New Year Sale 2026! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions

The Open Group OGEA-103 Exam - Topic 8 Question 27 Discussion

Actual exam question for The Open Group's OGEA-103 exam
Question #: 27
Topic #: 8
[All OGEA-103 Questions]

Please read this scenario prior to answering the question

You are the Chief Enterprise Architect at a large food service company specializing in sales to trade and

wholesale, for example, restaurants and other food retailers.

One of your company's competitors has launched a revolutionary product range and is running a very

aggressive marketing campaign. Your company's resellers are successively announcing that they are not

interested in your company's products and will sell your competitor's.

The CEO has stated there must be significant change to address the situation. He has made it clear that

new markets must be found for the company's products, and that the business needs to pivot, and address the retail market as well as the existing wholesale market.

A consideration is the company's ability and willingness to change its business model, and if it is a temporary or permanent change. An additional risk factor is one of culture. The company has been used to a stable business with a reasonably well known and settled client base - all with its own local understandings and practices.

The CEO is the sponsor of the EA program within the company. You have been engaged with the sales,

logistics, production, and marketing teams, enabling the architecture activity to start. An Architecture Vision, Architecture Principles, and Requirements have all been agreed. As you move forward to develop a possible Target Architecture you have identified that some of the key stakeholders' preferences are incompatible. The incompatibilities are focused primarily on time-to-market, cost savings, and the need to bring out a fully featured product range, but there are additional factors.

Refer to the scenario

You have been asked how you will address the incompatibilities between key stakeholder preferences.

Based on the TOGAF standard which of the following is the best answer?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: C

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.Reference:

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]


Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Zack
3 months ago
D is solid, involving all heads is crucial for buy-in.
upvoted 0 times
...
Thurman
3 months ago
Not sure if just compromising is enough, though.
upvoted 0 times
...
Arlen
3 months ago
Surprised that they haven't pivoted sooner!
upvoted 0 times
...
Rozella
4 months ago
Totally agree, A seems like the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Osvaldo
4 months ago
I think understanding stakeholder preferences is key!
upvoted 0 times
...
Estrella
4 months ago
I recall that we talked about balancing time-to-market with product features. Option B seems tempting, but I wonder if compromising on the full product range is really the right move for long-term success.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eva
4 months ago
I practiced a similar question where the focus was on stakeholder engagement. I think option D could be effective, but I'm worried about whether involving all department heads might slow down the process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Justine
4 months ago
I'm a bit unsure about the best way to handle the incompatibilities. I feel like option C could work too, especially since it mentions using the Architecture Vision and Principles to guide the decision-making.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dortha
5 months ago
I remember we discussed the importance of understanding stakeholder preferences in our last study session. I think option A might be the best approach since it emphasizes collaboration.
upvoted 0 times
...
Laura
5 months ago
I'm not sure I fully understand all the TOGAF terminology, but it seems like the best approach is to involve the stakeholders as much as possible. Reviewing the stakeholder map and ensuring their concerns are addressed is crucial. I also like the idea of using a formal stakeholder review to decide the way forward.
upvoted 0 times
...
Artie
5 months ago
This question seems straightforward to me. The CEO has made it clear that the company needs to pivot and address the retail market, so I would focus on developing a target architecture that can get them to market quickly, even if it means compromising on the full product range. Time-to-market is the priority here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Marcelle
5 months ago
I'm a bit confused by all the details in the scenario, but I think the key is to really dig into the incompatibilities between the stakeholders. I like the idea of using the architecture vision, principles, and requirements to define criteria for the alternatives. That should help me evaluate the pros and cons of each option.
upvoted 0 times
...
Iluminada
5 months ago
This seems like a tricky question, but I think I have a good strategy. I'll focus on understanding the stakeholder preferences and priorities, and then try to develop alternative target architectures that address those needs. Collaboration with the stakeholders will be key to finding the right solution.
upvoted 0 times
...
Ricki
5 months ago
I'm not sure about this one. I'll need to review my notes on how Splunk handles field values and merging data. Hopefully that will give me a clue on the right approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Eloisa
5 months ago
I feel like for facial identification in a parking lot, low light performance is crucial. It's all about capturing clear details of faces, especially at night.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lavonda
5 months ago
Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. I know risk management is important, but I'm not totally clear on the difference between a risk register, RBS, and risk management plan. I'll have to think this through carefully.
upvoted 0 times
...
Dolores
5 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question. I'll review the options carefully and go with the one that doesn't seem like a valid verification method.
upvoted 0 times
...
Oretha
2 years ago
I'm all about option A. Collaboration, formal reviews, and securing funding - that's the way to tackle this 'food fight' between the stakeholders!
upvoted 0 times
...
Justa
2 years ago
B is the way to go! Compromise on the product range, get it done fast, and show the stakeholders it works. Who needs a full-featured product when you can have a half-baked one, am I right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Kayleigh
2 years ago
D seems like it covers all the bases - stakeholder map, communications plan, and getting buy-in from the key stakeholders. Gotta keep those department heads happy!
upvoted 0 times
...
Margurite
2 years ago
I like C. Using the existing artifacts to define criteria and create views to illustrate the impact. That's a structured way to tackle the incompatibilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Matthew
2 years ago
Option A seems the most comprehensive approach. Addressing stakeholder preferences, developing alternative architectures, and securing funding - that's the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Justine
1 year ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
Rashad
1 year ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Taryn
1 year ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
Victor
2 years ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Gail
2 years ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tracey
2 years ago
I think involving all department heads, as mentioned in option D, is important for resolving incompatibilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deja
2 years ago
But option C also makes sense, creating architecture views to illustrate the impact.
upvoted 0 times
...
Galen
2 years ago
I agree, understanding the stakeholders' preferences is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elza
2 years ago
I think option A is the best answer.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel