StockTwits the “firm” is enabling a radically different form of “organization” where most of the value created is external to StockTwits itself (i.e. StockTwits can’t capture all the value created by its own service; that would kill it).

Where do these two terms (“firm” and “organization”) intersect? What are the implications for MegaCorps?

(I don’t have the answers, just sayin’

It most probably goes against the laws of social custom to say that human beings sell themselves to the marketplace as tools. Just as we use a hammer on a nail, we use humans to do things in the most useful way possible. The people with the most knowledge and the most intelligence get paid the most (one way to measure). We judge “our people” by how we see them performing that job for which they are hired. Said job may require any combination of knowledge and intelligence, but what is important is that leaders and managers, know what combination is required to do that job. The Army wanted a guy who was great at translating Russian, and weren’t so concerned with the fact he couldn’t hit a static target with an M16 from 50 meters. Measuring knowledge is difficult, but it is probably more important to know how that combination of knowledge and intelligence creates synergies with the other aspects of the value our companies create. The job is easy to replicate, but the synergies create competitive advantage and are harder to reproduce. Using social media to enhance synergy is great, but it can also be a bane, as time is spent on non-meaningful or useless information. That can make an organization a whole lot dumber.
Great Post Tac

You can see companies like Microsoft heading this way by building XML into their Office 07 suite. The groundwork is there we just need the next layer, and the next level of adoption.