[vishnudeva]

There are too many blanket statements in this article that aren't well argued or even explained. This for example is just a series of assumptions:

""" The attack on “silos” usually comes from people outside of a silo, generalists who don’t have deep disciplinary knowledge or focused training. These people don’t want their ideas validated by a community of experts. They find expertise to be inconvenient. The image of the silo as narrow, contained, a kind of ivory tower, seems to support the claim that those in them are narrow, out of touch, or secluded. """

The links in the first paragraph actually do quite a good job of explaining what people mean when they say Silos are bad. No one claims that disciplines and departments and teams should become a single blob. This article might be defending something that needs no defense and is not under any attack.

I did enjoy reading about the history of Silos :)