Here is the thought:
Collaboration and Consensus often generate a generalist idea.
In other words … mediocrity.
In the end the consensus ideas may be appealing to the masses (and therefore the group in general) but lacks the distinctness and “edges” that could differentiate it.
That said (before I start hearing the screams of anguish from everyone who advocates the power of collaboration).
I am all for collaboration. I believe it uncovers well-rounded ideas and sometimes even creates that unique “wow” idea in discussion. But collaboration is like a bell curve.
In the beginning, because collaboration doesn’t come naturally to specialists (and it shouldn’t because specialists are good at what they do because they are…well…specialized), you are at the bottom side of the bell curve. This time in the collaboration process is pretty nonproductive and there is (or should be) a lot of banging together of different disciplines and knowledge.
I call this stage “positive friction.” Some pushing and shoving and jostling for ideas.
Somehow the collaborators involved learn to collaborate (typically there is some generalist who is better than others at figuring out how to not only get everyone to “play well together” but also figure out what pieces of the puzzle are most interesting and useful and get them placed on the table to discuss). And ideas start flowing and being discussed and debated.