Free The Open Group OGEA-103 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers

The Target Architecture is a description of the future state of the architecture that addresses the business goals and drivers, and satisfies the stakeholder requirements and concerns. The Target Architecture is developed through 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 Target Architecture is typically divided into four domains: Business, Data, Application, and Technology. The Target Architecture also includes a roadmap for change, which defines the Transition Architectures, the Capability Increments, and the work packages that enable the transition from the Baseline Architecture to the Target Architecture12

The best answer is B, because it describes the approach that should be taken to determine and organize the work to deliver the requested architectures, which are the Information Systems and Technology Architectures. The answer covers the following steps:

Refer to the end-to-end Target Architecture for guidance and direction. The end-to-end Target Architecture provides the overall vision, scope, and objectives of the architecture work, and the alignment with the business strategy and goals. The end-to-end Target Architecture also provides the high-level definitions and principles for the four architecture domains, and the roadmap for change that outlines the major milestones and deliverables.

Identify projects, dependencies and synergies, then prioritize before initiating the projects. Projects are the units of work 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. Dependencies are the relationships and constraints that affect the order or priority of the projects, such as logical, temporal, or resource dependencies. Synergies are the benefits or advantages that result from the combination or coordination of the projects, such as cost savings, efficiency gains, or innovation opportunities. Prioritization is the process of ranking the projects according to their importance, urgency, or value, and assigning resources and schedules accordingly.

Develop high-level architecture descriptions. High-level architecture descriptions are the outputs of the architecture development phases (B, C, and D) of the ADM cycle, which describe the Business, Data, Application, and Technology Architectures in terms of the Architecture Building Blocks (ABBs) and the Solution Building Blocks (SBBs), which are reusable components of business, IT, or architectural capability. High-level architecture descriptions also include the Architecture Views, which are representations of the system of interest from the perspective of one or more stakeholders and their concerns.

For each project, estimate effort size, identify reference architectures, and candidate building blocks. Effort size is the measure of the amount of work, time, or resources required to complete a project. Effort size can be estimated using various techniques, such as analogy, expert judgment, parametric, or bottom-up. Reference architectures are standardized architectures that provide a common framework and vocabulary for a specific domain or industry. Reference architectures can be used as a source of best practices, patterns, and models for the architecture development. Candidate building blocks are the potential ABBs or SBBs that can be used to implement the architecture. Candidate building blocks can be identified from the Architecture Repository, which is a collection of architecture assets, such as models, patterns, principles, standards, and guidelines.

Identify the resource needs considering cost and value. Resource needs are the specifications and criteria that define the acceptable level and quality of the resources required to complete the project, such as human, financial, physical, or technological resources. Resource needs can be identified by analyzing the scope, complexity, and dependencies of the project, and the availability, capability, and suitability of the resources. Cost and value are the factors that influence the allocation and utilization of the resources, such as the budget, the return on investment, the benefits, or the risks.

Document options, risks, and controls to enable viability analysis and trade-off with the stakeholders. Options are the alternative ways of achieving the project objectives, such as different solutions, technologies, vendors, or approaches. Risks are the effects of uncertainty on the project objectives, such as threats or opportunities. Controls are the measures or actions that are taken to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risks, such as policies, procedures, or standards. Viability analysis is the process of evaluating and comparing the options, risks, and controls, and determining the feasibility, suitability, and desirability of each option. Trade-off is the decision outcome that balances and reconciles the multiple, often conflicting, requirements and concerns of the stakeholders, and ensures alignment with the Architecture Vision and the Architecture Principles.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 5: Introduction to the ADM 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part IV: Architecture Content Framework, Chapter 36: Building Blocks : 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 19: Phase B: Business Architecture : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 20: Phase C: Information Systems Architectures : 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 III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 23: Architecture Principles : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Trade-Off Analysis : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 46: Tools for Architecture Development : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework,Chapter 47: Architecture Board : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 48: Architecture Compliance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 49: Architecture Contract : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 50: Architecture Governance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 51: Architecture Maturity Models : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 52: Architecture Skills Framework

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

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

Analysis of the Correct Answer (Option B):

Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping

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

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

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

Recording Concerns in the Architecture Vision Document

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

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

Iterative Development and Regular Feedback

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

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

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

Why Other Options Are Incorrect?

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

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

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

Option C: Using Uniform Business Models Across AI Projects

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

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

Option D: Creating a Communications Plan

Incorrect because communication alone does not resolve stakeholder concerns.

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

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]

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]

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.

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

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

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

The other options are not correct because they either23:

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

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

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

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

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

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

In TOGAF, when customer needs are unclear or misaligned with the existing architectural direction, the correct approach is to return to the Business Architecture. The Business Architecture phase (ADM Phase B) is responsible for understanding stakeholders, customer segments, business processes, value streams, motivations, and expected outcomes. Since the scenario identifies low engagement, poor adoption, and missed revenue targets, the breakdown is not in technology or application capabilities—it is a business misalignment.

Option B correctly focuses on revisiting and refining the target Business Architecture, including identifying customer groups, their interests, costs to serve them, and expected revenue streams. This aligns with TOGAF guidance that Business Architecture must define value propositions and customer value streams before other architecture domains can be effectively adjusted. The use of value stream mapping is entirely appropriate within Business Architecture development, as it provides a structured way to analyze customer value and identify what changes are necessary to meet business goals.

Options A and D prematurely focus on application or baseline gap analysis, which would not resolve a fundamental misunderstanding of customer needs. Option C expands into a full ADM cycle, which is unnecessary at this stage because the primary issue is misalignment, not architectural completeness.

Option C most accurately reflects the TOGAF standard’s guidance on Architecture Contracts and Architecture Governance during implementation (Phase G).

The Architecture Contract in TOGAF formalizes the agreement between the architecture function and the implementation organization. It must clearly define objectives, performance measures, deliverables, quality criteria, risks, and acceptance terms. This ensures consistent quality and traceability across distributed implementations, which directly addresses the Chief Engineer’s concern about inconsistent deployment across multiple plants.

TOGAF further requires architecture compliance reviews at defined checkpoints to verify conformance to the Architecture Definition. Any deviations must be formally reviewed by the Architecture Board. If justified, a dispensation may be granted; however, this must follow a governed process, not informal adjustment.

For third-party suppliers, TOGAF states that contracts must be legally enforceable to ensure compliance. Additionally, governance frameworks should include a dispute resolution mechanism to manage disagreements not resolved through compliance review.

Options A and B omit structured compliance review scheduling and formal governance rigor. Option D incorrectly suggests modifying the Architecture Definition through a new Request for Architecture Work, which is not required for local dispensations.

Therefore, according to TOGAF Architecture Governance guidance, Option C is the best answer.