometimes preferable: I suggest proponents of NIH would still suggest something as an example of NIH on the occasions that an in-house solution is the best. Certainly the current article needs improvement, not deletion. Ringbark 20:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
