OGEA-103 Questions and Answers

The Business Value Assessment Technique is a technique that can be used to estimate and compare the business value of the projects and project increments that implement the architecture work packages, which are the sets of actions or tasks that are required to implement a specific part of the architecture. The business value is the measure of the benefits or advantages that the project or project increment delivers to the business, such as increased revenue, reduced costs, improved quality, or enhanced customer satisfaction1

The steps for applying the Business Value Assessment Technique are:

Identify the criteria and factors that are relevant to the business value assessment, such as costs, benefits, risks, and opportunities. The criteria and factors should be aligned with the business goals and drivers that motivate the architecture work, and the stakeholder requirements and concerns that influence the architecture work.

Assign weights and scores to the criteria and factors, using various methods, such as expert judgment, historical data, or analytical models. The weights and scores should reflect the importance and performance of the criteria and factors, and the trade-offs and preferences of the stakeholders.

Calculate the business value for each project or project increment, using various techniques, such as net present value, return on investment, or balanced scorecard. The business value should indicate the expected or actual outcomes and impacts of the project or project increment on the business.

Prioritize the implementation projects and project increments, based on the business value and other considerations, such as dependencies, resources, or risks. The prioritization should determine the order or sequence of the projects and project increments, and the allocation and utilization of the resources.

Therefore, the best answer is C, because it describes the next steps for the migration planning, which are the activities that support the transition from the Baseline Architecture to the Target Architecture. The answer covers the Business Value Assessment Technique, which is relevant to the scenario.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 28: Business Value Assessment Technique : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 18: Phase A: Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 21: Phase F: Migration Planning : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part IV: Architecture Content Framework, Chapter 36: Building Blocks

The Business Transformation Readiness Assessment is a technique that can be used to evaluate the readiness of the organization to undergo change and to identify the actions needed to increase the likelihood of a successful business transformation. This technique can help to address the concerns of the key stakeholders about the risks and value of the proposed reorganization. The technique involves assessing the following aspects of the organization: vision, commitment, capacity, capability, culture, and communication. Based on the assessment, the risks associated with the transformations can be identified, classified, and mitigated for. The technique also helps to identify the dependencies between the set of changes, including gaps and work packages, and the improvement actions to be worked into the Implementation and Migration Plan. The technique also supports the determination of the business value, effort, and risk associated for each transformation, which can be used to prioritize and sequence the work packages and the Transition Architectures1 References: 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 27: Business Transformation Readiness Assessment

Architecture governance is the practice of ensuring compliance with the enterprise architecture and its principles, standards, and goals. Architecture governance provides the means to establish, monitor, and control the architecture development and implementation processes, and to resolve any issues or conflicts that may arise. Architecture governance also ensures that all stakeholders are represented and involved in the decision-making process, and that their interests and concerns are balanced and aligned. Statements 1 and 2 highlight the value and necessity for architecture governance to be adopted within organizations, as they emphasize the importance of responsibility, accountability, fairness, and transparency in the architectural activities. Statements 3 and 4 are more related to the benefits and outcomes of having a good enterprise architecture, rather than the governance aspect.

The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 50: Architecture Governance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 29: Architecture Governance

The Request for Architecture Work is a deliverable that is sent from the sponsor and triggers the start of an architecture development cycle. It defines the scope, budget, schedule, and deliverables for a specific architecture project. The Statement of Architecture Work is a deliverable that is produced by the architect and defines the approach and resources needed to complete an architecture project. It forms the basis of a contractual agreement between the sponsor and the architecture organization. The Architecture Principles are a deliverable that is produced by the architect and defines the general rules and guidelines for the architecture work. They reflect the business principles, business goals, and business drivers of the organization. The Architecture Requirements Specification is a deliverable that is produced by the architect and defines the requirements that govern the architecture work. It covers both functional and non-functional requirements as well as constraints and assumptions. 

The correct answer is B, as it aligns with TOGAF's stakeholder management approach, ensuring that stakeholder concerns are captured and addressed iteratively throughout the architecture development process.

Analysis of the Correct Answer (Option B):

Stakeholder Analysis and Mapping

The scenario highlights that top managers and staff are worried about the changes AI will bring.

TOGAF recommends stakeholder analysis early in the ADM process to ensure that concerns, expectations, and risks are documented.

Creating a Stakeholder Map groups stakeholders by common concerns, allowing architects to develop tailored viewpoints.

Recording Concerns in the Architecture Vision Document

The Architecture Vision (ADM Phase A) serves as a high-level guiding document.

Capturing stakeholder concerns in the Vision document ensures alignment between business goals and technology implementation.

Iterative Development and Regular Feedback

The scenario describes an AI-powered system with major business impacts, so incremental validation is necessary.

TOGAF emphasizes progressive development to manage risk and validate requirements continuously.

Regular feedback loops help mitigate resistance from top managers and staff.

Why Other Options Are Incorrect?

Option A: Creating Models for Business, Application, and Technology Architectures

Incorrect because while compliance is important, it does not address stakeholder concerns directly.

The scenario is about ensuring buy-in from top managers and employees, not just regulatory compliance.

Option C: Using Uniform Business Models Across AI Projects

Incorrect because a one-size-fits-all model does not allow for regional and functional differences within the company.

The scenario emphasizes the need to address specific concerns of top managers and different locations, which requires stakeholder-specific customization.

Option D: Creating a Communications Plan

Incorrect because communication alone does not resolve stakeholder concerns.

While communication is useful, the architecture development process should include stakeholder engagement and progressive validation, not just reporting.

According to the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, an Architecture Contract is a joint agreement between development partners and sponsors on the deliverables, quality, and fitness-for-purpose of an architecture1. It defines the scope, responsibilities, and governance of the architecturework, and ensures the alignment and compliance of the architecture with the business goals and objectives1.

In the scenario, the Lead Enterprise Architect has asked you to review the draft Architecture Contracts and recommend the best approach to address the Chief Engineer’s concern about the consistency and quality of the deployment of the new processes for the battery pack production at each location.

The best answer is C, because it follows the guidelines and best practices for defining and using Architecture Contracts as described in the TOGAF Standard, Version 9.22. It ensures that the contracts cover the essential aspects of the project objectives, effectiveness metrics, acceptance criteria, and risk management, and that they are legally enforceable for third-party contractors. It also recommends a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process, and a mechanism for handling any deviations from the Architecture Contract, involving the Architecture Board and the possibility of granting a dispensation to allow the process to be customized for local needs.

The other options are not correct because they either23:

A. For changes requested by an internal team, you recommend a memorandum of understanding between the Architecture Board and the implementation organization. For contracts issued to third-party contractors, you recommend that it is a fully enforceable legal contract. You recommend that the Architecture Board reviews all deviations from the Architecture Contract and considers whether to grant a dispensation to allow the implementation organization to customize the process to meet their local needs.: This option does not address the need to review the contracts to ensure that they address the project objectives, effectiveness metrics, acceptance criteria, and risk management. It also does not recommend a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process. Moreover, it suggests that a memorandum of understanding is sufficient for internal teams, which may not be legally binding or enforceable.

B. For changes undertaken by internal teams, you recommend a memorandum of understanding between the Architecture Board and the implementation organization. If a contract is issued to a contractor, you recommend that it is a fully enforceable legal contract. If a deviation from the Architecture Contract is found, you recommend that the Architecture Board grant a dispensation to allow the implementation organization to customize the process to meet their local needs.: This option has the same problems as option A, and also implies that the Architecture Board should always grant a dispensation for any deviation, which may not be appropriate or desirable in some cases.

D. You recommend that the Architecture Contracts be used to manage the architecture governance processes across the locations. You recommend deployment of monitoring tools to assess the performance of each completed battery pack at each location and develop change requirements if necessary. If a deviation from the contract is detected, the Architecture Board should allow the Architecture Contract to be modified meet the local needs. In such cases they should issue a new Request for Architecture Work.: This option does not address the need to review the contracts to ensure that they address the project objectives, effectiveness metrics,acceptance criteria, and risk management. It also does not recommend a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process. Moreover, it suggests that the Architecture Board should always allow the Architecture Contract to be modified for any deviation, which may not be appropriate or desirable in some cases. It also implies that a new Request for Architecture Work should be issued for each deviation, which may not be necessary or feasible.

1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 3: Definitions and Terminology, Section 3.1: Terms and Definitions

2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 43: Architecture Contracts

3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Chapter 44: Architecture Governance

The Target Architecture is a description of the future state of the architecture that addresses the business goals and drivers, and satisfies the stakeholder requirements and concerns. The Target Architecture is developed through the Architecture Development Method (ADM), which is the core process of the TOGAF standard that guides the development and management of the enterprise architecture. The Target Architecture is typically divided into four domains: Business, Data, Application, and Technology. The Target Architecture also includes a roadmap for change, which defines the Transition Architectures, the Capability Increments, and the work packages that enable the transition from the Baseline Architecture to the Target Architecture12

The best answer is B, because it describes the approach that should be taken to determine and organize the work to deliver the requested architectures, which are the Information Systems and Technology Architectures. The answer covers the following steps:

Refer to the end-to-end Target Architecture for guidance and direction. The end-to-end Target Architecture provides the overall vision, scope, and objectives of the architecture work, and the alignment with the business strategy and goals. The end-to-end Target Architecture also provides the high-level definitions and principles for the four architecture domains, and the roadmap for change that outlines the major milestones and deliverables.

Identify projects, dependencies and synergies, then prioritize before initiating the projects. Projects are the units of work that implement the architecture work packages, which are the sets of actions or tasks that are required to implement a specific part of the architecture. Dependencies are the relationships and constraints that affect the order or priority of the projects, such as logical, temporal, or resource dependencies. Synergies are the benefits or advantages that result from the combination or coordination of the projects, such as cost savings, efficiency gains, or innovation opportunities. Prioritization is the process of ranking the projects according to their importance, urgency, or value, and assigning resources and schedules accordingly.

Develop high-level architecture descriptions. High-level architecture descriptions are the outputs of the architecture development phases (B, C, and D) of the ADM cycle, which describe the Business, Data, Application, and Technology Architectures in terms of the Architecture Building Blocks (ABBs) and the Solution Building Blocks (SBBs), which are reusable components of business, IT, or architectural capability. High-level architecture descriptions also include the Architecture Views, which are representations of the system of interest from the perspective of one or more stakeholders and their concerns.

For each project, estimate effort size, identify reference architectures, and candidate building blocks. Effort size is the measure of the amount of work, time, or resources required to complete a project. Effort size can be estimated using various techniques, such as analogy, expert judgment, parametric, or bottom-up. Reference architectures are standardized architectures that provide a common framework and vocabulary for a specific domain or industry. Reference architectures can be used as a source of best practices, patterns, and models for the architecture development. Candidate building blocks are the potential ABBs or SBBs that can be used to implement the architecture. Candidate building blocks can be identified from the Architecture Repository, which is a collection of architecture assets, such as models, patterns, principles, standards, and guidelines.

Identify the resource needs considering cost and value. Resource needs are the specifications and criteria that define the acceptable level and quality of the resources required to complete the project, such as human, financial, physical, or technological resources. Resource needs can be identified by analyzing the scope, complexity, and dependencies of the project, and the availability, capability, and suitability of the resources. Cost and value are the factors that influence the allocation and utilization of the resources, such as the budget, the return on investment, the benefits, or the risks.

Document options, risks, and controls to enable viability analysis and trade-off with the stakeholders. Options are the alternative ways of achieving the project objectives, such as different solutions, technologies, vendors, or approaches. Risks are the effects of uncertainty on the project objectives, such as threats or opportunities. Controls are the measures or actions that are taken to prevent, reduce, or mitigate the risks, such as policies, procedures, or standards. Viability analysis is the process of evaluating and comparing the options, risks, and controls, and determining the feasibility, suitability, and desirability of each option. Trade-off is the decision outcome that balances and reconciles the multiple, often conflicting, requirements and concerns of the stakeholders, and ensures alignment with the Architecture Vision and the Architecture Principles.

 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 5: Introduction to the ADM 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part IV: Architecture Content Framework, Chapter 36: Building Blocks : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 18: Phase A: Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 19: Phase B: Business Architecture : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 20: Phase C: Information Systems Architectures : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 21: Phase F: Migration Planning : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 23: Architecture Principles : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Trade-Off Analysis : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 46: Tools for Architecture Development : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework,Chapter 47: Architecture Board : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 48: Architecture Compliance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 49: Architecture Contract : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 50: Architecture Governance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 51: Architecture Maturity Models : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 52: Architecture Skills Framework

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.

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.

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.

Key aspects of the scenario:

Business Objective:

A merger is happening to combine offerings, reduce costs, and achieve operational efficiency.

The goal includes fully integrating retail operations and systems, replacing duplicated systems, and reducing the number of applications used.

Technological Improvements:

A central AI-based inventory system is in place.

Hand-held devices for stores have improved customer and staff satisfaction and increased efficiency.

Scope of Architecture Work:

Integrating the merged systems.

Managing retail architecture to optimize operations.

TOGAF Alignment:

TOGAF principles aim to ensure the architecture supports business transformation effectively while aligning with governance and best practices.

Best answer analysis:

Option 1:

Maximize Benefit to the Enterprise: Aligns with the merger goals of cost reduction and efficiency.

Common Use Applications: Matches the goal to reduce duplicated systems.

Data is an Asset: Central AI system depends on accurate and reliable data.

Responsive Change Management: Necessary to support the transition and manage organizational impacts.

Technology Independence: Encourages selecting flexible, scalable solutions post-merger.

This option comprehensively aligns with the scenario.

Option 2:

Control Technical Diversity: Important but less emphasized than cost reduction and application unification.

Interoperability: Relevant, but less critical compared to principles addressing business value.

Data is an Asset: Relevant.

Data is Shared: Implied in centralized inventory but not directly stated.

Business Continuity: Important but not the main focus here.

This option partially fits but lacks emphasis on business outcomes.

Option 3:

Common Vocabulary and Data Definitions: Indirectly helpful but not central to the transformation.

Compliance with the Law: Always critical, but no explicit legal issues are mentioned.

Requirements-Based Change: General principle but not transformation-specific.

Responsive Change Management: Relevant.

Data Security: Important but not a central concern in the scenario.

This option focuses more on governance and less on merger goals.

Option 4:

Common Use Applications: Relevant to reducing duplicate systems.

Data is an Asset: Relevant.

Data is Accessible: Fits with AI system and handheld devices but is a subset of "Data is an Asset."

Ease of Use: Relevant to handheld devices but not a core transformation principle.

Business Continuity: Important but secondary to cost and efficiency.

This option focuses more on usability and accessibility rather than transformation objectives.