I'm all for and good eye rolling at institutional Agile (basically checkered with bad management who doesn't know what to do, but abuses buzz words and asserts Agile instead), but this article has a lot of issues.

For one, it's a plug for someone's consultancy, banking on recognition that, like always, crappy teams deliver crappy results and "Agile" didn't fix it, but I promise I have a methodology to make your bad team good.

For another, it seems to gauge success based on how developers felt if they succeeded. Developers will always gripe about evolving requirements, so if they think requirements were set in stone early, they will proclaim greatness (even if the users/customers hate it and it's a commercial failure).