Not in the slightest. The ceremonies are widespread, but the principles you need for them to be effective are not. Read the Agile Manifesto[0] and compare that with, say, the horrors of SAFe[1] that "Agile" consultants tend to inflict on organisations. They are essentially the opposite of one another.
[0] http://agilemanifesto.org/ [1] http://www.scaledagileframework.com/
For example, a scrum master is supposed to ensure a team follows agreed processes, in direct contradiction with one of the four values of the agile manifesto:
Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
A scrum master is someone running around dictating that everyone stick to processes. Usually that were "agreed" by management (i.e. dictated)[1]. This is also in direct contradiction to several of the principles.
I also love how the customer is shoved in the top right of the diagram, as far, far, far away from the developers as possible. Agile value 3:
Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
[1] Scrum itself is so far from agile and in direct contradiction of the principles I have no idea how they managed to convince everyone it's an agile methodology.
Ok.
> in direct contradiction with one of the four values of the agile manifesto:
> Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
But its not in contradiction. Agreed processes are the outcome of individuals and interactions, not dictates from authority external to the team. The individuals and interactions are superior to, and directing, the processes and tools; that is consistent with the line quoted from the Agile Manifesto, especially when considered with the line everyone forgets that immediately follows the "X over Y" statements: "That is, while there is value in the items on the right, we value the items on the left more."
The Manifesto is not calling for rejecting clear, well-defined processes in favor of chaos. Its calling for making process serve the team rather than vice versa.
The principles make it even clearer.
What's especially damning about Scrum is that there's courses, and prescribed tools, and prescribed processes. Exactly the opposite of what the values and the principles argue for.
Current company, we literally just implemented SAFe and now that I'm learning the ins and outs of that ... Org A was either SAFe before SAFe was cool or even existed or they are the Satoshi for SAFe. The similarities between what I see preached in SAFe versus Org A are scarily similar and when implemented - highly successful.
* Individuals and interactions over processes and tools
* Working software over comprehensive documentation
* Customer collaboration over contract negotiation
* Responding to change over following a plan
Now imagine what the exact opposite of this would look like, and then take a look at SAFe.