This is also critical for software engineering as well. Large organizations, especially older ones that sort of missed the software revolution will get bogged down in making sure they're software engineers don't recreate an existing project within the company. This thought process ruins creativity and motivation. It's more beneficial to recreate the same thing 4 times over, now you have a team of domain experts 4x the size and you can take that expertise and factor out the shared patterns into a service or a product. Trying to do it the other way around is a recipe for failure.
There are plenty of counter-examples to this. Just look at Google's messaging efforts (Gmail chat, Hangouts, Duo, Allo, etc.) as a great example of fragmentation without any obvious benefit.
Well if you refuse to learn from mistakes you’re going to keep missing. Gchat is still better than whatever half baked, whitespace filled crap is there now.
> recreate the same thing 4 times over, now you have a team of domain experts 4x the size [...] factor out the shared patterns
This is quite a helpful example. I have spent much of my career concerned about avoiding duplication of effort at all costs, and a significant counterweight just clicked with me.
Comparing parallel experiences for new insights is a core competency of our brains. It's true with many other animals as well.
