Here at european Big Corp™, management is worried that our size is making us slow, and they also want to be cool like the start-up kids in the valley. As such, we've been using/trying to use Agile, but with very limited success. Big Corp™'s solution to this obviously low success is to buy thousands and thousands of Euros worth of training, with Agile and Scrum certified trainers and partners, which - every single time - repeat ad nauseam the same doctrine and dogmas, much like liturgy in a church. A few examples:
* "So your colleagues are over-estimating every single task - pardon me, user story! - to have time to browse reddit? Estimate with story points, they'll see that their velocity is slow.";
* "So your colleagues don't like resolving bugs? Put a bug chart in the office where everyone can see it, they'll feel guilty and solve them!";
* "So your colleagues don't like to create tests and write half-assed code, totally ignoring definitions of done and the like? Just wait until velocity drops because of technical debt, they'll understand and learn!".
Well, what's my point here? Agile may require "safety" and all the technical goodies described in this article, but - before that - it requires a team of committed people. This is the basis of Agile and Scrum. And that's where my company fails, and that's why Agile - or any other approach - won't work here until people are responsible and committed. The build is now broken, will a team of uncommitted people will care? They'll push around the responsibility until someone fixes it.
So, yeah, Agile requires safety; but, before that, it requires commitment. I feel it's an engineering-type trait, to try to solve human issues with tools (bug charts, code coverage, continuous integration/delivery), and many engineering-driven companies seem to play the game that way. But all these tools won't solve the real problems which explain why a team might be failing. And if a team is committed, they'll eventually succeed, even without the shiny tools and cool approaches.