You mean besides the obvious that the Chief of Staff made it his #1 priority?

I'll grant that the conclusions are pretty weak. You have to remember that SAMS is an organization in continual conflict between the academic and the military, and the organization of its papers reflects the need to maintain academic accreditation balanced with spreading military acumen.

I think that the conclusions, although not fully developed, are actually a good reminder for the US Army, which has a tradition of overlooking the human dimension and working for push-button, material solutions. That will work for the AF and the Navy, which are equipment centric, and to some extent for certain Army branches/organizations (Aviation, Armor and Field Artillery are all, to greater or lesser extent, equipment centric, too). The Infantry, however, can never become equipment centric- they remain the most basic, human element of combat. Starship Troopers lays this out pretty well, and Infantry Soldiers will always have to be led into combat successfully, they can never be managed there. To me, that is the core of the 2 case studies- the leaders (SFC Monti and SSG Goggins).