[gregw2]

The verbiage you cite makes it seem dull.

I thought it was actually pretty interesting.

The take away I got was that people whose fields are too similar don’t knowledge share and generate good knowledge creation nearly as well as situations where the knowledge transfer is with someone with only “some” overlapping interests.

Ie there is a Goldilocks zone for knowledge creation that involves some, but not too many, overlapping interests between collaborators.

It kinda makes sense once you think about it, but was nice to see the sophistication they took to show it experimentally. (But I’m not an expert, this isn’t my field and I only spent 5 minutes skimming the first portions of it.)

Considering that yesterday in a meeting I was casually arguing for peer groups within an scattered enterprise, perhaps time would be better spent with something less rivalrous like semi-peer groups? Too much of a shared interest is actually a bad thing? Worth thinking about.