Digital innovation is recombinant in nature, based on building blocks and platforms. In this view, “the true work of innovation is not coming up with something big and new, but instead recombining things that already exist.”
I had started a lengthy-ish response to the OP as I read through that article, but stopped when I read the bit above, which is an updated form of this statement from the late 19th century:
… it seems probable that most of the grand underlying principles have been firmly established … the future truths of physical science are to be looked for in the sixth place of decimals.
Research has two branches: normal and revolutionary. Normal research works within existing models to develop them as far as possible (in a sense, to the metaphorical sixth place of decimals). Examples: GPS systems, technology enabling confirmation that gravity waves exist, stuff that comes out of Silicon Valley. Revolutionary research, on the other hand, upends an existing model. Examples of revolutionary research: relativity, natural selection, calculus.
Both branches are essential for scientific progress. Unfortunately, today, many people labor under the false assumption that teamwork --- which is inherently normal science --- is the only way forward. There's too much knowledge! Gone are the days of lone researchers making big discoveries! Wrong: this outlook shows a complete misunderstanding of how revolutionary research works. Teamwork is A way forward in normal science, but not the sole way forward in the research endeavor, and it is highly unlikely to yield a revolutionary discovery.
I'll add only that if teamwork is increasing, yet (meaningful) output is decreasing, perhaps teamwork is not living up to its reputation.
