"... EA is becoming a thing that companies do, not a team they have"
We need to focus on how the enterprise gathers, manages and utilises the knowledge.
" ... the focus or central outcome is not technology success; it’s business success. ..."
We need to see how initiatives are driven by the business architecture and realise that ALL requirements (demand) must be driven by the business plan and architecture. Their are no technical requirements.
" ...This has profound implications for the skills and techniques that EAs need for the future. ..."
Items that discuss this further: EA solipsists ; I will be you CRMist ; EA can't be done by Enterprise Architects.
We need EA's to stop thinking their are going to engage the business with UML, ER diagrams, and other technical arcana (see UML no good for EA). We need EA who are articulate and natural communicators, collaborative and including (rather than doing pictures and models for their own or other EA's edification). See Communicating in languages the business understands
"... Integration takes on a broader context that includes people integration, process integration, and traditional technology integration. ..."
This is why in a taxomomy for EA we need to recognise as communications as key aspect of any EA "framework". Old "frameworks" (i.e. with rows and columns) - had columns for things like: what (knowledge, information, data etc.), how (function, process etc.), but lacked a natural column for communication - which ultimately drives the need for all interfaces (with people, with systems).
"... most successful firms will be “architecting their businesses for success …"
"… already seeing firms eschew the term “EA” as being to laden with techno-baggage. …"
Way back in 2007 - the need to use different terms was discussed here: Business and IT Transformation.