[he11ow]

From everything you've described, it seems the company is structurally built so that you would be on a need-to-know basis. I'm going to use the analogy of horse blinders: processes around teams have been built so that ICs would focus on their tickets, just as you describe. This is not an act of malice - in a company this big, to steer the ship in any one way, you don't want noise coming from half your workforce, nothing would ever get done...

But it does mean that all the gaps you are describing are, in many ways, there by design. So going against them is going against the grain of the organization. I think it generally helps to bring something to the table. A point of view on something external to work that could add value inside it. In many ways, though, it still requires hustle, in the sense of reaching out to people and creating opportunities.

For example, you might take an interest in a certain type of antipatterns, and want to propagate the knowledge internally about it, and how to resolve it. (I'll assume the company doesn't actively seek to cultivate this anti-pattern deliberately. You never know.) You might say, oh, I can put together a colloquium about it. So you find the person in the org who's in charge of the events, and talk to the person who books the rooms, and talk to people around you to get ideas on how to promote it internally...you get the drift, it's not all that different to doing these things outside a company. (Except the part where you risk treading on more toes.)

One book that's really useful for just about anything is "The Goal". It teaches you to think in terms of processes, bottlenecks and constraints. With this perspective, you learn to look at the work you and others do not as a series of discrete tasks, but as part of a flow of production. It broadens the perspective on the types of questions you can ask.