I suspect the confusion is due to the term "efficient", which has two meanings: 1. (technical) creating minimum waste 2. (common) effective. In the real world,

I suspect the confusion is due to the term "efficient", which has two meanings: 1. (technical) creating minimum waste 2. (common) effective. In the real world, firms are undeniably effective compared to most/all real organization schemes. This article is simply saying that there are things that firms do which generate waste (meaning they are not "efficient"). This is a little silly in a way. Unicorns are also better than dogs (and all other real pets).