I liked the article - I'm reading a management book that uses system diagrams to describe business processes and it separates resources from rates and qualities

I liked the article - I'm reading a management book that uses system diagrams to describe business processes and it separates resources from rates and qualities. The article muddies that with its diagrams but still gets the point across. An example from the book are the resources of recurring customers and staff. If you add marketing, you'll gain customers, and those customers will feedback and bring in more customers by word of mouth if your service is high quality (positive feedback), but you'll also lose customers with poor qualify service and that can be negative feedback. These feedbacks aren't always flowing in only one way. If marketing leads to a surge in customers, and you don't hire more staff quality will sink, and staff might leave due to being overworked . This feeds back into having less staff. The book grabs hold of the causality, you have to understand how your actions will affect the entire system and plan for it. In terms of determining causality, it’s true that major events aren’t ever simply driven by a single cause, but philosophy has studied this to deep depths and that’s where I think the article leaves the discussion too early. The arrow of time is not discussed and neither are necessary sufficient or contributory causes. LSD and Harvard Admissions may be contributory to the events of the 1960s, but not sufficient or necessary to explain assassinations.