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

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.

You are asked to identify the most relevant Architecture Principles, besides Business Continuity, that apply to a rapid merger, where:

Back-office and store management systems will be consolidated

Duplicate applications will be eliminated

Innovation must remain fast

Customer experience must remain uninterrupted

Combined enterprise value is the priority

TOGAF’s example Architecture Principles include four main categories:

Business Principles

Data Principles

Application Principles

Technology Principles

Option D contains the principles that best support the specific needs of the merger as described.

✔ Why Option D is correct

1. Service Orientation (Business Principle)

This principle states that architecture should be organized around services, enabling flexibility, loose coupling, and ease of integration.

For the merger:

Integrating two companies’ store systems, mobile apps, and inventory platforms requires modular, interoperable services.

Service orientation directly supports the requirement that innovation must not slow down.

It allows systems to be merged with minimal disruption.

This principle supports fast integration + ongoing innovation — exactly what stakeholders demand.

2. Maximize Benefit to the Enterprise (Business Principle)

This principle ensures decisions are made from an enterprise-wide (not departmental or local) perspective.

In the scenario:

Two companies are merging.

Decisions must prioritize combined enterprise value, not local optimizations by either company.

System consolidation and elimination of duplicates requires an enterprise-first mindset.

This principle aligns perfectly with a merger that aims to unify operations and reduce redundancy.

3. Common Use Applications (Application Principle)

This is one of the MOST relevant principles in any merger.

TOGAF defines this principle as:

“Applications should be shared across the enterprise and not duplicated.”

In the scenario:

Back-office systems and store management tools must be consolidated.

Duplicate applications are explicitly to be reduced.

One main system will be used across stores.

This principle directly matches the merger ' s objectives.

✔ Summary

Option D contains the three principles that best support:

A major merger

System consolidation

Reduction of duplication

Enterprise-wide benefit

Flexible, service-oriented integration

Continued innovation

Therefore, Option D is the most appropriate selection according to TOGAF’s example Architecture Principles.

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.

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.

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

Option A is the only answer that correctly reflects this:

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

Identify stakeholders

Analyze and group them by common concerns

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

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

Option A says:

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

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

Stakeholder Map to classify and prioritize stakeholders

Concerns and required views captured and traced

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

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

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

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

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

Option A includes:

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

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

Frequent stakeholder feedback

Early validation of assumptions

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

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

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

Option B

Focuses mainly on a Communications Plan and powerful stakeholders.

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

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

Option C

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

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

Option D

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

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

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

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

Start in Phase A: Architecture Vision

Perform stakeholder analysis and create a Stakeholder Map

Define stakeholder concerns and relevant views

Record them in the Architecture Vision

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