Why so though?
Since the EA body of knowledge is not mature, many practitioners are not armed to produce the EA. They are still long debating what framework to employ. They struggle to understand how frameworks compare, overlap or complement each other or what are their strong points and when to use one or another. But what practitioners discover is that, in practice, after the magic and steep costs of the training and certification, most frameworks are of little use.
But few are going to invent an EA framework since that is not part of run of the mill work. Most use a mixed EA approach made up of different bits and pieces from various methods, chosen according to skills and experience.
Hence, as long as they can still call themselves EAs, practitioners' attitude is of wait and see.
Known players seldom acknowledge each other, if at all, and bother little to evaluate each other's approaches or to align or merge their definitions or methods in a common outcome. Apparently, they have an interest in the status quo. No progress, means they can still sell their own frameworks.
As famous parties monopolise the attention, there are lots of practitioners that pay lip service to them, serving themselves in the process, as well. Many take advantage of the situation for own commercial benefit. They continue to milk their own success to the bone, ignoring all others or belittling them.
Few, if anybody, share EA results.
Intellectual property? Few would want to disclose the way they did it because too many fish around for that, while pretending to preach EA to you.
In any case, you'll soon see your ideas published without credit by someone else, as I've seen mine at times.
And, and I believe that this is the most frequent case, the EA outcomes would be too unstructured to be of any use to anybody else, if of any use at all.
In some cases no EA is delivered at all, even if the EA team continues to painfully exist.
There probably are a few good EA approaches (I maintain that mine covers all aspects and returns results) but there is too much opportunistic literature (books...) available today to confuse one for a century.
Besides, in this brave world we live in, without references, costly advertising or belonging to a strong party, the chances of an anonymous to succeed are minimal. Few would readily recognise value as most do not exercise the necessary stand alone critical thinking. As such "smaller" but progressive approaches may not be adopted.
Because, the visibility of the EA function is low since, for one, EA happens in IT for IT. And even in IT, it has a scarce audience. Not many customers to complain as such.
Because the EA still fulfills a useful IT governance and design function, which is to establish standards and principles, regulate the solution design and technology utilisation, do roadmapping, IT strategy and way too often though, do solution architectures, while not doing EA.
EA architects are professionals for sure but they lack the tools to do the job.
Mind you, the EA function can be quite expensive when not delivering. Only the EA tools can cost a fortune on an ongoing basis, even if they are little used as it is usually the case. The EAs are expensive choices too for solution architecture.
Then, there is the large amount of attention and costly time the EAs demand only to justify themselves and the EA, again and again.
Beware also of the EAs policing aggressively the IT development. That typically stirs negative reactions and bad press that render the EA process ineffective.