I don't think there is an understanding of why agile works, and why it is (essentially) impossible to implement in most places. One subtle, but necessary, effe

I don't think there is an understanding of why agile works, and why it is (essentially) impossible to implement in most places. One subtle, but necessary, effect of the original scrum sprint planning is that it splits accountability between product owner, team, and master. The effect is that, upon failures, there is a way that developers can rightfully blame the product owner or master. Part of the point of time-boxing increments is checkpoints of accountability, so that once the "contract" of a sprint has been fulfilled, the devs can not be held accountable for its product value. If this mechanism is not in place, it means the product owner/master (or whatever title) is just another name for plain old manager with mandate to overrule anything, and in the worst cases with influence over careers of the devs. This is the high entropy state most organizations converge to. In these cases, all product failures will be blamed on the devs (in effect, if not verbally.) In an effective agile organization, there can't exist mechanisms where blame/consequences for failures can be shifted downwards postfact. But this is also the basis for most old organizations. Hence, implementing agile in older organizations will never work.