Stopped reading at "AUTOPOIESIS."

i agree that this is and has been true in our profession, for the most part. this trend is, in my opinion, derivative of our profession's academic/theoretical genealogy, rooted as it is in the humanities.

but there are other models for innovation. approaches to innovation and fundamental and applied research typically found in the hard and soft sciences are also appropriate models of research practice for architects.

for such research/innovation, transdisciplinary collaboration is essential to achieving robust, scalable innovation (meaning the innovation can work in a variety of conditions, not just lab conditions, that it can tolerate unexpected complications without resulting in system failure or endangerment of humans or capital, and that it can be deployed at the scale, complexity, cost, efficiency and in the required quantity necessary to be commercially viable)

in other fields, innovation does not happen by a designer (or a team of designers or a team of designers with access to consultants) charting a course and then allowing 'technical people' to figure out how to 'make the vision work'. rather, innovation happens by organizing teams of people who have different core competencies and who share an interest and experience in a specific design domain, giving them a specific design challenge, and allowing them to bring their collective knowledge to bear through an iterative, collaborative design approach (more similar to where IPD is trying to go with architectural practice, or the way projects are developed at the MIT Media Lab).

the great things about such transdisciplinary collaborative approaches to innovation are that these approaches spread the risk, actually reducing the risk to each party, can be enjoyable, low-angst ways to attack really complex, almost intractable problems, can lead to high-impact, buildable solutions, can accelerate the process of innovation, and result in a well-rounded development of perspective on the issues for each team member involved, as they glean perspective from their fellow team members in other disciplines.....oh, and when you attack problems as interdisciplinary teams of researchers, bringing the complete expertise necessary to address a given design challenge, it is easier to find funding....and the funding options become much bigger as well

in summary, other fields are well ahead of us in how to achieve consistent, substantial innovation without relying on lone artist/geniuses and without taking on undue risk or martyring themselves for the sake of their work. furthermore, one could make the argument that given the complexity and level of integration of knowledge across different domains necessary for innovation today, whether speaking of material science, human-computer interfaces, experience design, engineered systems or organizational dynamics, it is not at all realistic to assume that one individual could ever maintain enough breadth and depth of knowledge across domains to responsibly and thoroughly handle all of the design and integration on their own related to the design of a single instance of innovation.

JM:

"in other fields, innovation does not happen by a designer (or a team of designers or a team of designers with access to consultants) charting a course and then allowing 'technical people' to figure out how to 'make the vision work'. rather, innovation happens by organizing teams of people who have different core competencies and who share an interest and experience in a specific design domain"

Sounds interesting. I dont know much about the success rate for transdisciplinary collaborative approaches, at least in terms of architecture. And especially, when a commercial aspect come into play. How does it compare against avant-garde endeavors? Does it lose the magic? For some reason I think of the car industry.

do apples' products lose the magic? 

with respect to architecture, i think this kind of process is clearly present in integrated project delivery and in the recommended approach to designing sustainable buildings and developments.  So I would say it is where architecture is heading and that this trend started in our profession some 10-15 years ago but even now is not fully adopted. 

as far as success rate, i don't know anyone who would suggest that a lone architectural genius could innovate the development of high-performance, sustainable buildings better than a team with the right core competencies. 

the same goes for product and process design.  In fact, one presenter I saw, who was either from Boeing, IBM or the MediaLab, made the comment that whereas their organization used to look for people who fit a "Renaissance Person" profile, that they now look to compile "Renaissance Teams" because "Renaissance People" with adequate breadth and depth do not exist for today's more complex challenges. People who fit Renaissance Team profiles have a general knowledge of an area, say design for the aging, and a core technical competency in one tiny subset of the domain, such as use of colors as visual cues, and work well within highly collaborative team environments.

Again, this approach relates to product and process design, to fabrication, to understanding user needs, to designing for performance, etc. 

Conversely, it seems it is still very possible and likely that seminal theories, historical/cultural exegesis and grand visions driving design, analysis, new conceptual frameworks or even novel artistic creations are as likely or more likely to come from individuals or very small teams of just one to three people.  Thus there does seem to be a place for the avant-gard with respect to innovation, generally, and within architecture specifically, but maybe not when it comes to developing high-performance buildings, intelligent environments, design tools, etc.