I need to write one or two lengthy articles to respond to all that is wrong with this one. I think the underlying reason is that Agile is not well defined and there are many perspectives on what Agile is. Using the analogy of the car, you see Agile from the perspective of the braking system (SW development) and you continue with optimizing the work of the teams (abs electronic, breaking component design, actuators,...) I am missing a holistic view because there are other stakeholders - management (car body), finance (fuel system and engine), customers (passengers), ... The biggest issue where Agile fails is that organizations want to use different approaches to achieve old and inappropriate goals, which prevents them from radical structural changes. Agile delivers value in a new way, to a pool of stakeholders, so reducing it to faster delivery (more powerful breaks) team dependencies (abs), or making more money (false purpose) is not enough. The organization needs to understand stakeholders and balance value delivery among and for them. This requires T-shaped people, culture change, and more discussions about the purpose of the company. What problem does it address? How the stakeholders will be served? Without this there will be tons and tons of articles on "fixing Agille", addressing some pseudo-personal perception. Agile is not about software development. Agile Manifesto describes only one of many perspectives of Agile in a complex system. I would relabel the article - it is not fixing Agile, it is fixing (different opinion om) teamwork and sw delivery while scaling.