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

In this scenario you are right at the start of an ADM cycle: a Request for Architecture Work has been approved to investigate AI, and there are strong stakeholder concerns and risk questions. According to the TOGAF standard, the correct place to start is Phase A: Architecture Vision, with a strong focus on stakeholder management and capturing their concerns and required views.

Option A is 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 a Stakeholder Map to understand their influence, interest, and required engagement

Determine which views/viewpoints are needed to address their concerns in the architecture description coe.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 the Architecture Vision deliverable Visual Paradigm TOGAF+1

Concerns, views, and Architecture VisionTOGAF emphasizes that architecture views are constructed to address specific stakeholder concerns; you do not just build generic models. opengroup.org+1

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

Capturing this in the Architecture Vision provides 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 encouraged architecting 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 the change in the way of working and whether risk management and responsible AI policies are adequate: these become explicit stakeholder concerns and requirements that are iteratively refined.

Why the other options are weaker / not TOGAF-aligned as a starting point

Option B

Focuses mainly on a Communications Plan and powerful stakeholders.

While TOGAF does expect a stakeholder communications plan, it is derived from a 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 addressed early through stakeholder concerns, principles, and iteration.

Option C

Jumps straight to a solution concept diagram and benefits diagram and defers risk evaluation to when the Architecture Roadmap is 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 draft Business, Data, Application, and Technology models and putting them into the Architecture Vision.

This is too detailed for the starting point: Phase A is about high-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 A is the best and TOGAF-consistent way to begin:

Start in Phase A: Architecture Vision

Perform stakeholder analysis and create a Stakeholder Map

Define stakeholder concerns and relevant views

Record them in the Architecture Vision

Add an explicit requirement for progressive (iterative) development of the target architecture for continuous feedback and risk mitigation

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. References:

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]

The correct answer is C, as it aligns with the key TOGAF principles necessary for guiding enterprise architecture in a merger scenario where retail operations and systems are being consolidated.

Analysis of the Principles in Option C:

Common Use Applications

Since the two companies are merging, it is essential to standardize applications across the enterprise.

Using common applications ensures consistency, reduces costs, and improves efficiency.

TOGAF emphasizes this principle to prevent duplicate or redundant systems, which aligns with the CIO’s goal of reducing the number of applications used.

Data is an Asset

In the scenario, a central inventory management system is a core business function.

Treating data as an asset ensures it is managed properly, shared efficiently, and used strategically across the merged organization.

This principle supports the company’s ability to predict demand, adjust stock levels, and automate reordering.

Common Vocabulary and Data Definitions

The merger requires integrating different systems and data structures.

Having a common vocabulary ensures that all stakeholders (stores, fulfillment centers, and digital platforms) use consistent terminology and data definitions.

This minimizes confusion and ensures interoperability across business functions.

Maximize Benefit to the Enterprise

Every architectural decision should focus on the overall benefit to the business.

By consolidating IT systems and reducing redundancies, the company achieves cost savings, which directly supports this principle.

Business Continuity

The stores operate seven days a week, so system changes must ensure uninterrupted service.

Business continuity ensures that customers are not affected during the transition and that critical retail operations (sales, inventory tracking, and fulfillment) remain functional.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect?

Option A: Control Technical Diversity, Interoperability, Data is an Asset, Data is Shared, Business Continuity

Control Technical Diversity is not the primary concern here. The focus is on system consolidation, not necessarily on limiting technology diversity.

Interoperability is important but not as critical as defining a common system and data structure.

Option B: Service Orientation, Compliance with the Law, Requirements-Based Change, Responsive Change Management, Data Security

While service orientation and compliance are valuable, they are not the most relevant to this specific business transition.

Change management and data security are important but do not address the primary enterprise-wide architectural concerns of system consolidation.

Option D: Ease of Use, Common Use Applications, Data is an Asset, Technology Independence, Business Continuity

Ease of Use is beneficial but is not a core architecture principle in this case.

Technology Independence is useful but does not align directly with the scenario’s priority, which is consolidating applications and data structures.