Problem needs to be a convincing and preferably very common problem of some kind. In this article it's "forecasting". And, of course, standard HR/Management practice (surveys + "impartial" statistical analysis in this case) is the way to solve the problem, but of course nobody does it right.
How to solve it ? Buy book X or, if you've got at least 100kg of money to thrown down a hole, hire consultant Y. Only 10kg of money to burn ? Visit website Z, subscribe, buy video, whatever, and get colorful pictures stating the obvious, often with audio.
For this one it's :
A = "forecasting" (really deciding future direction)
B = "forecasting tournaments"
X = https://www.amazon.com/Superforecasting-Science-Prediction-P...
Y = Philip Tetlock ( firstname.lastname@example.org )
Z = https://www.gjopen.com/
Now, don't get me wrong. Hiring organizational consultants CAN work, of course. Getting ideas from within an organization and being frank and fair about them can bring incredible results. Having someone else come in, see the organization and tell you what's wrong can at the very least give you an idea of what's happening from other people's perspective. Maybe it can help you improve things. If you can afford it, I would advise to do it.
I'm sure this person is a capable organizational consultant, but ...
The authors of the book Superforecasting : The Science of Prediction have done research in this area. And a website 
Nate Silver also tells a similar story in his book. He proved it too, by turning pundit.
Furthermore the unforgiving drive for consistency is a reason why people don't update their beliefs when new evidence comes to light. Consider Superforcasting (a book about people with an unusual ability in forcasting the future) the author says that one common trait among superforcasters is that they have a larger capacity for tolerating cognitive dissonance. The drive to avoid cognitive dissonance shackles you to your existing beliefs (see confirmation bias).
EDIT: the intent here was to expose overconfidence and vague predictions, not pay fan service to ethereum or suggest an actual bet. if anybody is interested in how to make proper predictions, I recommend the books by Philip Tetlock, especially the latest called Superforecasting .
EDIT2: I wasn't aware my views are so controversial, so here is some more background: If somebody was convinced something couldn't happen, he'd assign a probability of 0 to that event. If that person wanted to act according to her believes, taking on bets, no matter the odds, would have positive expected utility. Since almost nobody takes on such bets, it suggests that we generally over-exaggerate when we say things like "impossible" or "sorry for you loss", hence we are being overconfident.
The other is vagueness. By not being clear about what exactly we are predicting, we're leaving the door open to back out of it later. In fact, Tetlock has found that, by making vague predictions, experts could later convince themselves (and others) that they were "close", skewing their sense of accuracy. Unfortunately, when subject to a prediction tournament with strict rules, they would score no better than random .
HN readers interested in learning more about forecasting might read Philip Tetlock's book, Superforecasting, http://www.amazon.com/Superforecasting-The-Art-Science-Predi..., which has been justifiably on many must read lists.
We're also hosting a public forecasting tournament for him and his team that focuses on geo-political forecasting: https://www.gjopen.com/
Get dozens of book recommendations delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday.