Cyber Monday 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 1 Question 30 Discussion

Actual exam question for The Open Group's OGEA-103 exam
Question #: 30
Topic #: 1
[All OGEA-103 Questions]

Please read this scenario prior to answering the question

Your role is that of a consultant to the Lead Enterprise Architect in a multinational automotive manufacturer.

The company has a corporate strategy that focuses on electrification of its portfolio, and it has invested

heavily in a new shared car platform to use across all its brands. The company has four manufacturing

facilities, one in North America, two in Europe, and one in Asia.

A challenge that the company is facing is to scale up the number of vehicles coming off the production line to meet customer demand, while maintaining quality. There are significant supply chain shortages for electronic components, which are impacting production. In response to this the company has taken on new suppliers and has also taken design and production of the battery pack in-house.

The company has a mature Enterprise Architecture practice. The TOGAF standard is used for developing

the process and systems used to design, manufacture, and test the battery pack. The Chief Information

Officer and the Chief Operating Officer co-sponsor the Enterprise Architecture program.

As part of putting the new battery pack into production, adjustments to the assembly processes need to be made. A pilot project has been completed at a single location. The Chief Engineer, sponsor of the activity, and the Architecture Board have approved the plan for implementation and migration at each plant.

Draft Architecture Contracts have been developed that detail the work needed to implement and deploy the new processes for each location. The company mixes internal teams with a few third-party contractors at the locations. The Chief Engineer has expressed concern that the deployment will not be consistent and of acceptable quality.

Refer to 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.

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, Version 9.2, anArchitecture Contractis 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 architecture work, 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

Contribute your Thoughts:

Torie
4 months ago
That's true, ensuring consistency is crucial in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chauncey
4 months ago
But option A specifically mentions reviewing deviations from the Architecture Contract.
upvoted 0 times
...
Mari
4 months ago
Did someone say 'hobgoblin'? That's my cue! *clears throat* Consistency, schmonsistency - let's get creative with those local customizations! *winks* Just kidding, C is the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
Amalia
3 months ago
C definitely covers all the important aspects like compliance reviews, risk management, and customization for local needs. It's the way to go.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amalia
3 months ago
Yeah, C is the most comprehensive approach to address the Chief Engineer's concerns and ensure consistency in the implementation process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Amalia
4 months ago
I agree, C seems like the best option to ensure project objectives are met and risks are managed effectively.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Buck
4 months ago
I'm not sure, option C also seems like a good choice with compliance reviews.
upvoted 0 times
...
Torie
4 months ago
I agree with Chauncey, option A seems to address the Chief Engineer's concern.
upvoted 0 times
...
Antonio
5 months ago
I'm going with C as well. Reminds me of that old saying, 'Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.' But in this case, consistency is key!
upvoted 0 times
Sherron
4 months ago
Absolutely, consistency ensures that the quality and standards are maintained throughout the implementation process.
upvoted 0 times
...
Annamae
4 months ago
I agree, consistency is definitely important in this situation. It's crucial for the success of the project.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lindsey
4 months ago
C) You review the contracts ensuring that they address project objectives, effectiveness metrics, acceptance criteria, and risk management. Third-party contracts must be legally enforceable. You recommend a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process. You recommend that the Architecture Board reviews all deviations from the Architecture Contract and considers whether to grant a dispensation to allow the process to be customized for local needs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elsa
4 months ago
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.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Lorrie
5 months ago
Option D seems too flexible. Modifying the Architecture Contract for local needs could lead to too much inconsistency. C is the way to go - keep it tight, but allow for some customization if truly necessary.
upvoted 0 times
Ranee
4 months ago
D) Modifying the Architecture Contract for local needs could lead to inconsistency. C is the way to go - keep it tight, but allow for some customization if truly necessary.
upvoted 0 times
...
Cassie
4 months ago
C) You review the contracts ensuring that they address project objectives, effectiveness metrics, acceptance criteria, and risk management. Third-party contracts must be legally enforceable. You recommend a schedule of compliance reviews at key points in the implementation process. You recommend that the Architecture Board reviews all deviations from the Architecture Contract and considers whether to grant a dispensation to allow the process to be customized for local needs.
upvoted 0 times
...
Farrah
4 months ago
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 to implement a modification to the Architecture Definition.
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Meaghan
5 months ago
I agree with C. The Architecture Board needs to have oversight and control over any deviations to maintain quality and consistency. Granting dispensations should be the exception, not the norm.
upvoted 0 times
...
Chauncey
5 months ago
I think option A is the best approach.
upvoted 0 times
...
Karl
5 months ago
The correct answer is C. It's the most comprehensive approach that addresses the Chief Engineer's concern about consistency and quality. Enforceable third-party contracts and compliance reviews are key to ensuring successful implementation.
upvoted 0 times
Lyla
4 months ago
User 2
upvoted 0 times
...
Rolf
4 months ago
User 1
upvoted 0 times
...
...

Save Cancel
az-700  pass4success  az-104  200-301  200-201  cissp  350-401  350-201  350-501  350-601  350-801  350-901  az-720  az-305  pl-300  

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /pass.php:70) in /pass.php on line 77