Not necessarily.

Multiple software engineers working to solve the same problem in isolation will arrive at different solutions. Some may work better than others, but that's irrelevant; what's important is that these different engineers will have all achieved a complete understanding of the problem and its solution, and when they collaborate on a new, more complex problem that builds on what they've already done, they each bring their own unique perspective to the table.

This is why side projects are so absolutely crucial to a software engineer's mastery of his or her craft; by working through a problem alone, the engineer not only gets a better understanding of the problem, but is also able to apply diversity of thought to a team's problem set.

I eventually started thinking of side projects as the software equivalent of "practicing my chops" as a musician. It doesn't actually matter that much whether all those free-time experiments ever become shippable products - and most of them not only don't, but couldn't - so long as the process of working on them helps me stretch my knowledge and keep my skills sharp.

>This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team.

And that'w why no software engineers working on teams will ever win a nobel prize.

I don't mean to be disingenuous, but did you ever stop to think why team work is so drummed into us?

It's not because teamwork produces better results, it's so corporations can treat us as interchangeable cogs. They want knowledge spread across a whole team to 'de-risk' their projects in case someone leaves.

They know full well that the best work is done by expert individuals, but they choose to promote teamwork anyway.

There's a spectrum.

Teams can certainly achieve things that are too large for an individual. And yes, what you said do exist (and on some projects it is even a good thing).

I don't think there are easy general answers, except that all the energy promoting team working is there because nobody likes it. If it's a good or a bad thing, that will probably change every time.

I wish I had more upvotes to give you.

Thankfully people actually using the software is more meaningful than awards :)

Also why is it so weird to see your company wants you to be replaceable? It’s up to YOU to differentiate yourself.

It doesn't bother me personally, and of course I know I am replaceable even though I do differentiate myself.

I was just pointing out that they over-promote the 'effectiveness' of teamwork.

They sell it based on improved problem solving, when they really want it for operational reasons.

Scientists are also trying to build a cohesive whole: their research needs to be relevant to the rest of the scientific discussion or people won't bother with it.

Likewise, software engineers have incentives to carve out fiefdoms within their company as a path towards recognition and promotion; building one's own team/department within a company begins with these kinds of contributions.

It depends on who you're disregarding. Disregarding your team members makes you difficult to work with. Disregarding your competitors may lead to a different approach that catapults you to the forefront of your industry.

> This applies to scientists, not to software engineers working in a team.

It applies to anyone attempting to do something new, which does exclude most software engineers. Goals and incentives matter, of course, but are secondary here, I think.