The Open Group OGEA-103 TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Combined Part 1 and Part 2 Exam Exam Practice Test

Option A best aligns with TOGAF Phase A: Architecture Vision, which is the starting phase for an architecture development cycle in TOGAF. This phase sets the foundation for the architecture engagement and ensures alignment with stakeholders and their concerns, especially when evaluating a major transformation like moving to a cloud-based planning and scheduling system.

???? Key TOGAF Concepts Supporting Option A:

1. Phase A: Architecture Vision Objectives

Establish the high-level scope, constraints, and expectations.

Identify stakeholders and define their concerns and business requirements.

Create the Architecture Vision, which includes:

Summary-level Baseline and Target Architecture views (business, data, application, and technology).

Initial requirements and key concerns.

Stakeholder buy-in and approval for moving forward.

2. Engagement with Stakeholders

In this case, the plant managers and local supply chain partners have concerns regarding safety and dependability.

TOGAF emphasizes early engagement with business stakeholders to ensure concerns are identified and incorporated into the vision.

3. Creating Architecture Vision Document

A deliverable of Phase A.

Includes high-level descriptions of the baseline and target architectures, initial business goals, and stakeholder viewpoints.

Used to build agreement and obtain formal approval to proceed with detailed architecture work in later phases (B–D).

❌ Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

B: Focuses on suppliers and not the actual stakeholders impacted by the architecture — i.e., plant managers and internal operations. This diverts from TOGAF’s stakeholder-driven approach in Phase A.

C: This reflects Phases B–D of the ADM (Business, Information Systems, and Technology Architecture). It is too detailed and premature for the start of the project. In Phase A, you don’t yet develop full baseline and target architectures or conduct a consolidated gap analysis.

D: While interviewing stakeholders is valid in Phase A, this option lacks a holistic view of the Architecture Vision development, and skips the TOGAF requirement to produce summary views of the baseline and target architectures and to use them to drive stakeholder buy-in. It is tactically correct, but strategically incomplete.

???? TOGAF Source References:

TOGAF 9.2 – Section 6.2 (Phase A: Architecture Vision)

"The Architecture Vision describes how the proposed architecture support the business goals, and the strategic direction. It also provides a high-level description of the baseline and target architectures and identifies key stakeholders and concerns."

TOGAF 9.2 – Part IV, Architecture Content Framework

"The Architecture Vision includes the scope, constraints, and expectations. It forms the basis for approval to proceed with further architecture development."

In this scenario you are right at the start of an ADM cycle: a Request for Architecture Work has been approved to investigate AI, and there are strong stakeholder concerns and risk questions. According to the TOGAF standard, the correct place to start is Phase A: Architecture Vision, with a strong focus on stakeholder management and capturing their concerns and required views.

Option A is the only answer that correctly reflects this:

Stakeholder analysis & Stakeholder Map (Phase A core task)TOGAF explicitly states that in Phase A you must:

Identify stakeholders

Analyze and group them by common concerns

Use a Stakeholder Map to understand their influence, interest, and required engagement

Determine which views/viewpoints are needed to address their concerns in the architecture description coe.qualiware.com+1

Option A says:

“analysis of the stakeholders … define groups of stakeholders who have common concerns and include development of a Stakeholder Map. The concerns and relevant views should then be defined for each group and recorded in the Architecture Vision document.”

This is exactly how TOGAF describes stakeholder management and views in Phase A:

Stakeholder Map to classify and prioritize stakeholders

Concerns and required views captured and traced

These elements feeding into the Architecture Vision deliverable Visual Paradigm TOGAF+1

Concerns, views, and Architecture VisionTOGAF emphasizes that architecture views are constructed to address specific stakeholder concerns; you do not just build generic models. opengroup.org+1

Option A explicitly links concerns → views → Architecture Vision, which aligns with TOGAF guidance for early phases.

Capturing this in the Architecture Vision provides a high-level, shared understanding of what the AI initiative is trying to achieve and how stakeholder issues (e.g., responsible AI, risk processes, change in way of working) will be addressed.

Risk management and “architecting with agility”In the scenario, the CIO has encouraged architecting with agility. TOGAF is compatible with incremental and iterative development of the target architecture, especially when there is high uncertainty and risk. conexiam.com

Option A includes:

“a requirement that there be progressive development of the target architecture to ensure there is regular feedback.”

This “progressive development” and frequent feedback loop is exactly how you mitigate risk in an AI-heavy, change-sensitive initiative:

Frequent stakeholder feedback

Early validation of assumptions

Ability to adjust scope, constraints, and principles as risk and understanding evolve

This directly addresses management’s worry about the change in the way of working and whether risk management and responsible AI policies are adequate: these become explicit stakeholder concerns and requirements that are iteratively refined.

Why the other options are weaker / not TOGAF-aligned as a starting point

Option B

Focuses mainly on a Communications Plan and powerful stakeholders.

While TOGAF does expect a stakeholder communications plan, it is derived from a proper stakeholder analysis and Stakeholder Map, not a substitute for it.

It also treats risk as a “component of the architecture” rather than something to be addressed early through stakeholder concerns, principles, and iteration.

Option C

Jumps straight to a solution concept diagram and benefits diagram and defers risk evaluation to when the Architecture Roadmap is defined (Phase E).

In TOGAF, risk and stakeholder concerns must be addressed already in Phase A and refined throughout, not postponed to roadmap development.

Option D

Proposes creating draft Business, Data, Application, and Technology models and putting them into the Architecture Vision.

This is too detailed for the starting point: Phase A is about high-level vision, not full draft core architecture models (those belong in Phases B, C, D).

It also doesn’t emphasize Stakeholder Mapping and grouping by concerns, which is central to resolving the worries about way of working, risk, and responsible AI.

In summary, Option A is the best and TOGAF-consistent way to begin:

Start in Phase A: Architecture Vision

Perform stakeholder analysis and create a Stakeholder Map

Define stakeholder concerns and relevant views

Record them in the Architecture Vision

Add an explicit requirement for progressive (iterative) development of the target architecture for continuous feedback and risk mitigation

In the context of the TOGAF standard, stakeholder management and addressing stakeholder concerns are critical components, especially for high-impact initiatives like adopting an AI-first approach. Here’s why the selected answer aligns best with TOGAF principles and the scenario:

Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement:Conducting a stakeholder analysis is essential as it helps identify and document the concerns, issues, and cultural factors influencing each stakeholder group. This aligns with TOGAF’s emphasis on understanding and managing stakeholder concerns, particularly in the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases of the ADM (Architecture Development Method). Since the scenario highlights diverse concerns about AI, understanding each group's unique perspective will help the EA team tailor the architecture to address these effectively.

Architecture Vision Document:By documenting these concerns in the Architecture Vision document, the EA team can provide a clear, high-level representation of how AI will be adopted, its benefits, and how it addresses specific stakeholder concerns. This is critical for communicating the intent and value of the AI-first approach in a way that aligns with the agency's strategic goals, including addressing apprehensions about job security, skill development, and cyber resilience.

Risk Management and Architecture Requirements Specification:TOGAF highlights the importance of identifying and managing risks early in the process. By documenting the requirements related to risk in the Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team ensures that these concerns are formally integrated into the architecture and addressed throughout the ADM phases. Regular assessments and feedback loops will provide a mechanism for continual risk monitoring and adjustment as the AI-first initiative progresses.

Alignment with TOGAF’s ADM Phases:The approach specified aligns with TOGAF’s guidance on managing risk and stakeholder concerns during the early ADM phases, specifically Architecture Vision and Requirements Management. In these phases, the framework emphasizes identifying and addressing risks associated with stakeholders' concerns to build a resilient and widely accepted architecture.

Reference to TOGAF Stakeholder Management Techniques:TOGAF’s stakeholder management techniques underscore the importance of understanding and addressing stakeholder needs as a foundational step. This involves assessing the influence and interest of various stakeholders and integrating their views into architectural development, ensuring that the architecture aligns with both business goals and operational realities.

In conclusion, by conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis and documenting concerns in both the Architecture Vision and Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team can ensure that stakeholder concerns are addressed, that the architecture supports AI adoption effectively, and that potential risks are managed proactively. This approach will foster acceptance among stakeholders and ensure that the architecture aligns with the agency’s strategic goals and risk management requirements as recommended by TOGAF.

Key aspects of the scenario:

Objective:

Integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) into healthcare delivery, with a focus on improving patient care, enhancing workplace efficiency, and enabling seamless experiences.

Challenges:

Stakeholder concerns about risk management, adaptability to change, and ensuring alignment with regulations and policies.

Addressing the concerns of staff and top management about AI integration and achieving the desired goals.

CIO's Perspective:

Encouraging an agile approach to architecture development.

Addressing risks and ensuring stakeholder concerns are managed.

Areas for Evaluation:

AI usage by staff and impact on workflows.

Patient experience enhancement via AI.

New workplace platforms and tools powered by AI.

Option Analysis:

Option 1: Analysis of stakeholders and development of a Stakeholder Map

Pros:

Stakeholder analysis is critical for identifying concerns, viewpoints, and requirements.

TOGAF emphasizes stakeholder engagement early in the process to mitigate risks and align expectations.

Developing a Stakeholder Map ensures clear alignment with their interests and creates a foundation for regular feedback loops.

Cons:

Does not explicitly address the creation of architecture models or policies upfront.

Option 2: Creation of a Communications Plan

Pros:

A communications plan fosters effective stakeholder engagement by addressing their concerns and ensuring transparent reporting.

Risk mitigation as part of communication aligns with TOGAF’s stakeholder management practices.

Cons:

This focuses more on communication mechanics rather than advancing architectural development directly.

Option 3: Models for Draft Business, Data, Application, and Technology Architectures

Pros:

Aligns with the Architecture Development Method (ADM), ensuring compliance with requirements and regulations.

Helps formalize stakeholder feedback by verifying their concerns against tangible models.

Cons:

Developing detailed models early on may delay immediate resolution of stakeholder concerns and risk mitigation.

Option 4: Set of reusable business models for AI-related projects

Pros:

Standardized models ensure consistency and portability across the organization’s AI-related efforts.

Cons:

Too narrow in focus for the initial architecture development phase; does not address risk management or stakeholder concerns adequately.

Recommended Answer:

Option 1: You recommend that an analysis of the stakeholders is undertaken.

Reasoning:

The scenario highlights stakeholder concerns about risks, adaptability, and compliance. Addressing these concerns requires stakeholder analysis as the first step.

A Stakeholder Map aligns with TOGAF’s emphasis on stakeholder engagement, providing a structured way to manage their concerns and expectations.

Identifying concerns early and integrating feedback into the Architecture Vision document ensures alignment with goals and smooth progress.

Option 1 sets the foundation for collaboration and risk management, making it the best fit for the current phase.

In TOGAF, when an enterprise undergoes a significant strategic shift—particularly one initiated by executive leadership without a clearly defined scope, vision, or objectives—the correct starting point is always Phase A: Architecture Vision, and only after a formal Request for Architecture Work is created or updated. The scenario explicitly states that the CEO has approved a request for architecture change but has not defined scope, constraints, or direction. This aligns precisely with TOGAF guidance that Phase A must establish the high-level vision, stakeholder concerns, business drivers, and initial requirements before moving into the detailed architecture development phases (B, C, D).

Answer choice C reflects this: it requires producing a new Request for Architecture Work and developing a new Architecture Vision, which is the foundational step for any enterprise-wide transformational effort. TOGAF also requires application of the trade-off method to balance stakeholder needs in the Vision phase before detailed architectures are designed.

Choices A and D incorrectly assume architecture definition can begin without a clear approved vision. Choice B focuses solely on Technology Architecture, which contradicts TOGAF’s requirement that Business Architecture must lead the effort during major transformation.

Thus, the only answer compliant with TOGAF ADM is C.

Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation

Context of the Scenario

The scenario highlights significant risks due to ransomware attacks and the need to strengthen the company’s Enterprise Architecture to improve data protection and resilience. TOGAF emphasizes the Architecture Compliance Review as a mechanism for ensuring the architecturemeets its objectives and addresses specific concerns such as security, resilience, and compliance with organizational goals.

The organization has already conducted a risk assessment but requires actionable steps to:

Address ransomware attack risks.

Increase the resilience of the Technology Architecture.

Ensure proper alignment with governance and compliance frameworks.

Option Analysis

Option A:

Strengths:

Highlights the need for up-to-date processes for managing changes in the Enterprise Architecture.

Recognizes the importance of governance through the Architecture Board and change management techniques.

Weaknesses:

The approach focuses solely on the Technology Architecture baseline but does not address the need for specific steps such as compliance review, gap analysis, or tailored resilience measures for ransomware risks.

It provides a broad and generic approach rather than a targeted plan for ransomware and data protection issues.

Conclusion: Incorrect. While it adheres to governance processes, it lacks specific actions to improve resilience and address the immediate security concerns.

Option B:

Strengths:

Proposes an Architecture Compliance Review, which is a core TOGAF process used to evaluate architecture implementation against defined objectives, ensuring it is fit for purpose.

Involves identifying stakeholders (departments) and tailoring checklists specific to ransomware resilience.

Emphasizes issue identification and resolution through structured review processes.

Weaknesses:

Does not explicitly address longer-term updates to the Enterprise Architecture, but this can be inferred as a next step following compliance recommendations.

Conclusion: Correct. This is the most suitable approach based on TOGAF principles, as it uses an established process to evaluate and improve the architecture's resilience.

Option C:

Strengths:

Includes monitoring for updates from suppliers to enhance detection and recovery capabilities, which is relevant to addressing ransomware risks.

Proposes a gap analysis to identify shortcomings in the current Enterprise Architecture and recommends addressing gaps through change requests.

Incorporates disaster recovery planning exercises, which are useful for testing resilience.

Weaknesses:

While thorough, the approach lacks the Architecture Compliance Review process, which is a more structured way to ensure the architecture meets resilience requirements.

Monitoring suppliers and running disaster recovery exercises are operational steps rather than strategic architectural improvements.

Conclusion: Incorrect. While it includes valid activities, it does not adhere to TOGAF’s structured approach for architecture assessment and compliance.

Option D:

Strengths:

Proposes analyzing business continuity requirements and assessing the architecture for gaps, which is relevant to the scenario.

Suggests initiating an ADM cycle to address gaps, which aligns with TOGAF principles.

Weaknesses:

Focusing on initiating a new ADM cycle may be premature, as the immediate priority is to evaluate the existing architecture and address specific resilience concerns.

Does not mention compliance review or tailored resilience measures for ransomware attacks, which are central to the scenario.

Conclusion: Incorrect. It proposes a broader approach that may not adequately address the immediate concerns highlighted by the CSO.

TOGAF References

Architecture Compliance Review: A structured process used to evaluate whether an architecture meets the stated goals, objectives, and requirements (TOGAF 9.2, Chapter 19). It is particularly useful for identifying and addressing resilience requirements in scenarios involving security risks.

Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and involving stakeholders (e.g., departments) is a critical part of architecture governance and compliance review (TOGAF 9.2, Section 24.2).

Change Management: The Architecture Compliance Review supports identifying necessary changes, which are then managed through governance and change management processes (TOGAF 9.2, Section 21.6).

By choosing Option B, you align with TOGAF’s structured approach to compliance, resilience, and addressing security concerns.

In TOGAF, the process of breaking down an initiative into work packages must be grounded in a structured evaluation of gaps, solutions, dependencies, constraints, and implementation factors. Option B precisely follows this guidance. It begins by producing an Implementation Factor Catalog, which is a TOGAF artifact used to record business, technical, regulatory, organizational, and risk considerations that influence implementation. This is especially relevant in the scenario because clinical trials operate under strict regulatory controls, highly sensitive data, and complex coordination across multiple research sites.

Next, Option B calls for creating a gap matrix comparing baseline and target architectures across domains. For each gap, TOGAF requires classification of solution approaches: new development, purchased solution, or reuse of existing components. This aligns directly with the Solutions Continuum and the practice of forming Solution Building Blocks. Grouping similar activities into work packages is also textbook ADM practice, ensuring traceability from architecture gaps into actionable implementation components.

Furthermore, Option B incorporates dependencies analysis and restructures work packages into Capability Increments, which is the TOGAF-recommended method for incremental delivery and Transition Architectures. This matches the scenario's requirement for gradual rollout to minimize disruption to ongoing clinical trials.

Thus, Option B fully reflects the TOGAF standard for structured work package definition.

The scenario clearly states that:

The overall objective is known,

BUT the EA team is expected to define the scope, shared vision, and requirements,

The company uses an iterative approach,

The CEO wants repurpose and reuse rather than replace,

This is a major strategic shift (new markets, new products, new crop mix).

According to the TOGAF standard, when the problem must be understood, and scope, vision, and requirements are not yet defined, the correct starting point is Phase A: Architecture Vision, using an iteration cycle.

This is also consistent with the “baseline-first” approach recommended in the TOGAF Series Guides for situations where:

the business direction is known but high-level,

detailed impacts must be discovered,

and the organization wants to reuse existing capabilities rather than replace them.

Option B is the only answer that:

Begins by understanding the problem,

Defines the structure of the change,

Uses iteration cycles starting with a baseline-first approach,

Leads into transition planning,

Supports clarification of the shared vision and requirements,

Fits the CIO’s instruction to “define the scope, shared vision, and requirements.”

This matches exactly what TOGAF prescribes in early-cycle Architecture Vision and initial iterations.

The correct answer is C, as it aligns with the TOGAF ADM approach and best practices for organizing architecture work in a phased and structured manner.

Analysis of the Correct Answer (Option C):

Identifying Projects, Dependencies, and Synergies

The scenario describes a phased approach to vehicle development over five years.

Identifying dependencies ensures a logical and structured rollout of technology and business capabilities.

Developing High-Level Architecture Descriptions

Since Business Architecture is already defined, it is now time to develop high-level descriptions of Information Systems and Technology Architectures.

TOGAF emphasizes incremental and iterative refinement, meaning that starting with high-level descriptions is a logical first step.

Determining Workload and Resource Allocation

TOGAF ADM Phase B, C, and D involve creating architecture descriptions.

Understanding how much work is required ensures efficient resource planning and allocation.

Identifying Reference Architectures and Building Blocks

Using reference architectures and reusable architecture building blocks (ABBs) is a key best practice in TOGAF.

This enables efficiency and consistency in architecture development.

Evaluating Costs, Risks, and Feasibility

TOGAF emphasizes a risk-aware approach to enterprise architecture.

Documenting options, risks, and control measures ensures feasibility before execution.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect?

Option A: Initiating ADM Phase A Again

Incorrect because the scenario states that the Architecture Vision has already been completed.

Phase A is used for initial vision-setting, but at this point, the focus is on executing defined architectures.

Option B: Researching Data Companies for Target Architecture Development

Incorrect because the focus should be on defining internal architectures rather than external research.

While benchmarking best practices can be useful, it is not the primary activity at this stage.

Option D: Studying Other Companies and Performing Readiness Assessment

Incorrect because the focus should be on leveraging the organization's existing architecture and resources.

Solution provider readiness assessments are typically part of procurement, not enterprise architecture development.

The correct answer is B, as it aligns with TOGAF's stakeholder management approach, ensuring that stakeholder concerns are captured and addressed iteratively throughout the architecture development process.

Analysis of the Correct Answer (Option B):

Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping

The scenario highlights that top managers and staff are worried about the changes AI will bring.

TOGAF recommends stakeholder analysis early in the ADM process to ensure that concerns, expectations, and risks are documented.

Creating a Stakeholder Map groups stakeholders by common concerns, allowing architects to develop tailored viewpoints.

Recording Concerns in the Architecture Vision Document

The Architecture Vision (ADM Phase A) serves as a high-level guiding document.

Capturing stakeholder concerns in the Vision document ensures alignment between business goals and technology implementation.

Iterative Development and Regular Feedback

The scenario describes an AI-powered system with major business impacts, so incremental validation is necessary.

TOGAF emphasizes progressive development to manage risk and validate requirements continuously.

Regular feedback loops help mitigate resistance from top managers and staff.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect?

Option A: Creating Models for Business, Application, and Technology Architectures

Incorrect because while compliance is important, it does not address stakeholder concerns directly.

The scenario is about ensuring buy-in from top managers and employees, not just regulatory compliance.

Option C: Using Uniform Business Models Across AI Projects

Incorrect because a one-size-fits-all model does not allow for regional and functional differences within the company.

The scenario emphasizes the need to address specific concerns of top managers and different locations, which requires stakeholder-specific customization.

Option D: Creating a Communications Plan

Incorrect because communication alone does not resolve stakeholder concerns.

While communication is useful, the architecture development process should include stakeholder engagement and progressive validation, not just reporting.

In this scenario, the strategic architecture is already complete and approved, and the sponsors now want assurance about risks before approving the detailed Implementation & Migration Plan. According to TOGAF, this work occurs in Phase E: Opportunities & Solutions and Phase F: Implementation & Migration, where a key activity is performing Business Transformation Readiness Assessment and Risk Assessment before finalizing the roadmap and migration plan.

Option C aligns exactly with TOGAF guidance for this stage:

Why Option C is correct

1. It starts with assessing organizational readiness for change

TOGAF Phase E requires evaluation of Business Transformation Readiness, addressing:

Organizational capability

Cultural readiness

Skills and capacity

Sponsorship and governance

This is exactly what Option C describes:

“assess how ready the organization is to change.”

This directly responds to the concern in the scenario that “most senior leaders feel the operations need to be more efficient” and that “significant changes are necessary.”

2. It includes identification and classification of risks

TOGAF requires performing a Risk Assessment before migration planning, ensuring risks are categorized, documented, and mitigation strategies defined.

Option C includes:

“identification and classification of the risks … together with an approach to mitigate the risks.”

This is precisely what the sponsors requested: clear management of risks before approving migration planning.

3. It ties risk, dependencies, and gaps directly into the Implementation & Migration Plan

TOGAF requires identifying:

Dependencies between work packages

Gaps between baseline and target

Required actions to improve readiness

Work package sequencing

Option C states:

“identifying dependencies between the set of changes, including gaps and work packages… identifying improvement actions to be worked into the Implementation and Migration Plan.”

This matches TOGAF Phase E and F activities exactly.

4. It evaluates business value, effort, and risk for each transformation

The scenario involves three distinct transformations, and sponsors want assurance of value delivery. TOGAF Phase F includes Consolidated Gaps, Solutions, and Dependencies and migration prioritization based on value, cost, and risk.

Option C states:

“The business value, effort, and risk associated for each transformation should then be identified and documented.”

This is directly aligned to the TOGAF-required migration prioritization criteria.

Why the other options are incorrect

A – Focuses on gap analysis only

Gap analysis was performed during Phases B–D, and while relevant, Option A does not emphasize risk, readiness, or assurance—key concerns of the scenario.

B – Misrepresents TOGAF (organizational requirements matrix is not a formal TOGAF artifact)

Also, it incorrectly focuses on aligning change with the operating model, which TOGAF does not prescribe as the primary risk-mitigation activity.

D – Focuses on architectural alternatives; the target architecture is already approved

The scenario states the strategic architecture is complete and approved—there is no need to revisit alternatives. This is misaligned with the starting point of the question.

Conclusion

Option C is the only answer that conducts:

Business transformation readiness assessment

Risk identification and mitigation

Dependencies, gaps, and work package analysis

Integration of risks and improvement actions into migration planning

This matches precisely what TOGAF expects at this stage and what the sponsors requested.

The Business Transformation Readiness Assessment is a technique that can be used to evaluate the readiness of the organization to undergo change and to identify the actions needed to increase the likelihood of a successful business transformation. This technique can help to address the concerns of the key stakeholders about the risks and value of the proposed reorganization. The technique involves assessing the following aspects of the organization: vision, commitment, capacity, capability, culture, and communication. Based on the assessment, the risks associated with the transformations can be identified, classified, and mitigated for. The technique also helps to identify the dependencies between the set of changes, including gaps and work packages, and the improvement actions to be worked into the Implementation and Migration Plan. The technique also supports the determination of the business value, effort, and risk associated for each transformation, which can be used to prioritize and sequence the work packages and the Transition Architectures1 References: 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 27: Business Transformation Readiness Assessment

In this scenario, the enterprise is undergoing significant transformation due to a merger and the adoption of new technology (hand-held devices). Several key principles from TOGAF's ADM Techniques—particularly those focused on promoting enterprise-wide standardization, adaptability, and data utilization—are pertinent here:

Maximize Benefit to the Enterprise:This principle emphasizes that all architectural decisions should deliver maximum business value. Given that the company is integrating systems to cut costs and improve offerings, maximizing the benefit is crucial. Ensuring that the EA efforts align with enterprise-wide benefits supports the goal of optimizing costs and enhancing offerings, which aligns with the CEO’s vision for the merger.

Common Use Applications:Standardizing applications across the merged entity will be essential to achieve cost savings and to simplify operations. The goal of reducing the number of applications fits with this principle, ensuring that reusable and widely adopted applications support business functions across the organization. Adopting this principle will also aid in harmonizing the systems from both organizations and avoiding unnecessary diversity.

Data is an Asset:Data plays a central role in the company's operations, especially with the use of AI-driven inventory management and the integration of systems. Treating data as an asset is essential for reliable and accurate decision-making. This principle ensures that data is viewed as a critical enterprise resource and is managed with care, maintaining integrity, accuracy, and value.

Responsive Change Management:The organization’s ability to adapt quickly and effectively to changes, such as integrating new handheld devices and merging systems, is essential. This principle will facilitate the smooth transition required for integrating the new handheld devices and the merger-related system updates while minimizing disruption to store operations.

Technology Independence:Since the enterprise will likely encounter varied technologies from the merger, it is crucial to maintain flexibility. This principle advocates for using technology solutions that are adaptable and not bound to a single vendor or specific technology. This ensures that the enterprise can integrate various technological components from both organizations and evolve with minimal constraints.

These principles align well with TOGAF's broader recommendations for guiding architectural changes, as found in Section 2.6 of the TOGAF ADM Techniques. They ensure that the EA practice is aligned with business objectives while maintaining flexibility, data integrity, and a focus on enterprise-wide benefits. These guiding principles are critical for the successful execution of the integration and adoption of new technologies while achieving cost efficiencies and improving service delivery.

For reference, TOGAF's ADM Techniques highlight the importance of architectural principles in guiding transformational initiatives, ensuring that decisions are made consistently across the enterprise. Each principle supports organizational agility, system integration, and the efficient use of technology resources, all of which are vital for the enterprise's stated objectives.

According to the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, an Architecture Contract is a joint agreement between development partners and sponsors on the deliverables, quality, and fitness-for-purpose of an architecture1. It defines the scope, responsibilities, and governance of the architecturework, and ensures the alignment and compliance of the architecture with the business goals and objectives1.

In the scenario, the Lead Enterprise Architect has asked you to review the draft Architecture Contracts and recommend the best approach to address the Chief Engineer’s concern about the consistency and quality of the deployment of the new processes for the battery pack production at each location.

The best answer is C, because it follows the guidelines and best practices for defining and using Architecture Contracts as described in the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.22. It ensures that the contracts cover the essential aspects of the project objectives, effectiveness metrics, acceptance criteria, and risk management, and that they are legally enforceable for third-party contractors. It also recommends a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process, and a mechanism for handling any deviations from the Architecture Contract, involving the Architecture Board and the possibility of granting a dispensation to allow the process to be customized for local needs.

The other options are not correct because they either23:

A. For changes requested by an internal team, you recommend a memorandum of understanding between the Architecture Board and the implementation organization. For contracts issued to third-party contractors, you recommend that it is a fully enforceable legal contract. You recommend that the Architecture Board reviews all deviations from the Architecture Contract and considers whether to grant a dispensation to allow the implementation organization to customize the process to meet their local needs.: This option does not address the need to review the contracts to ensure that they address the project objectives, effectiveness metrics, acceptance criteria, and risk management. It also does not recommend a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process. Moreover, it suggests that a memorandum of understanding is sufficient for internal teams, which may not be legally binding or enforceable.

B. For changes undertaken by internal teams, you recommend a memorandum of understanding between the Architecture Board and the implementation organization. If a contract is issued to a contractor, you recommend that it is a fully enforceable legal contract. If a deviation from the Architecture Contract is found, you recommend that the Architecture Board grant a dispensation to allow the implementation organization to customize the process to meet their local needs.: This option has the same problems as option A, and also implies that the Architecture Board should always grant a dispensation for any deviation, which may not be appropriate or desirable in some cases.

D. You recommend that the Architecture Contracts be used to manage the architecture governance processes across the locations. You recommend deployment of monitoring tools to assess the performance of each completed battery pack at each location and develop change requirements if necessary. If a deviation from the contract is detected, the Architecture Board should allow the Architecture Contract to be modified meet the local needs. In such cases they should issue a new Request for Architecture Work.: This option does not address the need to review the contracts to ensure that they address the project objectives, effectiveness metrics,acceptance criteria, and risk management. It also does not recommend a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process. Moreover, it suggests that the Architecture Board should always allow the Architecture Contract to be modified for any deviation, which may not be appropriate or desirable in some cases. It also implies that a new Request for Architecture Work should be issued for each deviation, which may not be necessary or feasible.

1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 3: Definitions and Terminology, Section 3.1: Terms and Definitions

2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 43: Architecture Contracts

3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 44: Architecture Governance

In the TOGAF framework, understanding and addressing stakeholder concerns is crucial, particularly for complex projects with high stakes like the AI-first initiative described in the scenario. This approach aligns well with TOGAF’s ADM (Architecture Development Method) and its emphasis on effective stakeholder management and risk assessment. Here’s why this is the best course of action:

Stakeholder Analysis and Documentation:Conducting a stakeholder analysis is foundational in the early stages of any TOGAF project, particularly during the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases. This process involves identifying the different stakeholders, understanding their positions, documenting their concerns, and considering any cultural factors that might influence their perspective on the AI-first initiative. Given the diverse concerns raised (such as job security, skill requirements, and cybersecurity), it’s essential to have a clear understanding of each stakeholder group’s priorities and fears.

Recording Concerns in the Architecture Vision Document:The Architecture Vision phase in TOGAF focuses on defining the high-level scope and objectives of the architecture project. By documenting stakeholder concerns and the corresponding views in the Architecture Vision document, the EA team ensures that these concerns are transparently acknowledged and addressed as part of the strategic direction. This step not only aligns with TOGAF best practices but also helps in building stakeholder buy-in and trust.

Architecture Requirements Specification and Risk Management:Risk management is a key aspect of TOGAF’s ADM, particularly in the Requirements Management and Implementation Governance phases. Documenting the requirements for addressing specific risks in the Architecture Requirements Specification provides a structured way to ensure that identified risks are acknowledged and managed throughout the transformation. Regular assessments and feedback loops ensure ongoing alignment and adaptability to emerging risks, which is particularly important given the dynamic nature of AI and its associated challenges.

Alignment with TOGAF ADM Phases:This approach follows the prescribed flow of TOGAF’s ADM, starting with stakeholder engagement in the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases and progressing to risk assessment in the Requirements Management phase. By maintaining afocus on stakeholder needs and formalizing these into architecture requirements, the EA team can ensure that the architecture not only meets business objectives but also mitigates stakeholder concerns.

TOGAF Reference on Stakeholder Management Techniques:TOGAF places significant emphasis on managing stakeholder concerns through its stakeholder management techniques, which highlight the need to systematically identify, analyze, and address the concerns of all involved parties. This practice helps ensure that the architecture is viable and accepted across the organization.

By conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis and integrating the findings into both the Architecture Vision and the Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team can proactively address stakeholder concerns, manage risks, and align the AI-first initiative with the agency’s strategic objectives. This approach is consistent with TOGAF’s guidance and provides a structured framework for addressing both business and technical challenges in the context of an AI-first transformation.

This question asks:

What needs to be done to make sure the company succeeds with the transformation and how should risks be managed?

The scenario involves:

Large-scale business transformation

Integration of acquired companies

Significant organizational change

Need to assess risk, readiness, and obstacles

This strongly aligns with TOGAF’s Business Transformation Readiness Assessment and Risk Management guidance (primarily in the Preliminary Phase, Phase A, and Phase F).

✅ Why Option D Is Correct

✔ Matches TOGAF’s Business Transformation Readiness Assessment

TOGAF explicitly states that before undertaking major business change, the architecture team must assess:

Readiness factors

Obstacles

Risks

Degree of organizational preparedness

Option D describes exactly this process:

“identify obstacles that could hinder the project … determine the readiness level … understand urgency, readiness, and degree of difficulty … evaluate initial risks and areas needing attention.”

That wording maps directly to the TOGAF Readiness Assessment steps, including:

Readiness Factor Evaluation

Risk Identification

Mitigation Strategy Development

✔ Addresses Success Factors of Transformation

TOGAF emphasizes that large transformations succeed when:

Readiness factors are understood

Organizational obstacles are identified early

Appropriate preparation is made for people, processes, and systems

Option D describes these success actions.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

A – Implementation Factor Catalog

The catalog helps consider implementation constraints, but it is not the primary mechanism for evaluating overall transformation readiness.

It is more relevant later (Phase F), not at the strategic transformation level described in the scenario.

B – Business Scenarios

Business Scenarios help define requirements and validate the architecture.

They do NOT cover readiness assessment, organizational preparedness, or comprehensive transformation risk management.

Too narrow for the scale of change described.

C – Develop Business Architecture Views + Maturity Model

While views can expose stakeholder concerns, TOGAF does not prescribe evaluating transformation readiness via a “maturity model” in this context.

This is partially correct but not the TOGAF‑aligned method for ensuring change success.

???? Relevant TOGAF Sources

TOGAF 9.2 — Business Transformation Readiness Assessment

Includes evaluation of:

Organizational readiness

Barriers and obstacles

Culture and motivation

Dependencies and risks

Readiness factors scoring

TOGAF ADM Guidance

Readiness assessment is required when conducting large-scale transformation.

Helps ensure risks are identified, understood, and mitigated.

Ensuring compliance with internal and external standards and regulatory obligations is one of the activities included as part of Architecture Governance. Architecture Governance is the practice and orientation by which enterprise architectures and other architectures are managed and controlled at an enterprise-wide level. It involves establishing processes, roles, responsibilities, policies, and standards to ensure that architectures are aligned with the enterprise’s strategy and objectives, and meet the quality and performance requirements. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 3.3.6 Architecture Governance.

1E: To identify delivery vehicles (projects programs portfolios) that will deliver the Target Architecture 2F: To confirm readiness and ability to undergo change 3E: To determine whether an incremental approach is required and if so identify Transition Architectures that will deliver continuous business value 4G: To perform appropriate governance functions while the solution is being implemented

The table describes the output, outcome, and essential knowledge of an ADM phase that oversees the implementation of changes necessary to reach the adjusted target state. This corresponds to Phase G, also known as Implementation Governance, which ensures that the architecture defined in earlier phases is realized, and it oversees the development and implementation of projects to align with this architecture. The essential knowledge required during this phase includes understanding constraints on the implementation team and adjusting stakeholder priority and preference in response to success, value, effort, and risk of change. References: TOGAF Version 9.1 - 1

The Architecture Requirements Repository stores all the requirements that are output of the architecture development cycle, as well as the requirements that are input to the architecture development cycle1. The Architecture Requirements Repository includes the following types of requirements1:

•Stakeholder Requirements: These are the high-level requirements and expectations of the stakeholders, derived from the business drivers, goals, and objectives. They are captured and refined in the Architecture Vision phase and the Requirements Management phase.

•Architecture Requirements: These are the detailed requirements that specify what the architecture must do or deliver to meet the stakeholder requirements. They are derived and refined in the Business, Information Systems, and Technology Architecture phases.

•Implementation and Migration Requirements: These are the detailed requirements that specify what the implementation and migration projects must do or deliver to realize the architecture. They are derived and refined in the Opportunities and Solutions and Migration Planning phases.

The Architecture Requirements Repository is used to manage the architecture requirements throughout the architecture lifecycle, ensuring their traceability, consistency, and compliance1. The Architecture Board is the authority that reviews and approves the architecture requirements, as well as the architecture deliverables and artifacts, as part of the architecture governance process2.

The objectives listed in the question correspond to the objectives of different phases of the TOGAF ADM (Architecture Development Method), which is a method for developing and managing an enterprise architecture1.

The ADM consists of nine phases, each with a specific purpose and output. The phases are1:

Preliminary Phase: To prepare and initiate the architecture development cycle, including defining the architecture framework, principles, and governance.

Phase A: Architecture Vision: To define the scope, vision, and stakeholders of the architecture initiative, and to obtain approval to proceed.

Phase B: Business Architecture: To describe the baseline and target business architecture, and to identify the gaps between them.

Phase C: Information Systems Architectures: To describe the baseline and target data and application architectures, and to identify the gaps between them.

Phase D: Technology Architecture: To describe the baseline and target technology architecture, and to identify the gaps between them.

Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions: To identify and evaluate the opportunities and solutions for implementing the target architecture, and to define the work packages and transition architectures.

Phase F: Migration Planning: To finalize the implementation and migration plan, and to ensure alignment with the enterprise portfolio and project management.

Phase G: Implementation Governance: To provide architecture oversight and guidance for the implementation projects, and to manage any architecture change requests.

Phase H: Architecture Change Management: To monitor the changes in the business and technology environment, and to assess the impact and performance of the architecture.

Based on the above definitions, we can match each objective with the corresponding phase as follows:

Objective 1: Develop the Target Data Architecture that enables the Business Architecture and the Architecture Vision. This objective is achieved in Phase C: Information Systems Architectures, where the data architecture is defined as a subset of the information systems architecture2.

Objective 2: Develop the Target Business Architecture that describes how the enterprise needs to operate to achieve the business goals. This objective is achieved in Phase B: Business Architecture, where the business architecture is defined as a subset of the enterprise architecture3.

Objective 3: Develop a high-level aspirational vision of the capabilities and business value to be delivered as a result of the proposed Enterprise Architecture. This objective is achieved in Phase A: Architecture Vision, where the architecture vision is defined as a high-level description of the target architecture and its benefits4.

Objective 4: Develop the Target Application Architecture that enables the Business Architecture and the Architecture Vision, in a way that addresses the Statement of Architecture Work and stakeholder concerns. This objective is achieved in Phase C: Information Systems Architectures, where the application architecture is defined as a subset of the information systems architecture2.

1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 5: Architecture Development Method (ADM)

2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 9: Phase C: Information Systems Architectures

3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 8: Phase B: Business Architecture

4: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 7: Phase A: Architecture Vision

The objective of the ADM Implementation Governance Phase is to provide an architectural oversight of the implementation and to ensure conformance for the target architecture. This phase involves establishing procedures and processes to monitor and control the implementation projects and to verify that they comply with the defined architecture. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 3.2.7 Phase G: Implementation Governance.

The Enterprise Continuum provides methods for classifying architecture artifacts as they evolve from generic architectures to Organization-Specific Architectures. Generic architectures are architectures that have been developed for use across a wide range of enterprises with similar characteristics. They provide common models, functions, and services that can be reused and adapted for specific purposes. Organization-Specific Architectures are architectures that have been tailored to meet the needs and requirements of a particular enterprise or a major organizational unit within an enterprise. They reflect the unique vision, goals, culture, structure, processes, systems, and technologies of that enterprise or unit. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 2.3 Enterprise Continuum.

Risk Management is the process of identifying, assessing, and responding to risks that may affect the achievement of the enterprise’s objectives. Risk Management involves balancing positive and negative outcomes resulting from the realization of either opportunities or threats. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 3.3.3 Risk Management.

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation from Expert in Enterprise Architecture, guiding in TOGAF and ArchiMate:

In TOGAF, an Enterprise Architecture Capability represents the organizational ability to effectively perform architecture work on an ongoing basis. It encompasses people, processes, governance, tools, and skills required to create and use architecture to guide enterprise change.

This capability enables the enterprise to:

Develop architectures across domains and scopes

Apply architecture consistently to guide strategy and execution

Govern change through architecture principles, standards, and compliance

Sustain architecture practices over time

Why Option C is correct:

Option C accurately reflects TOGAF’s definition: the ability to develop, use, and sustain architecture as a means of governing enterprise change.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A describes the Enterprise Continuum, not capability.

B describes Architecture Principles, not the overall capability.

D describes risk management, not architecture capability.

Authoritative TOGAF References:

TOGAF Architecture Capability Framework

TOGAF Enterprise Architecture Definition

TOGAF Architecture Governance

Gap Analysis is a technique that compares the Baseline Architecture and the Target Architecture to identify the differences and gaps between them. The purpose of this technique is to determine the changes and additions that are required to achieve the desired future state of the architecture. One of the main aspects of Gap Analysis is to identify the functions that are missing or overlapping in the current and future architectures, and to plan how to address them. This helpsto ensure that the architecture is complete, consistent, and aligned with the business objectives and requirements3

The Architecture Landscape is divided into levels known as Segment Strategic and Capability Architectures. These levels correspond to different scopes and purposes of architectures within an enterprise. Segment Architectures are architectures that address specific business units, functions, or processes within an enterprise. Strategic Architectures are architectures that provide a high-level view of the enterprise’s vision, goals, and direction. Capability Architectures are architectures that address specific business capabilities or services that span multiple segments or domains. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 2.4 Architecture Repository.

An Enterprise Architecture Capability is the ability of the organization to perform effective and efficient architecture work, including the definition, governance, and management of its architectures2. The Preliminary Phase involves the following activities1:

•Reviewing the organizational context, scope, and drivers for conducting Enterprise Architecture

•Establishing the Architecture Capability desired by the organization, including the maturity level, roles, responsibilities, processes, and tools

•Defining and establishing the Organizational Model for Enterprise Architecture, which describes how the architecture function is organized and integrated within the enterprise

•Defining and establishing the Architecture Governance framework, which provides the mechanisms for ensuring the quality, consistency, and compliance of the architecture work

•Selecting and implementing the tools that support the Architecture Capability, such as repositories, modeling tools, and communication tools

•Defining the Architecture Principles that will guide and constrain the architecture work, based on the business principles, goals, and drivers of the organization

•Defining the Organization-Specific Architecture Framework, which is an adaptation of the generic TOGAF ADM to suit the specific requirements, standards, and practices of the organization

The Preliminary Phase is essential for preparing the organization for the successful development and implementation of its architectures, as well as for ensuring the alignment of the architecture work with the business strategy and objectives1.

The description provided aligns with Phase F: Migration Planning in the TOGAF ADM. This phase focuses on finalizing and implementing the projects necessary to reach the adjusted target state.

Phase F Objective:

Ensures projects and work packages are well-defined and align with stakeholder priorities.

Translates architecture changes into actionable implementation projects.

Assesses risk, value, and effort in implementation.

Establishes the Implementation and Migration Plan.

Key Outputs of Phase F:

Architecture Roadmap (Updated)

Implementation and Migration Plan

Governance Model for Change Implementation

Why Other Options Are Incorrect:

Option A (Phase E: OpportunitiesandSolutions): Focuses on defining projects and high-level solutions, but does not complete their implementation planning.

Option B (Phase A: Architecture Vision): Establishes high-level goals but does not involve migration planning.

Option C (Phase G: Implementation Governance): Ensures the execution aligns with architecture, but does not define projects for migration.

Building blocks are reusable components of business, IT, or architectural capability that can be combined to deliver architectures and solutions. Building blocks can be defined at various levels of detail, depending on the stage of architecture development. In the earlier phases of the ADM cycle (A to D), building blocks are defined in generic terms, such as logical or physical, to provide a high-level view of the architecture. In Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions, building blocks become implementation-specific, meaning that they are linked to specific products,standards, technologies, and vendors that are available in the market. This phase also identifies the delivery vehicles, such as projects, programs, or portfolios, that will realize the building blocks12 References: 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 23: Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part IV: Architecture Content Framework, Chapter 36: Building Blocks

The ability to develop, use, and sustain the architecture of a particular enterprise using architecture to govern change is an EA Capability. An EA Capability is a set of skills, processes, roles, responsibilities, tools, and techniques that enable an enterprise to successfully develop and maintain its Enterprise Architecture and achieve its desired outcomes. An EA Capability is part of an enterprise’s overall capability portfolio and should be aligned with its strategy and objectives. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 3.2 Preliminary Phase.

Enterprises are examples of the scope of an architecture according to the TOGAF Standard. An enterprise is defined as any collection of organizations that has a common set of goals and/or asingle bottom line. Enterprises can be whole corporations or divisions of a corporation, government agencies or single government departments, partnerships and alliances of businesses working together, etc. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 2.1 Core Concepts.

Architecture governance is the practice of ensuring compliance with the enterprise architecture and its principles, standards, and goals. Architecture governance provides the means to establish, monitor, and control the architecture development and implementation processes, and to resolve any issues or conflicts that may arise. Architecture governance also ensures that all stakeholders are represented and involved in the decision-making process, and that their interests and concerns are balanced and aligned. Statements 1 and 2 highlight the value and necessity for architecture governance to be adopted within organizations, as they emphasize the importance of responsibility, accountability, fairness, and transparency in the architectural activities. Statements 3 and 4 are more related to the benefits and outcomes of having a good enterprise architecture, rather than the governance aspect.

The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 50: Architecture Governance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 29: Architecture Governance

Comprehensive and Detailed In-Depth Explanation from Expert in Enterprise Architecture, guiding in TOGAF and ArchiMate:

TOGAF defines a structured template for Architecture Principles, typically including:

Name

Statement

Rationale

Implications

The Statement:

Clearly and succinctly expresses the fundamental rule or directive

Is normative and prescriptive

Guides decision-making and behavior

Why Option C is correct:

The Statement’s purpose is to communicate the fundamental rule of the principle.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A relates to naming, not the statement.

B describes implications, not the statement.

D describes the rationale, not the statement.

============

The TOGAF standard covers the development of four architecture domains: Business, Data, Technology and Application. These domains represent different aspects of an enterprise’s architecture and provide a consistent way of describing, analyzing, and designing them. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 2.2 Architecture Development Method (ADM).

One of the key responsibilities of an Architecture Board within the context of TOGAF is to achieve consistency between sub-architectures. This board is typically responsible for overseeing the development and maintenance of the enterprise architecture, ensuring that it aligns with the organization's overall strategy and objectives. They play a critical role in ensuring that all sub-architectures (like Business Architecture, Data Architecture, Application Architecture, and Technology Architecture) work together cohesively and support the overall enterprise architecture vision and strategy.

Business scenarios are a technique recommended by the TOGAF ADM for use in developing an Architecture Vision document12. Business scenarios are a means of capturing the business requirements and drivers, the processes and actors involved, and the desired outcomes and measures of success34. Business scenarios help to create a common vision and understanding among the stakeholders, and to identify and validate the architecture requirements . Business scenarios also provide a basis for analyzing the impact and value of the proposed architecture. References:

•The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Phase A: Architecture Vision - The Open Group

•TOGAF® Standard — Introduction - Phase A: Architecture Vision

•The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Definitions - The Open Group

•Business Scenarios - The Open Group

•[The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Requirements Specification - The Open Group]

•[The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Vision - The Open Group]

•[The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Business Transformation Readiness Assessment - The Open Group]