That's literally the agile manifesto.
"Scrum" is one implementation of what agile was trying to achieve. Maybe that's what you're thinking of?
Read SAFe Distilled or SAFe 4.5 Reference Guide for what happens in large enterprises (god SAFe is a fuck up). It consists of some good ideas, but also some very explicit practices that don't help in every effort (and sometimes hurt). It is literally the opposite of Agile, which is supposed to be about flexibility.
If you want to hear about its "success", just remember it was used for F-35's software...
Big-A Agile is based on the belief that adoption of practices is sufficient, and that deep understanding is unnecessary. This is the realm of cargo cults.
This is the example I use all the time!!
Maybe agile is great when you're making an online shopping cart for a e-commerce website, but the idea of using Agile for complex, engineered systems is laugh-out-loud hysterically absurd. And this does not just mean spaceflight software, it basically means anything more sophisticated than a CRUD app.
The thing people have to forget is the notion of "deliver on two week increments". It's not about delivering a product that can be fielded each increment, in the case of an embedded system, but about delivering something that has some improvement or new testable component. I can't make an embedded radio handle, in two weeks, a completely new message type (well, depends). But I can do things in each two week interval that is verifiable. I can show that I've actually received the new message, that I can send it back out, that I can pass it through the various internal processors (if multiple processors are used) or processes (if a single one). Then I can start transforming it, storing it, changing other things about the radio state based on the message contents. Each of those is independently verifiable and completable within a short period of time. But taken as a whole, it's a 6-month project. The agile way has you make those small things, verify them, and then move on to the next thing. I can deliver (to the test team, to others using the system) the partially-completed system, it just can't be fielded (and that's fine).
And that's not unique to embedded. If you only focus on things that can be fielded in each increment, you'll never develop the more complex tasks, or address the tech debt.
I know, that's the irony. Agile as pushed today ends up with the compete anithesis of that. It's the difference between "Agile" (Capital A), and "agile"