The problem is to replace inept employees who believe "business decisions" are not scientific questions, so that over time there is a convergence to using the scientific method, with legitimate statistical rigor, when making a so-called business decision.
Generally speaking, the only people who want for there to be a distinction between a "business question" and a "scientific question" are people who can profit from the political manipulation that becomes possible once a question is decoupled from technological and statistical rigor. Once that decoupling happens, you can use almost anything as the basis of a decision, and you can secure blame insurance against almost any outcome.
This is why many of the experiments testing whether prediction markets, when used internally to a company, can force projects to be completed on time and under budget are generally met with extreme resistance from managers even when they are resounding successes.
The managers don't care if the projects are delivered on time or under budget. What they care about is being able to use political tools to argue for bonuses, create pockets of job security, backstab colleagues, block opposing coalitions within the firm. You can't do that stuff if everyone is expected to be scientific, so you have to introduce the arbitrary buzzword "business" into the mix, and start demanding nonsense stuff like "actionable insight" -- things that are intentionally not scientifically rigorous to ensure there is room for pliable political manipulation for self-serving and/or rent-seeking executives, all with plausible deniability that it's supposed to be "quantitative."
