There are two potential problems posed in the scenario:

The first, as I believe you presume, is that the business is looking to develop a revenue-generating product. I agree that Continuous delivery, quick iterations, late-binding requirements (a la Behavioral Driven Design), and rigorous testing are not a strong candidate for this problem within the context of big business, and I can point to a handful of systems where this approach did not work well.

However, the second interpretation is that a big business has ten internal projects to increase their efficiency. In this case, return on investment is relatively easy to calculate, but requirements are usually nebulous and thus estimates are by necessity high-variance.

I think the subset of agile techniques I described (as well as cross-functional teams, high customer involvement, and exploratory testing) are well suited to this problem because they, as a collection, allow a business to receive value quickly and allow the business to "fail fast" in lean startup parlance.

Are you building embedded software? The agile approaches aren't, collectively, well suited for that domain (though I'd argue pair programming and cross-functional teams aren't a bad idea here.) It's not going to work for games. But for internal software and <10 client software, I argue that this subset reduces risk and increases the potential of high ROI.
___

Now, as for a few things you mention.

* The programmers are not responsible for calculating return on investment. However, does an extensive requirements gathering mission with months of meetings going to be cheaper when the costs of meetings (in lost productivity and wages) is calculated? In my experience, these documents end up being works of fiction, on which aggressive estimates are produced upon pressure of management. Then, the costs overrun (especially considering that nobody accounted for the lost productivity of the customer) because the estimate was based on business need rather than reality. Then, features are dropped and technical debt accrues, leading to a system that is hard to maintain and is scrapped after five years of frustration when the customer starts again. At least, this time they know what they don't want. I don't think that works.

* I think that is the situation that leads to the "red" projects that you mention. However, you speak about early days of software where most software was profitable. However, I've seen and heard the horror stories of multi-million (and Billion!) dollar projects from the 80s and 90s. While http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=1445 mentions recent studies, I remember seeing studies that 2/3rds of projects fail in the 80s and 90s as well.

So, most software wasn't profitable then (at least in terms of internal projects) and they aren't now.

However, I'd argue that the collection of techniques above allow a project to fail faster and cheaper if managed correctly.

If we were to put it into a methodology, here it is:

1. Determine return on investment if X can be automated. How many hours are saved? How many fewer people are needed to do the same job? What percentage better forecast can this project create (estimated)

2. Use some sort of behavior driven development to get a basic sense of the complexity of the system needed. If the complexity and ROI don't match up, stop here. You've lost a minimum amount of money.

3. Start prioritizing which pieces would provide the most business value for the least complexity cost. Build the first of these pieces, elaborating on the BDD done in step 2. Write this with good tests, so that the system can be extended with a reduced fear of later regression.

4. Demo to customer. Does this fit their needs? Is additional complexity exposed? Does this provide value? This is the next cutoff point. If the system appears to be more complex than thought, or if the team is unable to provide the business value anticipated, stop the project and re-evaluate or shelve.

Everyone gets together and does a retrospective with a question to continue, an honest look at what worked and what didn't, and a set of things to try to fix the problems of the first iteration.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until the software either sufficiently meets the business need or the project is ended early due to a fatal flaw. Always be willing to ask if this is the appropriate time to declare the system "done for now."
___

Now, this won't work in most major corporations for a variety of political reasons, but to me this seems to be a better system than the traditional corporate project structure from my experience in both successful and unsuccessful IT projects.