Your critique of the analytical framework is based on the assumption that this is a business school paper. It isn't. It's from the Naval Postgraduate School in

Your critique of the analytical framework is based on the assumption that this is a business school paper. It isn't. It's from the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, and uses specifically military terminology and design considerations. In military organizational design, "unity of command" [1] is absolutely a central tenet, given the need for precise coordination and the high costs of momentary lapses thereof; "authority and responsibility" is a closely related concept, since unity of authority without responsibility, or unity of responsibility without authority, produces all kinds of perverse organizational incentives. "Contingency factors" [2] are also an organizational principle especially important to military operations given the time-sensitive nature of their activities and the adversarial nature of their obstacles. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_command https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unity_of_command [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingency_theory