BlackFriday 2024! 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 Exam OGEA-103 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:

Oretha
4 months 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
4 months 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
4 months 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
4 months 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
4 months 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
2 months ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
Rashad
2 months ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Taryn
2 months ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
Victor
3 months ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Gail
3 months ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Tracey
4 months ago
I think involving all department heads, as mentioned in option D, is important for resolving incompatibilities.
upvoted 0 times
...
Deja
4 months ago
But option C also makes sense, creating architecture views to illustrate the impact.
upvoted 0 times
...
Galen
5 months ago
I agree, understanding the stakeholders' preferences is crucial.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elza
5 months ago
I think option A is the best answer.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel