I'm an amateur, so I rarely push myself to a point of making real predictions. Mostly I think in hindsight: I just observe what happens, and see how it aligns with different hypotheses. It is not rigorous enough for a modern scientific method, but it works good enough to me.
To be more rigorous means not just making a single prediction, but making a lot of predictions, drawing distribution of probabilities over them, and it would need some kind of informational system to fix it because it would be a lot of predictions, too many for my memory.
My way is easier. The most threatening to a validity is a hindsight bias: it is really hard to overcome it, even when you know about it. There are other threats to a validity, but I think not it is a right place and time to dive into this topic.
> this specific text does not seem useful to me in this regard
My guess it is because you didn't interested in a management and inner workings of organizations including long-term social processes taking place in organizations, and suchlike. I do not try to reproach you on this, to tell you that you should be interested -- no. I'm just trying to explain the difference.
Science can see facts because of theories. Some people say, that science grows from objective facts, but it is not so simple. Science can see facts because it have a theory. Theory says what is a fact, and what is an unimportant noise. A precession of an orbit of Mercury was deemed in XIX century as an important fact, because classical mechanics and Newton gravity told so. When you have no theory, then the precession would be at best an unremarkable curiosity, at worst it would go unnoticed.
I have some ideas of how organizations work. I wouldn't call it a theory, because it is not, it is unsystematic and mostly intuitive, but I use it as a theory nevertheless. And it allows me to see facts in places where people who have no theory at all see a random noise.
So my guess is: you see nothing useful in this text, because your understanding of an organization is not nuanced enough. (Once more: it is not a reproach, I do not think that everyone must be interested in what is interesting to me.)