Why was Human Capital left out of the Federal EA?

What’s missing in the Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) is the Human Capital Reference Model. The Human Capital perspective is critical in a user-centric EA.

In the FEA, there are five basic reference models that translate into EA perspectives (or views of information):

• Performance: Measurement of strategic and business outcomes
• Business: Functions and activities that drive performance
• Information: Information needed to perform the mission-business of the enterprise
• Services: Applications and service components that fulfill information requirements
• Technology: Underlying hardware and software that supports service delivery

Additionally, while FEA looks at security as a cross-cutting architecture perspective, I like to call it out as its own EA perspective (for emphasis), particularly in a defense or law enforcement environment.

Finally, to the point, human capital are the people and organizational entities that conduct both the mission-business and technology functions of the enterprise. John Zachman, the founder of modern-day EA included people (or the who) as one of the perspectives in the Zachman Framework. This makes intuitive sense to me.

In order to focus on meeting the requirements of the EA end users, we need to provide for a view of people in the architecture itself. For example end-users need to know who are the key players in the enterprise. Users also need to understand how they align to mission execution and how they will be measured for results. The enterprise and the users need this to build a sustainable high performing organization.

Why was Human Capital left out of the FEA?

Would like to hear any thoughts or opinions on adding a human capital perspective to FEA.

Why was Human Capital left out of the Federal EA?