Some years ago all architects thought it to be a really good idea to establish the architecture maturity matrix, me included. The main point that we forgot until it was too late or nearly too late is that architecture is only a third about engineering. The other element are consisting of psychology, creativity and other areas depending in what area we are working. We also require some time to develop different ways to improve existing patterns. All that is almost impossible to put into a maturity matrix comparable with CMMI. The other thing that happens is once you have a fixed maturity matrix system described such as with enterprise architecture in TOGAF, the practitioner becomes a commodity. This is the main reason that EA pirates went to the bottom, not the story that EA are non project related and therefore will get less, since before TOGAF EA were one of the best paid architects.
The point is that once architecture is ruled by a maturity matrix you can train young people to be perfect at that particular routine and as such you employ them a cheap resource (called TOGAF certified EA) that will always score high on the maturity matrix. This however comes with the slow realisation that high scores in the architecture maturity matrix do not translate into higher quality and/or higher productivity. So today often EA are sidelined and we have the raise of EA like jobs that fill the gap that EA should have taken, if it wasn’t for the fact that the maturity matrix was never flexible enough to accommodate this.