This forum is about wrong numbers in science, politics and the media. It respects good science and good English.
Here we call it "Corporative code of practice"
John, Try "Soviet Central Planning." I often expand it around my work place to "Reminds me of Soviet shoes: ugly, one-size fits many, and warehouses full of them while people go barefoot."
But there is nothing wrong with whatever shoe size is that the warehouse has. I'm looking for something that's always wrong, not wrong unless you have the right footsize.
For example you could have some asset for which there is no liquid market and not a lot of institutional experience. Assume this asset requires a lot of good luck to pay out. You have to assign a value to this for your books so you might
1 - Assign it zero value;
2 - Without any experience with this type of asset, come up with a seat of the pants formula to make an allowance for loss;
3 - Assume nothing will go wrong.
THe accounting firms will say that GAAP requires 3.
I suggest it's called "benchmarking", from "bench", something undemanding used by the derelict, and "marking", a process whereby the impotent judge the energetic.
Here across the pond, we call it the "Lowest Common Denominator" (Hegel's use of "Gleichnamige" which refers to this point is part of a larger argument and is used to a slightly different point in common usage) . It refers in common usage to a race to the bottom that everyone accepts (where opinions coincide). Also it can refer to the mass media where they have "targeted the lowest, meanest, crudest, most basic and perhaps prurient of all possible hopes and dreams of their intended audience." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_common_denominator
Here is a abstract showing how it is used in context http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=507582
Moreover the following site may help clarify the common vs. classical usage http://hegelshotel-dgbn-introductions.blogspot.com/2006/09/1_25.html