I think the problem is an inevitable dilemma that occurs for Agile idea sets. Suppose you express a great set of ideas about agility. This is what then happens:

1. You discover that not too many people pay attention, but many ask, "Can I get certified?"

2. You realize that to get traction, you have to provide certification.

3. Your market research on what certification is desired reveals that most people say, "I don't care about theory - just tell me what to do in order to do your framework."

4. Your partner is a business person who has experience growing businesses and he/she tells you, "We have to teach this in a rigid way, so that as many people can pass it as possible."

5. The training becomes a mill.

You then receive justified criticism from people who truly understand agility.

The original ideas were fine; what went wrong is that in order to grow a business, you had to teach those ideas in a rigid manner.

The problem, really, is that most people want the rigidity. Perhaps those people should not be given a certification. Perhaps one should not compromise on one's ideas and approach. But then what happens is you go the way of Feature-Driven Development, a fantastic method that no one uses because its creators did not set up a certification mill. Instead what people use is Scrum — arguably the worst method of all, but the one that was first to set up certification.