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

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

The Enterprise Continuum is a TOGAF concept that provides a logical classification mechanism for architecture and solution assets, ranging from:

Generic, industry-wide solutions

To organization-specific architectures and implementations

It explains:

How generic architectures and solutions are adapted, specialized, and reused

The relationship between Foundation, Common Systems, Industry, and Organization-Specific assets

Why Option D is correct:

The Enterprise Continuum explicitly describes how generic solutions are leveraged and specialized to meet enterprise-specific needs.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Architecture Repository: Stores assets but does not explain specialization.

B. Solutions Landscape: Describes deployed solutions, not classification or specialization.

C. TOGAF ADM: A development method, not a classification concept.

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.

According to the TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, documents which are under development and have not undergone any formal review and approval process are called draft documents, while documents which have been reviewed and approved are called approved documents 1. Draft documents are typically marked with a version number of 0.x, indicating that they are incomplete or provisional. Approved documents are typically marked with a version number of 1.0 or higher, indicating that they have been finalized and authorized. The other options are not correct, as they are not the terms used by the TOGAF Standard to distinguish between documents under development and documents that have been reviewed and approved. The terms “finalized”, “concept”, “deliverable”, and “Version 0.1” and “Version 1.0” are not specific to the TOGAF Standard, and they may have different meanings or interpretations in different contexts. References: 1: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part II: Architecture Development Method, Chapter 7: Applying Iteration to the ADM, Section 7.2.3 Document Categorization.

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.

According to the TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, the Preliminary Phase of the Architecture Development Method (ADM) has the purpose to develop an Enterprise Architecture Capability 1. An Enterprise Architecture Capability is the ability of the organization to perform the activities and tasks related to Enterprise Architecture, such as defining the scope, principles, vision, governance, and stakeholders of the architecture. The Preliminary Phase also establishes the architecture framework, the architecture repository, the architecture tools, and the architecture team 1. The other options are not correct, as they have different purposes in the ADM. Phase G: Implementation Governance has the purpose to ensure that the implementation projects conform to the target architecture 2. Phase A: Architecture Vision has the purpose to define the scope, stakeholders, business drivers, and objectives of the architecture project 3. Phase B: Business Architecture has the purpose to describe the baseline and target business architecture, and to identify the gaps between them . References: 1: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part II: Architecture Development Method, Chapter 6: Preliminary Phase. 2: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part II: Architecture Development Method, Chapter 18: Phase G: Implementation Governance. 3: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part II: Architecture Development Method, Chapter 12: Phase A: Architecture Vision. : TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part II: Architecture Development Method, Chapter 13: Phase B: Business Architecture.

The scope of an architecture is the extent and level of detail of the architecture work. The scope of an architecture can be defined along four dimensions: project, breadth, depth, and architecture domains. The project dimension considers the boundaries and objectives of the architecture project, such as the time frame, budget, resources, and deliverables. The breadth dimension considers the coverage and completeness of the architecture across the enterprise, such as the organizational units, business functions, processes, and locations. The depth dimension considers the level of detail and specificity of the architecture, such as the granularity, abstraction, and precision of the architectural elements and relationships. The architecture domains dimension considers the aspects or segments of the architecture, such as the business, data, application, and technology domains.

Therefore, the depth dimension is the one that considers to what level of detail the architecting effort should go.

The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 25: Architecture Scope : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 25.2: Scope Dimensions : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 25.2.1: Project, Breadth, Depth, and Architecture Domains

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 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).

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

According to the TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, risk is present in all phases within the Architecture Development Method (ADM), and it should be identified, classified, and mitigated before starting a transformation effort 1. Risk is defined as “the effect of uncertainty on objectives” 2, and it can have positive or negative impacts on the architecture project. Risk management is a technique that helps to assess and address the potential risks that may affect the achievement of the architecture objectives, and to balance the trade-offs between opportunities and threats. Risk management is applied throughout the ADM cycle, from the Preliminary Phase to the Requirements Management Phase, and it is integrated with other techniques, such as stakeholder management, business transformation readiness assessment, gap analysis, and migration planning 1. The other options are not correct, as they are not present in all phases within the ADM, and they are not necessarily identified, classified, and mitigated before starting a transformation effort. Budgetary constraints are the limitations on the financial resources available for the architecture project, and they are usually considered in Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions, and Phase F: Migration Planning 3. Schedule constraints are the limitations on the time available for the architecture project, and they are also usually considered in Phase E and F 3. Information gaps are the missing or incomplete data or knowledge that may affect the architecture project, and they are usually identified in Phase B: Business Architecture, Phase C: Information Systems Architecture, and Phase D: Technology Architecture . References: 1: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 32: Risk Management. 2: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part I: Introduction, Chapter 3: Definitions. 3: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part II: Architecture Development Method, Chapter 16: Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions, and Chapter 17: Phase F: Migration Planning. : TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part II: Architecture Development Method, Chapter 13: Phase B: Business Architecture, Chapter 14: Phase C: Information Systems Architecture, and Chapter 15: Phase D: Technology Architecture.

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

The TOGAF Content Framework provides a structured model for architecture outputs, defining:

Deliverables

Artifacts

Building Blocks

Relationships between architectural content across domains

Its primary intent is to ensure that architecture work produced through the ADM is consistent, complete, and reusable, regardless of the project, team, or iteration.

Why Option A is correct:

The Content Framework exists to drive consistency and standardization of architecture outputs when applying the ADM, enabling comparability, governance, and reuse across the enterprise.

Why the other options are incorrect:

B. To prevent gaps in the target architecture deliverable set: Gap avoidance is a benefit, but not the main stated purpose.

C. To store the artifacts identified in the Architecture Repository: Storage is the role of the Architecture Repository, not the Content Framework.

D. To address IT system concerns relevant to an enterprise: This is too narrow and ignores business, data, and application domains.

Authoritative TOGAF References:

TOGAF Architecture Content Framework

TOGAF ADM Deliverables and Artifacts

TOGAF Architecture Repository

The chart shown is a Gantt chart, which is commonly used for project management to illustrate a project schedule. In the context of TOGAF (The Open Group Architecture Framework), which is a framework for enterprise architecture, this Gantt chart is demonstrating the sequenced approach to the Architecture Development Method (ADM). The ADM is the core process of TOGAF which provides a tested and repeatable process for developing architectures. The ADM is described as being iterative, over the whole process, between phases, and within phases. For each iteration of the ADM, a fresh decision must be taken about each of the parameters (scope, granularity, time period, and architecture assets).

The ADM consists of a number of phases that have to be followed in sequence:

Preliminary Phase: Framework and principles

Phase A: Architecture Vision

Phase B: Business Architecture

Phase C: Information Systems Architectures, including Data and Application Architectures

Phase D: Technology Architecture

Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions

Phase F: Migration Planning

Phase G: Implementation Governance

Phase H: Architecture Change Management

Requirements Management

Each phase is dependent on the outputs of the previous phase and the Requirements Management phase runs throughout. The Gantt chart clearly shows the dependency and sequence in which these phases occur, implying that a structured approach is followed to produce the enterprise architecture.

The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, a standard of The Open Group

The TOGAF documentation available at and

According to the TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, the rationale section of the architecture principles template should highlight the business benefits of adhering to the principle, as well as the business risks of not adhering to it 1. The rationale section should explain the reasoning behind the principle, and provide evidence or arguments to support it. The rationale section should also link the principle to the business drivers, goals, and objectives of the enterprise, and show how the principle contributes to the value and success of the enterprise. The other optionsare not correct, as they have different purposes in the architecture principles template. The name section should provide a short and memorable name for the principle, such as “Information is an Asset” or “Business Continuity” 1. The statement section should provide a concise and formal statement of the principle, such as “The enterprise’s information is recognized as a core asset, and is managed accordingly” or “The enterprise’s ability to provide critical services and products must be maintained in the event of a disaster” 1. The implications section should identify the impact of the principle on the enterprise, such as the changes, costs, benefits, and risks that may result from applying or violating the principle 1. References: 1: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 23: Architecture Principles, Section 23.3 Developing Architecture Principles.

According to the TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, an architecture contract is “a formal agreement between a service provider and a service consumer that defines the mutual commitments and expectations for the delivery of an architecture” 1. An architecture contract is a governed approach of a particular deliverable that will ensure adherence to the principles, standards, and requirements of the existing or developing architectures, as it specifies the roles, responsibilities, deliverables, quality criteria, and acceptance criteria for the architecture work 1. The other options are not correct, as they are not governed approaches of a particular deliverable, but rather different types of deliverables within the architecture development process. An architecture vision is “a high-level, aspirational view of the target architecture” 1. A statement of architecture work is “a document that defines the scope and approach that will be used to complete an architecture project” 1. An architecture definition document is “a document that describes the baseline and target architectures for one or more domains” 1. References: 1: TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition, Part I: Introduction, Chapter 3: Definitions.

According to the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, the ADM phases and their objectives are as follows1:

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.

Requirements Management: To manage the architecture requirements throughout the ADM cycle, and to ensure alignment with the business requirements.

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

Objective 1: Ensure that the business value and cost of work packages and transition architectures is understood by key stakeholders. This objective is achieved in Phase H: Architecture Change Management, where the value realization and cost-benefit analysis of the architecture are performed2.

Objective 2: Ensure conformance with the Target Architecture by implementation projects. This objective is achieved in Phase F: Migration Planning, where the conformance requirements and criteria for the implementation projects are defined3.

Objective 3: Ensure that the architecture development cycle is maintained. This objective is achieved in Phase F: Migration Planning, where the architecture roadmap and iteration cycle are maintained3.

Objective 4: Ensure that the Architecture Governance Framework is executed. This objective is achieved in Phase G: Implementation Governance, where the architecture governance processes and procedures are applied to the implementation projects4.

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

2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 21: Architecture Change Management

3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 20: Migration Planning

4: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 19: Implementation Governance

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

The Architecture Landscape in TOGAF describes the state of architectures across time and change. It provides a temporal view that allows enterprises to plan, govern, and manage transformation.

The three levels of the Architecture Landscape are:

Baseline Architecture – the current, “as-is” state of the enterprise

Transition Architectures – intermediate, planned states that move the enterprise from Baseline to Target

Target (To-Be) Architecture – the desired future state

Why Option B is correct:

These three levels represent TOGAF’s standard classification of architecture states within the Architecture Landscape.

Why the other options are incorrect:

A. Segment, Enterprise Strategic, and Capability Architectures: These are architecture scopes, not landscape levels.

C. Gaps, Plateaus, and Target Architectures: Gaps and Plateaus are analysis constructs, not landscape levels.

D. Transitional, Complete, and Incremental Architectures: These are not TOGAF-defined landscape levels.

Authoritative TOGAF References:

TOGAF Architecture Landscape

TOGAF Enterprise Continuum

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

According to the TOGAF standard, the objectives of each ADM phase are as follows1:

•Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions

oDetermine whether an incremental approach is required, and if so identify Transition Architectures that will deliver continuous business value

oIdentify and group major work packages within the Architecture Roadmap

oIdentify and group major implementation projects to realize the Architecture Roadmap

oIdentify dependencies between increments and projects

oEstimate cost, benefit, and risk at a high level for each increment and project

oConduct initial prioritization and sequencing of the Architecture Roadmap and projects

•Phase F: Migration Planning

oGenerate the initial complete version of the Architecture Roadmap, based upon the gap analysis and candidate Architecture Roadmap components from Phases B, C, and D

oConfirm the Transition Architectures with relevant stakeholders

oCreate the Implementation and Migration Plan, including Transition Architectures, work packages, projects, and other activities

oConfirm and agree the Architecture Roadmap and Implementation and Migration Plan with relevant stakeholders

•Phase G: Implementation Governance

oFinalize the Architecture Roadmap and the supporting Implementation and Migration Plan

oEnsure conformance with the Target Architecture by implementation projects

oPerform appropriate Architecture Governance functions for the solution and any implementation-driven architecture Change Requests

oEnsure that the architecture lifecycle is maintained

oEnsure that the Architecture Governance Framework is executed

•Phase H: Architecture Change Management

oEnsure that the business value and cost of work packages and Transition Architectures is understood by key stakeholders

oManage risks and issues related to the Architecture Roadmap and Implementation and Migration Plan

oMonitor the implementation projects and Transition Architectures

oManage changes to the architecture baseline

oManage changes to the Architecture Capability

Therefore, the correct matching of the objectives and the phases is:

•1G: Determine whether an incremental approach is required, and if so identify Transition Architectures that will deliver continuous business value

•2E: Generate the initial complete version of the Architecture Roadmap, based upon the gap analysis and candidate Architecture Roadmap components from Phases B, C, and D

•3F: Finalize the Architecture Roadmap and the supporting Implementation and Migration Plan

•4F: Ensure that the business value and cost of work packages and Transition Architectures is understood by key stakeholders

The Preliminary Phase is the preparatory phase of the Architecture Development Method (ADM) cycle, which sets the context and direction for the architecture work. One of the objectives of this phase is to select and implement tools to support the Architecture Capability, which is the ability of an organization to perform enterprise architecture effectively and efficiently. Tools can include software applications, methods, techniques, standards, and frameworks that assist the architecture development and governance processes. The selection and implementation of tools should be based on the requirements and constraints of the organization, and the alignment with the Architecture Principles and the Architecture Vision3 References: 3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 6: Preliminary Phase : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 45: Establishing and Maintaining an Enterprise Architecture Capability : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 46: Tools for Architecture Development

An Architecture Contract is a deliverable that specifies the responsibilities and obligations of the parties involved in the implementation and governance of an architecture. It ensures a system of continuous monitoring to check integrity changes decision-making and audit of all architecture-related activities. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 3.3.4 Architecture Contracts.

The purpose of the Preliminary Phase is to architect an Enterprise Architecture Capability that meets the needs and expectations of the enterprise’s stakeholders and supports and enables subsequent phases of architecture development and transition. This phase involves defining the scope, principles, framework, and governance for the Enterprise Architecture Capability. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 3.2 Preliminary Phase.

An EA Capability is the ability of an organization to perform enterprise architecture effectively and efficiently. It involves establishing and maintaining the appropriate organization structures, roles, responsibilities, skills, processes, tools, and governance mechanisms to support the development and use of enterprise architecture. An EA Capability enables the organization to align its business and IT strategies, deliver value from its investments, manage change and complexity, and improve its performance and agility12 References: 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 44: Introduction 2: TheTOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 45: Establishing and Maintaining an Enterprise Architecture Capability

Based on the TOGAF standard, this answer is the best approach for architecture development to realize the CEO’s change in direction for the company. The reason is as follows:

The scenario describes a major business transformation that requires a clear understanding of the current and future states of the enterprise, as well as the gaps and opportunities for change. Therefore, the priority is to understand and bring structure to the definition of the change, rather than focusing on the implementation details or the technology aspects.

The team should use the TOGAF ADM as the method and guiding framework for architecture development, and adapt it to suit the specific needs and context of the enterprise. The team should also leverage the existing Architecture Capability and the Architecture Repository to reuse and integrate relevant architecture assets and resources.

The team should focus iteration cycles on a baseline first approach to architecture development, which means starting with the definition of the Baseline Architecture in each domain (Business, Data, Application, and Technology), and then defining the Target Architecture in each domain. This will help to identify the current and desired states of the enterprise, and to perform a gap analysis to determine what needs to change in order to achieve the business goals and objectives.

The team should then focus on transition planning, which involves identifying and prioritizing the work packages, projects, and activities that will deliver the change. The team should also create an Architecture Roadmap and an Implementation and Migration Plan that will guide the execution and governance of the change.

The team should use the Architecture Vision phase and the Requirements Management phase to work out in detail what the shared vision is for the change, and to capture and validate the stakeholder requirements and expectations. The team should also use the Architecture Governance framework to ensure the quality, consistency, and compliance of the architecture work.

 The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Development Method : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Requirements Management : [The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Governance]

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 Business Value Assessment Technique is a technique that can be used to estimate and compare the business value of the projects and project increments that implement the architecture work packages, which are the sets of actions or tasks that are required to implement a specific part of the architecture. The business value is the measure of the benefits or advantages that the project or project increment delivers to the business, such as increased revenue, reduced costs, improved quality, or enhanced customer satisfaction1

The steps for applying the Business Value Assessment Technique are:

Identify the criteria and factors that are relevant to the business value assessment, such as costs, benefits, risks, and opportunities. The criteria and factors should be aligned with the business goals and drivers that motivate the architecture work, and the stakeholder requirements and concerns that influence the architecture work.

Assign weights and scores to the criteria and factors, using various methods, such as expert judgment, historical data, or analytical models. The weights and scores should reflect the importance and performance of the criteria and factors, and the trade-offs and preferences of the stakeholders.

Calculate the business value for each project or project increment, using various techniques, such as net present value, return on investment, or balanced scorecard. The business value should indicate the expected or actual outcomes and impacts of the project or project increment on the business.

Prioritize the implementation projects and project increments, based on the business value and other considerations, such as dependencies, resources, or risks. The prioritization should determine the order or sequence of the projects and project increments, and the allocation and utilization of the resources.

Therefore, the best answer is C, because it describes the next steps for the migration planning, which are the activities that support the transition from the Baseline Architecture to the Target Architecture. The answer covers the Business Value Assessment Technique, which is relevant to the scenario.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 28: Business Value Assessment Technique : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 18: Phase A: Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 21: Phase F: Migration Planning : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part IV: Architecture Content Framework, Chapter 36: Building Blocks

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.

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.

A Request for Architecture Work is a document that describes the scope, approach, and expected outcomes of an architecture project. A Request for Architecture Work is usually initiated by the sponsor or client of the architecture work, and approved by the Architecture Board, which is a governance body that oversees the architecture work and ensures compliance with the architecture principles, standards, and goals. A Request for Architecture Work triggers a new cycle of the Architecture Development Method (ADM), which is the core process of the TOGAF standard that guides the development and management of the enterprise architecture12

An Architecture Vision is a high-level description of the desired outcomes and benefits of the proposed architecture. An Architecture Vision is the output of Phase A: Architecture Vision of the ADM cycle, which is the first phase of the architecture development. An Architecture Vision defines the scope and approach of the architecture work, and establishes the business goals and drivers that motivate the architecture work. An Architecture Vision also involves obtaining the approval and commitment of the sponsors and other key stakeholders, and initiating the Architecture Governance process3

A trade-off analysis is a technique that can be used to evaluate and compare different architecture alternatives and select the most suitable one. A trade-off analysis involves identifying the criteria and factors that are relevant to the decision, such as costs, benefits, risks, and opportunities, and assessing the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative. A trade-off analysis also involves balancing and reconciling the multiple, often conflicting, requirements and concerns of the stakeholders, and ensuring alignment with the Architecture Vision and the Architecture Principles.

Therefore, the best answer is D, because it proposes the best approach for architecture development to realize the CEO’s change in direction for the company. The answer covers the Request for Architecture Work, the Architecture Vision, and the trade-off analysis techniques that are relevant to the scenario.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 7: Request for Architecture Work 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 50: Architecture Governance 3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 18: Phase A: Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Trade-Off Analysis

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.

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.

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

According to the TOGAF standard, the Target Architecture is the description of a future state of the architecture being developed for an organization. It should be aligned with the Architecture Vision, Principles, and Requirements that have been agreed with the stakeholders. To address the incompatibilities between key stakeholder preferences, the TOGAF standard recommends creating and evaluating multiple alternative Target Architectures that meet different sets of criteria. These criteria should reflect the value preferences and priorities of the stakeholders, as well as the business drivers and objectives. The alternative Target Architectures should be illustrated using a set of architecture views that show the impact of each alternative on the business, data, application, and technology domains. The impact on planned projects should also be identified and analyzed. The strengths and weaknesses of each alternative should be understood and documented. A formal stakeholder review should then be conducted to decide which alternative is the most fit for purpose and should be moved forward with. The funding required for implementing the chosen alternative should also be determined and secured. References:

The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Phase B: Business Architecture - The Open Group

The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Phase C: Information Systems Architectures - The Open Group

[The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Phase D: Technology Architecture - The Open Group]

[The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions - The Open Group]

[The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Phase F: Migration Planning - The Open Group]

Option C aligns best with TOGAF Phase F: Migration Planning, which deals with developing a detailed Implementation and Migration Plan, ensuring alignment with other enterprise frameworks, and assigning business value to work packages and projects.

???? TOGAF Phase F Activities (from the standard):

Confirm Management Framework Interactions:

Per TOGAF, Phase F ensures that the migration planning is aligned with the business planning, portfolio/project management, and operations management frameworks used by the enterprise (which are mentioned in the scenario).

TOGAF emphasizes coordination between EA and other enterprise governance processes.

Prioritize Projects:

TOGAF recommends using business value, resource availability, and strategic alignment to prioritize the various work packages and projects for implementation.

This is directly referenced in option C: "assign a business value to each project, considering the available resources and how well they align with the strategy."

Update Roadmaps and Implementation Plan:

After coordination and prioritization, the Architecture Roadmap and the Implementation and Migration Plan are updated.

This is essential before formal governance (Phase G).

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A: Incorrect focus on updating the Architecture Definition Document and lessons learned.

The Architecture Definition Document is mostly finalized in Phases B–E.

Lessons learned and governance modeling are more relevant to Phase G (Implementation Governance) and Phase H (Architecture Change Management), not Phase F.

B: Although it mentions the Business Value Assessment Technique (a valid tool in TOGAF), it includes Architecture Definition Increments Table, which is not a standard TOGAF artifact.

Also, "document the lessons learned" is premature in Phase F; these are more applicable in Phase H.

D: Focuses on Compliance Assessment, which is part of Phase G (Implementation Governance), not Phase F.

Changing performance requirements based on monitoring tools is handled during operations and change management, not during migration planning.

???? Source References from TOGAF:

TOGAF 9.2 – Section 11.3 (Phase F: Migration Planning)

"Activities include confirming the enterprise's capability for transition, prioritizing projects, identifying dependencies and resource availability, and co-ordinating with other management frameworks."

TOGAF 9.2 – Section 11.4 Outputs:

Architecture Roadmap (updated)

Implementation and Migration Plan (updated)

Business Value Assessment

Consolidated Gaps, Solutions, and Dependencies

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.

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.

The best answer is C. You would hold a series of interviews at each of the manufacturing plants using the business scenarios technique. This will allow you to understand the systems and integrations with local partners. You would use stakeholder analysis to identify key players in the engagement, and to understand their concerns. You will then identify and document the key high-level stakeholder requirements for the architecture. You will then generate high level definitions of the baseline and target architectures.

This answer is based on the TOGAF standard, which recommends the following steps to initiate the architecture project1:

Establish the architecture project

Identify stakeholders, concerns, and business requirements

Confirm and elaborate business goals, business drivers, and constraints

Evaluate business capabilities

Assess readiness for business transformation

Define scope

Confirm and elaborate Architecture Principles, including business principles

Develop Architecture Vision

Define the Target Architecture value propositions and KPIs

Identify the business transformation risks and mitigation activities

Secure stakeholder and sponsor approval

The answer C covers most of these steps, by using the business scenarios technique to elicit and validate the business requirements, goals, drivers, and constraints, as well as the current and future states of the architecture2. The answer C also uses stakeholder analysis to identify and engage the key stakeholders, and to address their concerns and expectations3. The answer C also generates high level definitions of the baseline and target architectures, which can be used to develop the Architecture Vision and the value propositions4.

The other answers are not the best approach for architecture development, because:

Answer A focuses on researching vendor literature and conducting briefings with vendors, which is not the best way to understand the business needs and the current situation of the enterprise. Answer A also defines a preliminary Architecture Vision without involving the stakeholders or validating the requirements, which may lead to misalignment and lack of consensus.

Answer B conducts a pilot project that will enable vendors to demonstrate potential solutions, which is premature and costly at this stage of the architecture project. Answer B also does not address the stakeholder concerns or the current systems and integrations, which may result in gaps and risks. Answer B also develops the requirements after the pilot project, which may not reflect the actual business needs and goals.

Answer D develops baseline and target architectures for each of the manufacturing plants, which may not consider the enterprise-wide perspective and the potential benefits of a common ERP system. Answer D also does not involve the stakeholders or address their concerns, which may result in resistance and conflict. Answer D also does not define the business case or the performance metrics, which are essential for demonstrating the value and feasibility of the architecture.

1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Vision 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Business Scenarios 3: [The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Stakeholder Management] 4: [The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Definition Document]

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.

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.

In this scenario, the CTO has not purchased cyber-insurance, the CSO is concerned about increased DDoS risk, and YOU (the EA) are asked “to describe the steps you would take to strengthen the current architecture to improve data protection.”

Because the company follows the TOGAF standard and uses an iterative ADM cycle, the correct response must:

Start with the risk/continuity concern

Use the formal TOGAF change management process

Lead to a Request for Architecture Work

Initiate a new ADM cycle to update the architecture properly

Ensure Architecture Board governance

Option B is the only answer that matches TOGAF’s required process.

✔ Why Option B is correct (TOGAF-aligned)

Option B follows TOGAF’s Architecture Change Management (Phase H) process:

Assess the business continuity requirements– Correct: Phase H requires evaluating change triggers such as new risks, threats, or incidents.– DDoS risk → business continuity concern → legitimate architecture change trigger.

Analyze the current architecture for gaps– Correct: TOGAF Phase H requires assessing whether the current baseline architecture can support required resilience.

Create a formal Change Request– Exactly correct: Phase H outputs Architecture Change Requests (ACRs) for significant changes.– ACR includes description, rationale, and impact (in this case: resilience, continuity, and data protection).

Architecture Board reviews/approves the change request– Correct: All major architecture changes must go through Architecture Governance.

Create a new Request for Architecture Work (RFAW)– Required when the change is significant and needs a new ADM cycle.– Strengthening data protection and business continuity DEFINITELY qualifies as a major change.

Begin a new ADM cycle to implement the changes– Perfectly aligned with TOGAF’s iterative approach:Business continuity → update Technology Architecture → updated security patterns → updated Target Architecture.

This is exactly the TOGAF-prescribed method to strengthen an architecture when significant new risks appear.

Therefore, Option B is the correct and TOGAF-compliant answer.

✘ Why the other options are incorrect

A – Not TOGAF-aligned

Starts with vendors and simulations (not TOGAF-first steps).

No mention of Architecture Board or Change Management.

No Request for Architecture Work.

Gap analysis alone is not the first step for significant architectural risk.

C – Too narrow and skips TOGAF governance

Jumps straight to modifying the Technology Architecture baseline.

No Change Request, no RFAW, no ADM cycle initiation.

Recommends a solution (“DDoS mitigation at infrastructure level”) before architectural assessment.

D – Misuses Architecture Compliance Review

Architecture Compliance Reviews check conformity to an existing architecture—not evaluate new risks or design resilience enhancements.

A compliance review is not the correct first step for addressing new threats.

The Chief Engineer is concerned that implementation across multiple plants and mixed teams (internal + contractors) may be inconsistent and of poor quality.

The question asks: How should Architecture Contracts be used to address this concern according to the TOGAF standard?

TOGAF states that an Architecture Contract must:

Define obligations of both architecture and implementation organizations

Specify metrics, measures, acceptance criteria, and success factors

Identify risks and mitigation

Support Architecture Governance through compliance reviews

Apply to BOTH internal teams and external suppliers (external contracts must be legally enforceable)

Option C is the only one that correctly reflects these TOGAF requirements.

✔ Why Option C is correct

1. Architecture Contracts must specify goals, measures, acceptance terms, and risks

TOGAF explicitly states that Architecture Contracts should include:

Statement of Architecture Work

Performance metrics and measures

Acceptance criteria

Risks and issues

Compliance and conformance requirements

Option C includes all of these.

2. Third-party contracts must be legally enforceable

True — TOGAF states that when external suppliers are involved, Architecture Contracts often take the form of legally binding contracts.

Option C:

“Third-party contracts must be legally enforceable.”

Correct.

3. Compliance reviews must be scheduled

TOGAF’s Architecture Governance Framework prescribes scheduled Architecture Compliance Reviews to ensure that implementation conforms to the Architecture Contract.

Option C:

“establish a schedule of compliance reviews at key points”

Correct — this directly addresses the Chief Engineer’s concern about consistency and quality.

4. Deviations must be reviewed by the Architecture Board and any dispensations should be time-bound

TOGAF allows dispensations but requires:

Formal review

Approval by the Architecture Board

Time-bound accommodations rather than permanent exceptions

Option C includes exactly this guidance.

Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation

Context of the Scenario

The agency is initiating a strategic “AI-first” plan to transform processes using AI and improve efficiency while ensuring service improvements for citizens. Several stakeholder concerns have been raised, such as:

Job security for employees.

Skill development for adapting to new technologies.

Cybersecurity and resilience risks due to reliance on digital platforms.

TOGAF emphasizes the importance of stakeholder management, communication, and risk management to ensure successful adoption and implementation of new architecture. These concerns need to be addressed methodically by gathering requirements, analyzing stakeholder positions, and ensuring proper communication of risks and benefits.

Option Analysis

Option A:

Strengths:

Proposes creating an Organization Map to identify the links between different parts of the agency and the impact of the strategic change.

Suggests holding stakeholder meetings to address concerns.

Includes managing risks as part of Security Architecture development.

Weaknesses:

Focusing solely on creating business models and teaching stakeholders how to interpret them does not directly address cultural and positional concerns about job loss, skill development, and security.

Risk management is addressed as part of Security Architecture development but lacks broader integration into stakeholder requirements.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it fails to systematically document stakeholder concerns and map them into requirements and architecture decisions.

Option B:

Strengths:

Highlights the importance of formal stakeholder identification and creating a Communication Plan.

Suggests addressing stakeholder concerns through communication and risk management.

Weaknesses:

Does not go into detail on analyzing stakeholder concerns, cultural positions, or specific requirements.

Lacks the inclusion of stakeholder feedback in architecture artifacts like the Architecture Vision or Requirements Specification, which are critical TOGAF outputs.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it does not include a systematic and structured approach for stakeholder analysis and integration into architecture deliverables.

Option C:

Strengths:

Emphasizes conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis to document concerns, positions, and cultural factors, which aligns with TOGAF’s approach in Phase A (Architecture Vision).

Ensures stakeholder views and requirements are recorded in the Architecture Vision document and reflected in the Architecture Requirements Specification.

Includes continuous assessment and feedback, ensuring concerns are addressed and risks managed effectively.

Aligns with TOGAF's principle of involving stakeholders in architecture development to ensure alignment and success.

Weaknesses:

Could further detail how risk management is included across all phases, but this is implied through integration into the Architecture Requirements Specification.

Conclusion: Correct, as it provides a structured and detailed approach for addressing stakeholder concerns and managing risks within TOGAF’s framework.

Option D:

Strengths:

Suggests categorizing stakeholders into groups and creating models for each category.

Proposes arranging meetings to verify that concerns have been addressed.

Includes risk management as part of the process.

Weaknesses:

Dividing stakeholders into generic categories (e.g., corporate functions, project team) may not adequately capture specific cultural factors and concerns raised in the scenario.

Lacks integration of stakeholder feedback into architecture deliverables such as the Architecture Vision and Architecture Requirements Specification.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it provides a generalized and less targeted approach to stakeholder concerns compared to Option C.

TOGAF References

Stakeholder Management (Phase A): TOGAF emphasizes analyzing stakeholders’ positions, concerns, and issues to shape architecture development and communication (TOGAF 9.2, Section 24.2).

Architecture Vision: Captures high-level requirements and stakeholder views to ensure alignment with business goals (TOGAF 9.2, Section 6.2).

Architecture Requirements Specification: Records detailed requirements, including those related to risk management, to guide the development of target architectures (TOGAF 9.2, Section 35.5).

Iterative Feedback: Regular assessments and feedback loops are critical to ensure stakeholder concerns are addressed effectively throughout the ADM cycle.

By selecting Option C, the approach adheres to TOGAF's principles of stakeholder analysis, communication, and integration of concerns into architecture development.

Key aspects of the scenario:

Business Objective:

A merger is happening to combine offerings, reduce costs, and achieve operational efficiency.

The goal includes fully integrating retail operations and systems, replacing duplicated systems, and reducing the number of applications used.

Technological Improvements:

A central AI-based inventory system is in place.

Hand-held devices for stores have improved customer and staff satisfaction and increased efficiency.

Scope of Architecture Work:

Integrating the merged systems.

Managing retail architecture to optimize operations.

TOGAF Alignment:

TOGAF principles aim to ensure the architecture supports business transformation effectively while aligning with governance and best practices.

Best answer analysis:

Option 1:

Maximize Benefit to the Enterprise: Aligns with the merger goals of cost reduction and efficiency.

Common Use Applications: Matches the goal to reduce duplicated systems.

Data is an Asset: Central AI system depends on accurate and reliable data.

Responsive Change Management: Necessary to support the transition and manage organizational impacts.

Technology Independence: Encourages selecting flexible, scalable solutions post-merger.

This option comprehensively aligns with the scenario.

Option 2:

Control Technical Diversity: Important but less emphasized than cost reduction and application unification.

Interoperability: Relevant, but less critical compared to principles addressing business value.

Data is an Asset: Relevant.

Data is Shared: Implied in centralized inventory but not directly stated.

Business Continuity: Important but not the main focus here.

This option partially fits but lacks emphasis on business outcomes.

Option 3:

Common Vocabulary and Data Definitions: Indirectly helpful but not central to the transformation.

Compliance with the Law: Always critical, but no explicit legal issues are mentioned.

Requirements-Based Change: General principle but not transformation-specific.

Responsive Change Management: Relevant.

Data Security: Important but not a central concern in the scenario.

This option focuses more on governance and less on merger goals.

Option 4:

Common Use Applications: Relevant to reducing duplicate systems.

Data is an Asset: Relevant.

Data is Accessible: Fits with AI system and handheld devices but is a subset of "Data is an Asset."

Ease of Use: Relevant to handheld devices but not a core transformation principle.

Business Continuity: Important but secondary to cost and efficiency.

This option focuses more on usability and accessibility rather than transformation objectives.

A Stakeholder Map is a technique that can be used to identify and classify the stakeholders of the architecture work, and to document their key interests, requirements, and concerns. A stakeholder is any person, group, or organization that has a stake in the outcome of the architecture work, such as the sponsor, the client, the users, the suppliers, the regulators, or the competitors. A Stakeholder Map can help to understand the needs and expectations of the stakeholders, and to communicate and engage with them effectively1

The steps for creating a Stakeholder Map are:

Identify the stakeholders of the architecture work, using various sources and methods, such as interviews, surveys, workshops, or existing documents.

Classify the stakeholders according to their roles, responsibilities, and relationships, using various criteria and dimensions, such as power, influence, interest, attitude, or impact.

Define the concerns and relevant views for each stakeholder group, using various techniques, such as business scenarios, use cases, or value propositions. A concern is a key interest or issue that is relevant to the stakeholder, such as a goal, a problem, a need, or a risk. A view is a representation of the system of interest from the perspective of one or more stakeholders and their concerns.

Record the stakeholders and their concerns in a Stakeholder Map, which shows the mapping between the stakeholder groups, the concerns, and the views. The Stakeholder Map also shows the dependencies, assumptions, and issues related to each stakeholder and concern.

Therefore, the best answer is B, because it recommends the approach that would enable the development of an architecture that addresses the concerns of the CIO and the partners, using the Stakeholder Map technique. The answer covers the following aspects:

An analysis of the stakeholders is undertaken, which involves identifying, classifying, and defining the stakeholders and their concerns.

The stakeholders and their concerns are documented in a Stakeholder Map, which provides a clear and comprehensive picture of the stakeholder landscape and their interests.

The concerns and relevant views are recorded in the Architecture Vision document, which is the output of Phase A: Architecture Vision of the Architecture Development Method (ADM), which is the core process of the TOGAF standard that guides the development and management of the enterprise architecture. The Architecture Vision defines the scope and approach of the architecture work, and establishes the business goals and drivers that motivate the architecture work. The Architecture Vision also involves obtaining the approval and commitment of the sponsors and other key stakeholders, and initiating the Architecture Governance process2

The requirements include risk mitigation through regular assessments, which involves identifying, analyzing, and evaluating the risks that may affect the architecture, and determining the appropriate measures or actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risks. Risk mitigation can also involve monitoring and reviewing the risk situation, and communicating and reporting the risk status and actions3

This approach also allows a supervised agile implementation of the continuous Machine Learning, which involves applying agile principles and practices to the architecture development and implementation, such as iterative and incremental delivery, frequent feedback, collaboration, and adaptation. A supervised agile implementation can help to ensure the quality, value, and alignment of the architecture, and to respond to the changing needs and expectations of the stakeholders.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 24: Stakeholder Management 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 18: Phase A: Architecture Vision 3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 32: Risk Management : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 29: Applying Iteration to the ADM

The question asks:

“What steps would you take to strengthen the current architecture to improve data protection?”

This requires understanding how TOGAF handles:

Business continuity requirements

Gap analysis in existing architecture

Architecture change requests

Triggering a new ADM cycle

Governance via the Architecture Board

Option C is the only answer that aligns correctly with TOGAF’s formal Architecture Change Management process (ADM Phase H) and how to progress from identifying gaps to initiating a new cycle.

✅ Why Option C Is Correct

✔ 1. Starts with identifying business continuity requirements

TOGAF Phase A and Phase B require understanding business continuity and information security requirements as part of architecture development.

✔ 2. Analyzes the current architecture for gaps

Gap analysis is a required step in:

Phase B (Business Architecture)

Phase C (Data/Application Architecture)

Phase D (Technology Architecture)

It is also part of Architecture Change Management (Phase H) when examining existing threats or deficiencies.

✔ 3. Creates a Change Request

In TOGAF, if gaps or new risks require architectural enhancements, a formal Change Request is submitted. This is a mandatory TOGAF mechanism.

✔ 4. Architecture Board evaluates the Change Request

The Architecture Board approves major changes before a new cycle starts — exactly as described in option C.

✔ 5. Initiates a new ADM cycle with a RfAW

TOGAF explicitly states:

A new or major architecture change requires a Request for Architecture Work before beginning a new ADM cycle.

Option C follows this sequencing precisely:

Identify requirements → analyze gaps → issue change request → Architecture Board approval → create RfAW → start new ADM cycle.

This is textbook TOGAF.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

A – Too narrow and focuses only on Technology Architecture

The problem spans business continuity, data protection, and enterprise-wide readiness — not just infrastructure.

Does not include gap analysis, stakeholder analysis, or initiating a formal ADM cycle.

Incorrectly reduces ransomware mitigation to technology controls.

B – Architecture Compliance Review is inappropriate here

A Compliance Review is used to:

Ensure implementation conforms to architectureNot to:

Identify new risks

Strengthen the architecture

Conduct gap analysisThis option is misusing the review process.

D – Supplier-driven, not TOGAF-driven

Involves contacting suppliers prematurely — not aligned with TOGAF’s architecture-first methodology.

Does not involve Architecture Board approval before pursuing solutions.

Jumps into solutioning before architectural approval.

???? Relevant TOGAF References

Phase H: Architecture Change Management

Manage changes

Evaluate impacts

Generate change requests

Architecture Board Roles

Approves Change Requests

Governs new ADM cycles

Request for Architecture Work

Used to formally launch a new ADM cycle