I once thought like this however things changed once I realized at least a few interesting insights (read: NOT rules!). And this is strictly my opinion, which the OP has asked for.

* Not only must change absolutely come from the top, but so must the attitude. This may require getting new management, takes __money__, and time, and full support from your board. I really want to point to this one article by FC [1] but it's half link bait. None the less this list has characteristics (most of them, not all) of desired change (when you read it, remove 'social'). Sometimes, you may need to get rid of board members. The ones that say "If it ain't broke why fix it?" (because you found out it was never fixed in the first place, or it's broke cause customers don't exist anymore).

* Attitude must be filtered down from the top to the lowest of ranks. This takes time, and may require getting rid of dead weight _just like Silicon valley companies_. [2][3]

* Moving fast means just that. A large amount of people grew up with 'process', love to feel important, is all they know, and firmly believe there is nothing better. (Wish I could site some psychology papers on this with related research in 'process engineering'/'re-engineering' but I don't follow the field anymore and can't remember off the top of my head any...). Even for getting rid of people there is a huge, long process. Microsoft is also seen as NOT moving fast enough [4] (well, in comparison to some banks and health insurance corps MS moves at light speed).

* Get rid of people rather than 're-education'. Sometimes your teams need to be reborn and you _can't_ teach everyone to be at the same level and expect them to have new enthusiasm. Especially so when you have a huge honking boat of people at your Big Corp. People are different, and most likely they were hired for different reasons from when you 'started change'. Many older people (40+) at big corps today surprisingly don't have degrees (which Doesn't matter) nor want to learn anything new (what really matters). If they can't get excited over new tools (read: programming languages, platforms) how they heck will you get them excited with what your going to build (you need passionate people, impossible to have 100% on board with your passion. It's like finding co-founders for a startup).

* Applications and process are entrenched deep so that Big Corp must rely on them. This is really FEAR. Fear of change! See my first point, and if fear still exists keep firing.

* Once you eliminate dead wood, got rid of fear, have board approval, have great teams, you'll need to engrain in to the new culture some form of 'iterative process'. Customers are always moving targets and you should always be ready - to move and catch new ones. Well, unless your a Monopoly (in which case it doesn't matter and any change means less profit on the CEOs quarterly).

* Last bit of insight, sometimes you just can't change people. You can only assemble people, so assemble the ones you need.

[1] http://www.fastcompany.com/1761924/top-ten-ways-ceo-s-must-c...

[2] http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2011/03/17/whom-should-yo...

[3] http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/05/23-insights-from-the-netfl...

[4] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_39/b3952001....