OGEA-102 Dumps with Practice Exam Questions Answers

In this scenario, the CTO has not purchased cyber-insurance, the CSO is concerned about increased DDoS risk, and YOU (the EA) are asked “to describe the steps you would take to strengthen the current architecture to improve data protection.”

Because the company follows the TOGAF standard and uses an iterative ADM cycle, the correct response must:

Start with the risk/continuity concern

Use the formal TOGAF change management process

Lead to a Request for Architecture Work

Initiate a new ADM cycle to update the architecture properly

Ensure Architecture Board governance

Option B is the only answer that matches TOGAF’s required process.

✔ Why Option B is correct (TOGAF-aligned)

Option B follows TOGAF’s Architecture Change Management (Phase H) process:

Assess the business continuity requirements– Correct: Phase H requires evaluating change triggers such as new risks, threats, or incidents.– DDoS risk → business continuity concern → legitimate architecture change trigger.

Analyze the current architecture for gaps– Correct: TOGAF Phase H requires assessing whether the current baseline architecture can support required resilience.

Create a formal Change Request– Exactly correct: Phase H outputs Architecture Change Requests (ACRs) for significant changes.– ACR includes description, rationale, and impact (in this case: resilience, continuity, and data protection).

Architecture Board reviews/approves the change request– Correct: All major architecture changes must go through Architecture Governance.

Create a new Request for Architecture Work (RFAW)– Required when the change is significant and needs a new ADM cycle.– Strengthening data protection and business continuity DEFINITELY qualifies as a major change.

Begin a new ADM cycle to implement the changes– Perfectly aligned with TOGAF’s iterative approach:Business continuity → update Technology Architecture → updated security patterns → updated Target Architecture.

This is exactly the TOGAF-prescribed method to strengthen an architecture when significant new risks appear.

Therefore, Option B is the correct and TOGAF-compliant answer.

✘ Why the other options are incorrect

A – Not TOGAF-aligned

Starts with vendors and simulations (not TOGAF-first steps).

No mention of Architecture Board or Change Management.

No Request for Architecture Work.

Gap analysis alone is not the first step for significant architectural risk.

C – Too narrow and skips TOGAF governance

Jumps straight to modifying the Technology Architecture baseline.

No Change Request, no RFAW, no ADM cycle initiation.

Recommends a solution (“DDoS mitigation at infrastructure level”) before architectural assessment.

D – Misuses Architecture Compliance Review

Architecture Compliance Reviews check conformity to an existing architecture—not evaluate new risks or design resilience enhancements.

A compliance review is not the correct first step for addressing new threats.

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.

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.

Context of the Scenario

The organization is currently in the Migration Planning phase, which corresponds to Phase F of the TOGAF ADM (Architecture Development Method). The key activities for this phase involve:

Evaluating dependencies and impacts on other organizational frameworks.

Aligning the roadmap and migration plan with strategic objectives and available resources.

Addressing the risks of transitioning from the current architecture to the target architecture using a phased approach.

The deliverables (Architecture Roadmap, Capability Assessment, etc.) and assessments (Gap Analysis, Risk Assessment, Transformation Readiness) have already been developed. The next step is to refine and finalize the migration planning.

Option Analysis

Option A:

While updating the Architecture Definition Document could ensure alignment, this step was completed in earlier phases (B, C, D). At this stage, further changes to the architecture must go through a formal governance review, and applying lessons learned without review contradicts TOGAF principles.

Producing an Implementation Governance Model is more relevant in Phase G (Implementation Governance), not in Phase F.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it suggests revisiting earlier steps and does not align with the current phase.

Option B:

Conducting Compliance Assessments ensures the architecture is implemented correctly, but this is a task for Phase G (Implementation Governance) after migration planning has been finalized and implementation begins.

Deployment of monitoring tools is also part of implementation and governance activities, not migration planning.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it focuses on tasks belonging to a later phase.

Option C:

Examining how the Implementation and Migration Plan affects other organizational frameworks is critical in Phase F, as TOGAF emphasizes alignment with business planning, project/portfolio management, and operations management.

Assigning business value to each project ensures prioritization and optimal allocation of resources.

Updating the Architecture Roadmap and the Implementation and Migration Plan based on this analysis ensures strategic alignment and readiness for implementation.

Conclusion: Correct, as it addresses the key objectives of the Migration Planning phase comprehensively.

Option D:

Applying the Business Value Assessment Technique is valid for prioritizing initiatives but is a limited aspect of Migration Planning.

Planning Transition Architecture phases and documenting lessons learned are valid, but this does not address broader organizational impacts or dependencies as effectively as Option C.

Conclusion: Narrow focus; less comprehensive than Option C.

References to TOGAF

Phase F (Migration Planning): The focus is on aligning the migration plan with business objectives, considering organizational dependencies, and prioritizing projects (TOGAF 9.2, Chapter 12).

Architecture Roadmap and Implementation Plan: Updated to reflect changes in priorities and alignment with business frameworks (TOGAF 9.2, Section 12.4).

Framework Integration: Collaboration with other frameworks (e.g., business planning, portfolio management) ensures alignment across the organization (TOGAF 9.2, Section 6.5.2).

Business Value Assessment Technique: Used to prioritize initiatives based on return on investment and performance criteria (TOGAF 9.2, Section 24.4).

Comprehensive and Detailed Step-by-Step Explanation

Context of the Scenario

The scenario highlights significant risks due to ransomware attacks and the need to strengthen the company’s Enterprise Architecture to improve data protection and resilience. TOGAF emphasizes the Architecture Compliance Review as a mechanism for ensuring the architecturemeets its objectives and addresses specific concerns such as security, resilience, and compliance with organizational goals.

The organization has already conducted a risk assessment but requires actionable steps to:

Address ransomware attack risks.

Increase the resilience of the Technology Architecture.

Ensure proper alignment with governance and compliance frameworks.

Option Analysis

Option A:

Strengths:

Highlights the need for up-to-date processes for managing changes in the Enterprise Architecture.

Recognizes the importance of governance through the Architecture Board and change management techniques.

Weaknesses:

The approach focuses solely on the Technology Architecture baseline but does not address the need for specific steps such as compliance review, gap analysis, or tailored resilience measures for ransomware risks.

It provides a broad and generic approach rather than a targeted plan for ransomware and data protection issues.

Conclusion: Incorrect. While it adheres to governance processes, it lacks specific actions to improve resilience and address the immediate security concerns.

Option B:

Strengths:

Proposes an Architecture Compliance Review, which is a core TOGAF process used to evaluate architecture implementation against defined objectives, ensuring it is fit for purpose.

Involves identifying stakeholders (departments) and tailoring checklists specific to ransomware resilience.

Emphasizes issue identification and resolution through structured review processes.

Weaknesses:

Does not explicitly address longer-term updates to the Enterprise Architecture, but this can be inferred as a next step following compliance recommendations.

Conclusion: Correct. This is the most suitable approach based on TOGAF principles, as it uses an established process to evaluate and improve the architecture's resilience.

Option C:

Strengths:

Includes monitoring for updates from suppliers to enhance detection and recovery capabilities, which is relevant to addressing ransomware risks.

Proposes a gap analysis to identify shortcomings in the current Enterprise Architecture and recommends addressing gaps through change requests.

Incorporates disaster recovery planning exercises, which are useful for testing resilience.

Weaknesses:

While thorough, the approach lacks the Architecture Compliance Review process, which is a more structured way to ensure the architecture meets resilience requirements.

Monitoring suppliers and running disaster recovery exercises are operational steps rather than strategic architectural improvements.

Conclusion: Incorrect. While it includes valid activities, it does not adhere to TOGAF’s structured approach for architecture assessment and compliance.

Option D:

Strengths:

Proposes analyzing business continuity requirements and assessing the architecture for gaps, which is relevant to the scenario.

Suggests initiating an ADM cycle to address gaps, which aligns with TOGAF principles.

Weaknesses:

Focusing on initiating a new ADM cycle may be premature, as the immediate priority is to evaluate the existing architecture and address specific resilience concerns.

Does not mention compliance review or tailored resilience measures for ransomware attacks, which are central to the scenario.

Conclusion: Incorrect. It proposes a broader approach that may not adequately address the immediate concerns highlighted by the CSO.

TOGAF References

Architecture Compliance Review: A structured process used to evaluate whether an architecture meets the stated goals, objectives, and requirements (TOGAF 9.2, Chapter 19). It is particularly useful for identifying and addressing resilience requirements in scenarios involving security risks.

Stakeholder Engagement: Identifying and involving stakeholders (e.g., departments) is a critical part of architecture governance and compliance review (TOGAF 9.2, Section 24.2).

Change Management: The Architecture Compliance Review supports identifying necessary changes, which are then managed through governance and change management processes (TOGAF 9.2, Section 21.6).

By choosing Option B, you align with TOGAF’s structured approach to compliance, resilience, and addressing security concerns.