Engineering as a noun versus as a verb really threw me for a loop on this one.

The methodology is cool, the scale of the experiment is very cool (16k meetings), the conclusion is kinda workmanlike - as if the question was specifically 'is shared knowledge necessary to generate new ideas'.

  "Overall, this study takes a critical step towards identifying the processes that explain when serendipitous encounters shape knowledge production outcomes among innovating individuals.
  We show that brief, information-rich interactions between people with some overlapping knowledge interests can have a productive effect on knowledge transfer, creation and diffusion."

This tertiary point was distracting as well, seems out of place.

  "Third, we make methodological contributions by highlighting the benefits of long-term studies that amalgamate multiple forms and uses of data. Prospective experiments can support multiple lines of investigation involving both near-term and long-term outcomes that may not be possible in retrospective, archival studies and suggests the use of multiple sources of data for unpacking the dynamics of knowledge production."