OGEA-103 Exam Dumps - The Open Group Enterprise Architecture Questions and Answers

In the context of the TOGAF standard, stakeholder management and addressing stakeholder concerns are critical components, especially for high-impact initiatives like adopting an AI-first approach. Here’s why the selected answer aligns best with TOGAF principles and the scenario:

Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement:Conducting a stakeholder analysis is essential as it helps identify and document the concerns, issues, and cultural factors influencing each stakeholder group. This aligns with TOGAF’s emphasis on understanding and managing stakeholder concerns, particularly in the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases of the ADM (Architecture Development Method). Since the scenario highlights diverse concerns about AI, understanding each group's unique perspective will help the EA team tailor the architecture to address these effectively.

Architecture Vision Document:By documenting these concerns in the Architecture Vision document, the EA team can provide a clear, high-level representation of how AI will be adopted, its benefits, and how it addresses specific stakeholder concerns. This is critical for communicating the intent and value of the AI-first approach in a way that aligns with the agency's strategic goals, including addressing apprehensions about job security, skill development, and cyber resilience.

Risk Management and Architecture Requirements Specification:TOGAF highlights the importance of identifying and managing risks early in the process. By documenting the requirements related to risk in the Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team ensures that these concerns are formally integrated into the architecture and addressed throughout the ADM phases. Regular assessments and feedback loops will provide a mechanism for continual risk monitoring and adjustment as the AI-first initiative progresses.

Alignment with TOGAF’s ADM Phases:The approach specified aligns with TOGAF’s guidance on managing risk and stakeholder concerns during the early ADM phases, specifically Architecture Vision and Requirements Management. In these phases, the framework emphasizes identifying and addressing risks associated with stakeholders' concerns to build a resilient and widely accepted architecture.

Reference to TOGAF Stakeholder Management Techniques:TOGAF’s stakeholder management techniques underscore the importance of understanding and addressing stakeholder needs as a foundational step. This involves assessing the influence and interest of various stakeholders and integrating their views into architectural development, ensuring that the architecture aligns with both business goals and operational realities.

In conclusion, by conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis and documenting concerns in both the Architecture Vision and Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team can ensure that stakeholder concerns are addressed, that the architecture supports AI adoption effectively, and that potential risks are managed proactively. This approach will foster acceptance among stakeholders and ensure that the architecture aligns with the agency’s strategic goals and risk management requirements as recommended by TOGAF.

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]

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

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.

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 question asks:

“What steps would you take to strengthen the current architecture to improve data protection?”

This requires understanding how TOGAF handles:

Business continuity requirements

Gap analysis in existing architecture

Architecture change requests

Triggering a new ADM cycle

Governance via the Architecture Board

Option C is the only answer that aligns correctly with TOGAF’s formal Architecture Change Management process (ADM Phase H) and how to progress from identifying gaps to initiating a new cycle.

✅ Why Option C Is Correct

✔ 1. Starts with identifying business continuity requirements

TOGAF Phase A and Phase B require understanding business continuity and information security requirements as part of architecture development.

✔ 2. Analyzes the current architecture for gaps

Gap analysis is a required step in:

Phase B (Business Architecture)

Phase C (Data/Application Architecture)

Phase D (Technology Architecture)

It is also part of Architecture Change Management (Phase H) when examining existing threats or deficiencies.

✔ 3. Creates a Change Request

In TOGAF, if gaps or new risks require architectural enhancements, a formal Change Request is submitted. This is a mandatory TOGAF mechanism.

✔ 4. Architecture Board evaluates the Change Request

The Architecture Board approves major changes before a new cycle starts — exactly as described in option C.

✔ 5. Initiates a new ADM cycle with a RfAW

TOGAF explicitly states:

A new or major architecture change requires a Request for Architecture Work before beginning a new ADM cycle.

Option C follows this sequencing precisely:

Identify requirements → analyze gaps → issue change request → Architecture Board approval → create RfAW → start new ADM cycle.

This is textbook TOGAF.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

A – Too narrow and focuses only on Technology Architecture

The problem spans business continuity, data protection, and enterprise-wide readiness — not just infrastructure.

Does not include gap analysis, stakeholder analysis, or initiating a formal ADM cycle.

Incorrectly reduces ransomware mitigation to technology controls.

B – Architecture Compliance Review is inappropriate here

A Compliance Review is used to:

Ensure implementation conforms to architectureNot to:

Identify new risks

Strengthen the architecture

Conduct gap analysisThis option is misusing the review process.

D – Supplier-driven, not TOGAF-driven

Involves contacting suppliers prematurely — not aligned with TOGAF’s architecture-first methodology.

Does not involve Architecture Board approval before pursuing solutions.

Jumps into solutioning before architectural approval.

???? Relevant TOGAF References

Phase H: Architecture Change Management

Manage changes

Evaluate impacts

Generate change requests

Architecture Board Roles

Approves Change Requests

Governs new ADM cycles

Request for Architecture Work

Used to formally launch a new ADM cycle

Business continuity is the ability of an organization to maintain essential functions during and after a disaster or disruption. Business continuity requirements are the specifications and criteria that define the acceptable level of performance and availability of the business processes and services in the event of a disaster or disruption. A gap analysis is a technique that compares the current state of the architecture with the desired state, and identifies the gaps or differences that need to be addressed. A change request is a formal proposal for an amendment to some product or system, such as the architecture. A Request for Architecture Work is a document that describes the scope, approach, and expected outcomes of an architecture project123

The best answer is A, because it describes the steps that would improve the resilience of the current architecture, which is the ability to withstand and recover from a ransomware attack or any other disruption. The steps are:

Determine the business continuity requirements, which specify the minimum acceptable level of performance and availability of the business processes and services in case of a ransomware attack. This would involve identifying the critical business functions, the recovery time objectives, the recovery point objectives, and the dependencies and resources needed for recovery.

Undertake a gap analysis of the current Enterprise Architecture, which compares the current state of the architecture with the desired state based on the business continuity requirements. This would involve assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current architecture, the risks and opportunities for improvement, and the gaps or differences that need to be addressed.

Make recommendations for change requirements to address the situation and create a change request. This would involve proposing solutions and alternatives to close the gaps, enhance the resilience, and mitigate the risks of the current architecture. The change request would document the rationale, scope, impact, and benefits of the proposed changes, and seek approval from the relevant stakeholders.

Manage a meeting of the Architecture Board to assess and approve the change request. The Architecture Board is a governance body that oversees the architecture work and ensures compliance with the architecture principles, standards, and goals. The meeting would involvepresenting the change request, discussing the pros and cons, resolving any issues or conflicts, and obtaining the approval or rejection of the change request.

Once approved, produce a new Request for Architecture Work to activate an ADM cycle to carry out a project to define the change. The Request for Architecture Work would describe the scope, approach, and expected outcomes of the architecture project that would implement the approved change request. The Request for Architecture Work would initiate 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 architecture.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 33: Business Scenarios 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Gap Analysis 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 7: Request for Architecture Work : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 34: Business Transformation Readiness Assessment : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Gap Analysis : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 31: Architecture Change Management : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 50: Architecture Governance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 7: Request for Architecture Work

In TOGAF, the process of breaking down an initiative into work packages must be grounded in a structured evaluation of gaps, solutions, dependencies, constraints, and implementation factors. Option B precisely follows this guidance. It begins by producing an Implementation Factor Catalog, which is a TOGAF artifact used to record business, technical, regulatory, organizational, and risk considerations that influence implementation. This is especially relevant in the scenario because clinical trials operate under strict regulatory controls, highly sensitive data, and complex coordination across multiple research sites.

Next, Option B calls for creating a gap matrix comparing baseline and target architectures across domains. For each gap, TOGAF requires classification of solution approaches: new development, purchased solution, or reuse of existing components. This aligns directly with the Solutions Continuum and the practice of forming Solution Building Blocks. Grouping similar activities into work packages is also textbook ADM practice, ensuring traceability from architecture gaps into actionable implementation components.

Furthermore, Option B incorporates dependencies analysis and restructures work packages into Capability Increments, which is the TOGAF-recommended method for incremental delivery and Transition Architectures. This matches the scenario's requirement for gradual rollout to minimize disruption to ongoing clinical trials.

Thus, Option B fully reflects the TOGAF standard for structured work package definition.

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.

The scenario states that:

A strategic architecture and roadmap already exist.

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

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

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

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

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

Analyzing project dependencies, overlaps, and sequencing

Defining high-level architecture descriptions for the next iteration

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

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

Preparing for stakeholder trade-offs before formalizing the roadmap

These tasks map directly to Option A.

Why Option A is correct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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