Free The Open Group OGEA-102 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

The scenario states that:

A strategic architecture and roadmap already exist.

Business Architecture is complete, so the work now shifts to Information Systems and Technology Architectures (ADM Phases B–D).

The CTO requires use of the purpose-based EA Capability model (from the TOGAF Series Guide: A Practitioner’s Approach to Developing Enterprise Architecture Following the TOGAF ADM).

The EA team has to plan, organize, and manage the next stage of architecture development, including re-use of existing hardware/software platform components, candidate solutions, feasibility, risks, and prioritization.

Under the purpose-based EA approach, when moving from strategy into defining the next layers of architecture, TOGAF emphasizes:

Using the superior (already-approved) architecture to guide the next ADM cycles– This corresponds to the strategic architecture that is already completed.

Analyzing project dependencies, overlaps, and sequencing

Defining high-level architecture descriptions for the next iteration

Identifying reference architectures and candidate building blocks (especially when reusing existing platform components)

Assessing feasibility, value, cost, and risk for each project

Preparing for stakeholder trade-offs before formalizing the roadmap

These tasks map directly to Option A.

Why Option A is correct

Option A includes exactly what the purpose-based EA approach prescribes at this stage:

“The superior architecture should be used to guide the approach.”✔ Correct — strategic architecture guides the work.

“Review the identified projects, dependencies, and potential overlaps, then decide the order…”✔ Correct — sequencing and dependency assessment are core early tasks in Phases B–D planning.

“Develop high-level architecture descriptions.”✔ Correct — Business Architecture is done; now high-level IS/Tech Architecture descriptions are needed.

“Identify reference architectures and candidate building blocks.”✔ Correct — aligns with TOGAF building-block approach, and specifically fits the scenario where existing platform components will be reused.

“Identify resource needs, considering cost and value.”✔ Correct — mandatory for feasibility and planning.

“Document options, risks, and ways to control them to enable feasibility analysis and trade-off with stakeholders.”✔ Correct — this matches ADM guidelines for preparing options and addressing complexity before deeper development.

This is precisely how TOGAF expects the architecture team to plan, organize, and manage an ADM cycle after strategy is set.

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.

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 a focus 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.

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 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.

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:

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 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 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.