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

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.

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.

A Consolidated Gaps, Solutions and Dependencies Matrix is a technique that can be used to create work packages for an incremental rollout of the architecture. A work package is a set of actions or tasks that are required to implement a specific part of the architecture. A work packagecan be associated with one or more Architecture Building Blocks (ABBs) or Solution Building Blocks (SBBs), which are reusable components of business, IT, or architectural capability. A work package can also be associated with one or more Capability Increments, which are defined, discrete portions of the overall capability that deliver business value. A Capability Increment can be realized by one or more Transition Architectures, which are intermediate states of the architecture that enable the transition from the Baseline Architecture to the Target Architecture123

The steps for creating work packages using this technique are:

For each gap between the Baseline Architecture and the Target Architecture, identify a proposed solution and classify it as new development, purchased solution, or based on an existing product. A gap is a difference or deficiency in the current state of the architecture that needs to be addressed by the future state of the architecture. A solution is a way of resolving a gap by implementing one or more ABBs or SBBs.

Group similar solutions together to define the work packages. Similar solutions are those that have common characteristics, such as functionality, technology, vendor, or location.

Identify dependencies between work packages, such as logical, temporal, or resource dependencies. Dependencies indicate the order or priority of the work packages, and the constraints or risks that may affect their implementation.

Regroup the work packages into a set of Capability Increments to transition to the Target Architecture. Capability Increments should be defined based on the business value, effort, and risk associated with each work package, and the schedule and objectives of the clinical trials. Capability Increments should also be aligned with the Architecture Vision and the Architecture Principles.

Document the work packages and the Capability Increments in an Architecture Definition Increments Table, which shows the mapping between the work packages, the ABBs, the SBBs, and the Capability Increments. The table also shows the dependencies, assumptions, and issues related to each work package and Capability Increment.

Therefore, the best answer is B, because it describes the approach to identify the work packages for an incremental rollout meeting the requirements, using the Consolidated Gaps, Solutions and Dependencies Matrix as a planning tool.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Gap Analysis 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part IV: Architecture Content Framework, Chapter 36: Building Blocks 3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 31: Architecture Change Management : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 23: Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions : 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 II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 18: Phase A: Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 23: Architecture Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The correct answer is C, as it aligns with the key TOGAF principles necessary for guiding enterprise architecture in a merger scenario where retail operations and systems are being consolidated.

Analysis of the Principles in Option C:

Common Use Applications

Since the two companies are merging, it is essential to standardize applications across the enterprise.

Using common applications ensures consistency, reduces costs, and improves efficiency.

TOGAF emphasizes this principle to prevent duplicate or redundant systems, which aligns with the CIO’s goal of reducing the number of applications used.

Data is an Asset

In the scenario, a central inventory management system is a core business function.

Treating data as an asset ensures it is managed properly, shared efficiently, and used strategically across the merged organization.

This principle supports the company’s ability to predict demand, adjust stock levels, and automate reordering.

Common Vocabulary and Data Definitions

The merger requires integrating different systems and data structures.

Having a common vocabulary ensures that all stakeholders (stores, fulfillment centers, and digital platforms) use consistent terminology and data definitions.

This minimizes confusion and ensures interoperability across business functions.

Maximize Benefit to the Enterprise

Every architectural decision should focus on the overall benefit to the business.

By consolidating IT systems and reducing redundancies, the company achieves cost savings, which directly supports this principle.

Business Continuity

The stores operate seven days a week, so system changes must ensure uninterrupted service.

Business continuity ensures that customers are not affected during the transition and that critical retail operations (sales, inventory tracking, and fulfillment) remain functional.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect?

Option A: Control Technical Diversity, Interoperability, Data is an Asset, Data is Shared, Business Continuity

Control Technical Diversity is not the primary concern here. The focus is on system consolidation, not necessarily on limiting technology diversity.

Interoperability is important but not as critical as defining a common system and data structure.

Option B: Service Orientation, Compliance with the Law, Requirements-Based Change, Responsive Change Management, Data Security

While service orientation and compliance are valuable, they are not the most relevant to this specific business transition.

Change management and data security are important but do not address the primary enterprise-wide architectural concerns of system consolidation.

Option D: Ease of Use, Common Use Applications, Data is an Asset, Technology Independence, Business Continuity

Ease of Use is beneficial but is not a core architecture principle in this case.

Technology Independence is useful but does not align directly with the scenario’s priority, which is consolidating applications and data structures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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]