Free The Open Group OGEA-103 Practice Exam with Questions & Answers | Set: 2

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.

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.

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

The steps for creating a Stakeholder Map are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The correct answer is C, as it aligns with the TOGAF ADM approach and best practices for organizing architecture work in a phased and structured manner.

Analysis of the Correct Answer (Option C):

Identifying Projects, Dependencies, and Synergies

The scenario describes a phased approach to vehicle development over five years.

Identifying dependencies ensures a logical and structured rollout of technology and business capabilities.

Developing High-Level Architecture Descriptions

Since Business Architecture is already defined, it is now time to develop high-level descriptions of Information Systems and Technology Architectures.

TOGAF emphasizes incremental and iterative refinement, meaning that starting with high-level descriptions is a logical first step.

Determining Workload and Resource Allocation

TOGAF ADM Phase B, C, and D involve creating architecture descriptions.

Understanding how much work is required ensures efficient resource planning and allocation.

Identifying Reference Architectures and Building Blocks

Using reference architectures and reusable architecture building blocks (ABBs) is a key best practice in TOGAF.

This enables efficiency and consistency in architecture development.

Evaluating Costs, Risks, and Feasibility

TOGAF emphasizes a risk-aware approach to enterprise architecture.

Documenting options, risks, and control measures ensures feasibility before execution.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect?

Option A: Initiating ADM Phase A Again

Incorrect because the scenario states that the Architecture Vision has already been completed.

Phase A is used for initial vision-setting, but at this point, the focus is on executing defined architectures.

Option B: Researching Data Companies for Target Architecture Development

Incorrect because the focus should be on defining internal architectures rather than external research.

While benchmarking best practices can be useful, it is not the primary activity at this stage.

Option D: Studying Other Companies and Performing Readiness Assessment

Incorrect because the focus should be on leveraging the organization's existing architecture and resources.

Solution provider readiness assessments are typically part of procurement, not enterprise architecture development.

Key aspects of the scenario:

Business Objective:

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

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

Technological Improvements:

A central AI-based inventory system is in place.

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

Scope of Architecture Work:

Integrating the merged systems.

Managing retail architecture to optimize operations.

TOGAF Alignment:

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

Best answer analysis:

Option 1:

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

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

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

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

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

This option comprehensively aligns with the scenario.

Option 2:

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

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

Data is an Asset: Relevant.

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

Business Continuity: Important but not the main focus here.

This option partially fits but lacks emphasis on business outcomes.

Option 3:

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

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

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

Responsive Change Management: Relevant.

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

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

Option 4:

Common Use Applications: Relevant to reducing duplicate systems.

Data is an Asset: Relevant.

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

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

Business Continuity: Important but secondary to cost and efficiency.

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

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

The steps for applying the Business Value Assessment Technique are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements 1 and 3 about architecture partitioning are correct. Architecture partitioning is the technique of dividing an architecture into smaller and more manageable parts that can be developed, maintained, and governed independently. Partitions are used to simplify the management of the Enterprise Architecture and to enable different teams to work on different elements of the architecture at the same time. Partitions are not equivalent to architecture levels, which are different degrees of abstraction or detail in an architecture. Partitions do not necessarily reflect the organization’s structure, which may change over time or differ from the architecture’s scope and boundaries. Reference: The TOGAF® Standard | The Open Group Website, Section 2.5 Architecture Partitioning.

An Architecture Board is an executive-level group responsible for the review and maintenance of the strategic architecture and all of its sub-architectures1. It is a key element in a successful Architecture Governance strategy2.

An Architecture Board is typically made responsible, and accountable, for achieving some or all of the following goals2:

Providing the basis for all decision-making with regard to the architectures

Consistency between sub-architectures

Establishing targets for re-use of components

Flexibility of the Enterprise Architecture: To meet changing business needs To leverage new technologies

Enforcement of Architecture Compliance

Improving the maturity level of architecture discipline within the organization

Ensuring that the discipline of architecture-based development is adopted

Supporting a visible escalation capability for out-of-bounds decisions

Therefore, the correct answer is option D, which captures one of the goals of an Architecture Board as stated in the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.22.

Option A is incorrect, because conducting assessments of the maturity level of architecture discipline within the organization is not a direct responsibility of an Architecture Board, but rather a part of the Architecture Capability Framework3.

Option B is incorrect, because allocating resources for architecture projects is not a direct responsibility of an Architecture Board, but rather a part of the Architecture Governance Framework4.

Option C is incorrect, because creating the Statement of Architecture Work is not a direct responsibility of an Architecture Board, but rather a part of the Architecture Development Method5. References:

1: Architecture Board - The Open Group3

2: TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Part VI: Architecture Governance Framework - Architecture Board

3: TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Part VI: Architecture Governance Framework - Architecture Capability Framework

4: TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Part VI: Architecture Governance Framework - Architecture Governance Framework

5: TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Part II: Architecture Development Method - Phase A: Architecture Vision

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

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

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