The Open Group Updated OGEA-103 Exam Questions and Answers by rohan

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.

In this scenario you are right at thestart of an ADM cycle: aRequest for Architecture Workhas been approved to investigate AI, and there are strongstakeholder concerns and risk questions. According to the TOGAF standard, the correct place to start isPhase A: Architecture Vision, with a strong focus onstakeholder managementand capturing theirconcerns and required views.

OptionAis the only answer that correctly reflects this:

Stakeholder analysis & Stakeholder Map (Phase A core task)TOGAF explicitly states that in Phase A you must:

Identify stakeholders

Analyze and group them by common concerns

Use aStakeholder Mapto understand their influence, interest, and required engagement

Determine whichviews/viewpointsare needed to address their concerns in the architecture descriptioncoe.qualiware.com+1

Option A says:

“analysis of the stakeholders … define groups of stakeholders who have common concerns and include development of a Stakeholder Map. The concerns and relevant views should then be defined for each group and recorded in the Architecture Vision document.”

This is exactly how TOGAF describes stakeholder management and views in Phase A:

Stakeholder Map to classify and prioritize stakeholders

Concerns and required views captured and traced

These elements feeding into theArchitecture VisiondeliverableVisual Paradigm TOGAF+1

Concerns, views, and Architecture VisionTOGAF emphasizes thatarchitecture viewsare constructed to addressspecific stakeholder concerns; you do not just build generic models.opengroup.org+1

Option A explicitly linksconcerns → views → Architecture Vision, which aligns with TOGAF guidance for early phases.

Capturing this in theArchitecture Visionprovides a high-level, shared understanding of what the AI initiative is trying to achieve and how stakeholder issues (e.g., responsible AI, risk processes, change in way of working) will be addressed.

Risk management and “architecting with agility”In the scenario, the CIO has encouragedarchitecting with agility. TOGAF is compatible with incremental and iterative development of the target architecture, especially when there is high uncertainty and risk.conexiam.com

Option A includes:

“a requirement that there be progressive development of the target architecture to ensure there is regular feedback.”

This “progressive development” and frequent feedback loop is exactly how you mitigate risk in an AI-heavy, change-sensitive initiative:

Frequent stakeholder feedback

Early validation of assumptions

Ability to adjust scope, constraints, and principles as risk and understanding evolve

This directly addresses management’s worry about thechange in the way of workingand whetherrisk management and responsible AI policiesare adequate: these become explicit stakeholder concerns and requirements that are iteratively refined.

Why the other options are weaker / not TOGAF-aligned as astartingpoint

Option B

Focuses mainly on aCommunications Planand powerful stakeholders.

While TOGAF does expect a stakeholder communications plan, it isderived froma proper stakeholder analysis and Stakeholder Map, not a substitute for it.

It also treats risk as a “component of the architecture” rather than something to be addressedearlythrough stakeholder concerns, principles, and iteration.

Option C

Jumps straight to asolution concept diagramandbenefits diagramand defers risk evaluation to when theArchitecture Roadmapis defined (Phase E).

In TOGAF, risk and stakeholder concerns must be addressed already in Phase A and refined throughout, not postponed to roadmap development.

Option D

Proposes creating draftBusiness, Data, Application, and Technologymodels and putting them into theArchitecture Vision.

This is too detailed for the starting point: Phase A is abouthigh-level vision, not full draft core architecture models (those belong in Phases B, C, D).

It also doesn’t emphasize Stakeholder Mapping and grouping by concerns, which is central to resolving the worries about way of working, risk, and responsible AI.

In summary,Option Ais the best and TOGAF-consistent way tobegin:

Start inPhase A: Architecture Vision

Performstakeholder analysisand create aStakeholder Map

Define stakeholderconcernsandrelevant views

Record them in theArchitecture Vision

Add an explicit requirement forprogressive (iterative) developmentof the target architecture for continuous feedback and risk mitigation

In TOGAF, creating a Business Scenario is a foundational step in defining and understanding the business problem, especially for complex transformations involving multiple stakeholders andsystems, such as in this scenario. This method aligns with Phase A (Architecture Vision) of the TOGAF Architecture Development Method (ADM). Here’s why this approach is the most effective:

Understanding Business Requirements:A Business Scenario provides a structured way to capture and analyze the business requirements, stakeholder concerns, and the contextual elements related to the problem. In this scenario, the company faces challenges in integrating newly acquired companies with existing operations, which includes complex stakeholder concerns across different functional areas. Developing a Business Scenario allows the EA team to break down these complexities into identifiable and manageable parts.

Risk Evaluation and Management:By using the Business Scenario approach, the EA team can not only define the requirements but also assess associated risks systematically. TOGAF emphasizes the importance of risk management through identifying potential risks, evaluating their impact, and defining strategies for handling these risks. The process includes assessing how risks can be avoided, transferred, or reduced—a necessary step in large-scale transformations to ensure that risks are proactively managed.

Residual Risks and Governance:Any risks that cannot be fully resolved should be identified as residual risks and escalated to the Architecture Board, which is aligned with TOGAF’s governance approach. The Architecture Board’s role in TOGAF is to provide oversight and make critical decisions on risks that exceed the control of the EA team. This ensures that unresolved risks are managed at the appropriate level of the organization.

Alignment with TOGAF ADM Phases:The Business Scenario approach directly aligns with the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases of the TOGAF ADM, which focuses on establishing a baseline understanding of the business context and the strategic transformation required. The detailed understanding of requirements, stakeholder concerns, and risks identified here will guide the subsequent phases of the ADM, including Business Architecture and Information Systems Architecture.

TOGAF Reference (Section 2.6, ADM Techniques):TOGAF provides guidelines on the creation of Business Scenarios as part of ADM Techniques, highlighting the importance of defining a business problem comprehensively to ensure successful transformation. This method includes identification of stakeholders, business requirements, and associated risks, which aligns well with the company's need for strategic and systematic integration of new business units.

By utilizing a Business Scenario, the EA team ensures that all aspects of the transformation are well understood, risks are identified early, and residual risks are managed effectively, aligning with the company's strategic objectives and the TOGAF framework’s guidance on risk management and stakeholder alignment.

The question focuses onaddressing stakeholder concerns and mitigating riskswhen introducingAI-based systemsin a law firm, while also reflecting the CIO’s preference forarchitecting with agility.

OptionCis the best fit according to TOGAF.

✅Why Option C Is Correct

1. TOGAF Emphasizes Stakeholder Identification and Stakeholder Mapping (Phase A)

TOGAF requires:

Identifyingstakeholders

Analyzing theirconcerns, interests, and influence

Grouping stakeholders intocategories

Producing aStakeholder Mapand defining neededviews

Option C precisely describes this process.

2. Document Concerns in the Architecture Vision

The TOGAF Architecture Vision must include:

Stakeholder concerns

Relevant viewpoints

Business goals and drivers

High-level requirements

C describes documenting concerns and viewsin the Architecture Vision, which aligns perfectly with TOGAF Phase A.

3. Supports Agility / Progressive Development

The CIO promotesarchitecting with agility.

Option C includes:

“a requirement that there beprogressive developmentof the target architecture to get regular feedback.”

This is consistent with:

TOGAF’s support foriterative,incremental, andrisk-reducingdevelopment cycles

Agile architecture principles

Thus, C aligns both with TOGAFandthe CIO’s preference for agile adoption.

❌Why the Other Options Are Incorrect

A:

Communication planning is valid, but the answer istoo focused on reportingandlocation-specific summaries, which are not part of TOGAF Phase A.

Does not address the CIO’s need foragility.

Risk mitigation is described vaguely and incorrectly tied to later phases.

B:

Focuses on "business models" and "security architecture" — not the right emphasis for early stakeholder engagement.

Does not address fear of job performance monitoring or behavior change, which requires stakeholder-sensitive treatment.

D:

Proposes creatinghigh-level Business, Application, and Technology models in Phase A, which is inappropriate — such models belong inPhases B, C, D, not Vision.

Focuses on regulatory compliance rather than stakeholder concerns.

????TOGAF References

TOGAF 9.2 – Phase A: Architecture Vision

Defines stakeholder identification, concerns, and stakeholder map.

Encourages iterative, agile approaches.

Requires capturing concerns in the Architecture Vision.

TOGAF ADM Guidance for Agile

Supports incremental, feedback-driven development to reduce risk.