Nearly any coherent process an entire organization commits to will work. The questions are more around whether they'll actually commit to a coherent process.
Most orgs I've done "Scrum" in have done "Scrumbut" instead: "It's Scrum, but..." and then screwed it all up.
Customization is part of the game for sure, but gutting the core principles to reduce Scrum to a fancy status tracking mechanism doesn't preserve the benefits very well. It's not the right kind of customization, it's neutering. That seems to be such a common antipattern I have to assume it's a gross flaw in the system itself:
The short term compromises are so startling to traditional management they won't wait to measure medium or long term gains, and instead tweak it to death.
This isn't super surprising given that half the process in Scrum (product owners, scrum masters, either finish as planned or scrap the sprint entirely, etc) is to keep management concerns from whipping back and forth by limiting the amount of influence management has mid-sprint. The other half is supposed to make them comfortable with the first half (estimates, feedback, status, burndowns), and predictably is the half most commonly preserved--as overhead without a tradeoff.
So yeah, think it could definitely work in a group that understands it well, and embraces both the flaws they were getting away from and the features they were getting away to. Unfortunately, I rarely see that level of cooperation in an org, so it usually doesn't work very well.