As marathag wrote, spending as a percentage of GDP on par with the other great powers would help immensly.
1. Doctrinal change of defence against stronger opponents to knock weaker ones out, ie remain on the defensive against Russia, try to take Serbia out.
2. Spend more money on the artillery. If focusing, it should be possible to start replacing all artillery with 76,5mm field guns and 100mm howitzers with steel rather than bronze barrels by 1910-1912.
3. Invest more in MGs.
4. A more long-term plan on railroad usage beyond the initial mobilisation - one of the problems plaguing Austria-Hungary was the fact that they lost a large percentage of their pre-war stock of locomotives and rolling stock in Galizia, where it had moved the troops, equipment and supplies for the mobilisation. The lack of that equipment hampered the country for the rest of the war.
5. Some kind of realisation of the strength of the defensive and attritional/industrial warfare would help a lot - the lack of Russian artillery ammunition production meant that after the pre-war stocks were used up, the otherwise excellent Russian artillery was limited to 2 shots per gun and day.
So in essence, more money to get better artillery, more industrial and logistics planning, a defensive focus against Russia and the rest should just start piling on - not losing the locomotives and rolling stock in Galizia, not losing the whole pre-war army in Galizia, meaning they are in a much stronger position when it is time for Gorlice-Tarnow. Which might mean Italy stays neutral, which allows for importing important goods, especially food. No near collapse late 1914 and during the Brusilov offensive might also mean that Romania stays out, which keeps oil and food imports open there too.
Better logistics, the economy and food situation in a much better shape, Russia worse for wear and the prestige of the Austrian arms intact or even improved by a slightly earlier defeat of Russia might even lead to some kind of negotiated peace int he west.