OGEA-103 Exam Dumps - The Open Group Enterprise Architecture Questions and Answers

In the context of the TOGAF standard, stakeholder management and addressing stakeholder concerns are critical components, especially for high-impact initiatives like adopting an AI-first approach. Here’s why the selected answer aligns best with TOGAF principles and the scenario:

Stakeholder Analysis and Engagement:Conducting a stakeholder analysis is essential as it helps identify and document the concerns, issues, and cultural factors influencing each stakeholder group. This aligns with TOGAF’s emphasis on understanding and managing stakeholder concerns, particularly in the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases of the ADM (Architecture Development Method). Since the scenario highlights diverse concerns about AI, understanding each group's unique perspective will help the EA team tailor the architecture to address these effectively.

Architecture Vision Document:By documenting these concerns in the Architecture Vision document, the EA team can provide a clear, high-level representation of how AI will be adopted, its benefits, and how it addresses specific stakeholder concerns. This is critical for communicating the intent and value of the AI-first approach in a way that aligns with the agency's strategic goals, including addressing apprehensions about job security, skill development, and cyber resilience.

Risk Management and Architecture Requirements Specification:TOGAF highlights the importance of identifying and managing risks early in the process. By documenting the requirements related to risk in the Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team ensures that these concerns are formally integrated into the architecture and addressed throughout the ADM phases. Regular assessments and feedback loops will provide a mechanism for continual risk monitoring and adjustment as the AI-first initiative progresses.

Alignment with TOGAF’s ADM Phases:The approach specified aligns with TOGAF’s guidance on managing risk and stakeholder concerns during the early ADM phases, specifically Architecture Vision and Requirements Management. In these phases, the framework emphasizes identifying and addressing risks associated with stakeholders' concerns to build a resilient and widely accepted architecture.

Reference to TOGAF Stakeholder Management Techniques:TOGAF’s stakeholder management techniques underscore the importance of understanding and addressing stakeholder needs as a foundational step. This involves assessing the influence and interest of various stakeholders and integrating their views into architectural development, ensuring that the architecture aligns with both business goals and operational realities.

In conclusion, by conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis and documenting concerns in both the Architecture Vision and Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team can ensure that stakeholder concerns are addressed, that the architecture supports AI adoption effectively, and that potential risks are managed proactively. This approach will foster acceptance among stakeholders and ensure that the architecture aligns with the agency’s strategic goals and risk management requirements as recommended by TOGAF.

In TOGAF, creating a Business Scenario is a foundational step in defining and understanding the business problem, especially for complex transformations involving multiple stakeholders and systems, 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.

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 agency is initiating a strategic “AI-first” plan to transform processes using AI and improve efficiency while ensuring service improvements for citizens. Several stakeholder concerns have been raised, such as:

Job security for employees.

Skill development for adapting to new technologies.

Cybersecurity and resilience risks due to reliance on digital platforms.

TOGAF emphasizes the importance of stakeholder management, communication, and risk management to ensure successful adoption and implementation of new architecture. These concerns need to be addressed methodically by gathering requirements, analyzing stakeholder positions, and ensuring proper communication of risks and benefits.

Option Analysis

Option A:

Strengths:

Proposes creating an Organization Map to identify the links between different parts of the agency and the impact of the strategic change.

Suggests holding stakeholder meetings to address concerns.

Includes managing risks as part of Security Architecture development.

Weaknesses:

Focusing solely on creating business models and teaching stakeholders how to interpret them does not directly address cultural and positional concerns about job loss, skill development, and security.

Risk management is addressed as part of Security Architecture development but lacks broader integration into stakeholder requirements.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it fails to systematically document stakeholder concerns and map them into requirements and architecture decisions.

Option B:

Strengths:

Highlights the importance of formal stakeholder identification and creating a Communication Plan.

Suggests addressing stakeholder concerns through communication and risk management.

Weaknesses:

Does not go into detail on analyzing stakeholder concerns, cultural positions, or specific requirements.

Lacks the inclusion of stakeholder feedback in architecture artifacts like the Architecture Vision or Requirements Specification, which are critical TOGAF outputs.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it does not include a systematic and structured approach for stakeholder analysis and integration into architecture deliverables.

Option C:

Strengths:

Emphasizes conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis to document concerns, positions, and cultural factors, which aligns with TOGAF’s approach in Phase A (Architecture Vision).

Ensures stakeholder views and requirements are recorded in the Architecture Vision document and reflected in the Architecture Requirements Specification.

Includes continuous assessment and feedback, ensuring concerns are addressed and risks managed effectively.

Aligns with TOGAF's principle of involving stakeholders in architecture development to ensure alignment and success.

Weaknesses:

Could further detail how risk management is included across all phases, but this is implied through integration into the Architecture Requirements Specification.

Conclusion: Correct, as it provides a structured and detailed approach for addressing stakeholder concerns and managing risks within TOGAF’s framework.

Option D:

Strengths:

Suggests categorizing stakeholders into groups and creating models for each category.

Proposes arranging meetings to verify that concerns have been addressed.

Includes risk management as part of the process.

Weaknesses:

Dividing stakeholders into generic categories (e.g., corporate functions, project team) may not adequately capture specific cultural factors and concerns raised in the scenario.

Lacks integration of stakeholder feedback into architecture deliverables such as the Architecture Vision and Architecture Requirements Specification.

Conclusion: Incorrect, as it provides a generalized and less targeted approach to stakeholder concerns compared to Option C.

TOGAF References

Stakeholder Management (Phase A): TOGAF emphasizes analyzing stakeholders’ positions, concerns, and issues to shape architecture development and communication (TOGAF 9.2, Section 24.2).

Architecture Vision: Captures high-level requirements and stakeholder views to ensure alignment with business goals (TOGAF 9.2, Section 6.2).

Architecture Requirements Specification: Records detailed requirements, including those related to risk management, to guide the development of target architectures (TOGAF 9.2, Section 35.5).

Iterative Feedback: Regular assessments and feedback loops are critical to ensure stakeholder concerns are addressed effectively throughout the ADM cycle.

By selecting Option C, the approach adheres to TOGAF's principles of stakeholder analysis, communication, and integration of concerns into architecture development.

Business continuity is the ability of an organization to maintain essential functions during and after a disaster or disruption. Business continuity requirements are the specifications and criteria that define the acceptable level of performance and availability of the business processes and services in the event of a disaster or disruption. A gap analysis is a technique that compares the current state of the architecture with the desired state, and identifies the gaps or differences that need to be addressed. A change request is a formal proposal for an amendment to some product or system, such as the architecture. A Request for Architecture Work is a document that describes the scope, approach, and expected outcomes of an architecture project123

The best answer is A, because it describes the steps that would improve the resilience of the current architecture, which is the ability to withstand and recover from a ransomware attack or any other disruption. The steps are:

Determine the business continuity requirements, which specify the minimum acceptable level of performance and availability of the business processes and services in case of a ransomware attack. This would involve identifying the critical business functions, the recovery time objectives, the recovery point objectives, and the dependencies and resources needed for recovery.

Undertake a gap analysis of the current Enterprise Architecture, which compares the current state of the architecture with the desired state based on the business continuity requirements. This would involve assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current architecture, the risks and opportunities for improvement, and the gaps or differences that need to be addressed.

Make recommendations for change requirements to address the situation and create a change request. This would involve proposing solutions and alternatives to close the gaps, enhance the resilience, and mitigate the risks of the current architecture. The change request would document the rationale, scope, impact, and benefits of the proposed changes, and seek approval from the relevant stakeholders.

Manage a meeting of the Architecture Board to assess and approve the change request. The Architecture Board is a governance body that oversees the architecture work and ensures compliance with the architecture principles, standards, and goals. The meeting would involve presenting the change request, discussing the pros and cons, resolving any issues or conflicts, and obtaining the approval or rejection of the change request.

Once approved, produce a new Request for Architecture Work to activate an ADM cycle to carry out a project to define the change. The Request for Architecture Work would describe the scope, approach, and expected outcomes of the architecture project that would implement the approved change request. The Request for Architecture Work would initiate a new cycle of the Architecture Development Method (ADM), which is the core process of the TOGAF standard that guides the development and management of the enterprise architecture.

References: 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 33: Business Scenarios 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Gap Analysis 3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 31: Architecture Change Management : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 7: Request for Architecture Work : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 34: Business Transformation Readiness Assessment : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Gap Analysis : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 31: Architecture Change Management : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part VI: Architecture Capability Framework, Chapter 50: Architecture Governance : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 7: Request for Architecture Work

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.

Based on the TOGAF standard, this answer is the best approach for architecture development to realize the CEO’s change in direction for the company. The reason is as follows:

The scenario describes a major business transformation that requires a clear understanding of the current and future states of the enterprise, as well as the gaps and opportunities for change. Therefore, the priority is to understand and bring structure to the definition of the change, rather than focusing on the implementation details or the technology aspects.

The team should use the TOGAF ADM as the method and guiding framework for architecture development, and adapt it to suit the specific needs and context of the enterprise. The team should also leverage the existing Architecture Capability and the Architecture Repository to reuse and integrate relevant architecture assets and resources.

The team should focus iteration cycles on a baseline first approach to architecture development, which means starting with the definition of the Baseline Architecture in each domain (Business, Data, Application, and Technology), and then defining the Target Architecture in each domain. This will help to identify the current and desired states of the enterprise, and to perform a gap analysis to determine what needs to change in order to achieve the business goals and objectives.

The team should then focus on transition planning, which involves identifying and prioritizing the work packages, projects, and activities that will deliver the change. The team should also create an Architecture Roadmap and an Implementation and Migration Plan that will guide the execution and governance of the change.

The team should use the Architecture Vision phase and the Requirements Management phase to work out in detail what the shared vision is for the change, and to capture and validate the stakeholder requirements and expectations. The team should also use the Architecture Governance framework to ensure the quality, consistency, and compliance of the architecture work.

References: : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Development Method : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Requirements Management : [The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2 - Architecture Governance]

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 the TOGAF framework, understanding and addressing stakeholder concerns is crucial, particularly for complex projects with high stakes like the AI-first initiative described in the scenario. This approach aligns well with TOGAF’s ADM (Architecture Development Method) and its emphasis on effective stakeholder management and risk assessment. Here’s why this is the best course of action:

Stakeholder Analysis and Documentation:Conducting a stakeholder analysis is foundational in the early stages of any TOGAF project, particularly during the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases. This process involves identifying the different stakeholders, understanding their positions, documenting their concerns, and considering any cultural factors that might influence their perspective on the AI-first initiative. Given the diverse concerns raised (such as job security, skill requirements, and cybersecurity), it’s essential to have a clear understanding of each stakeholder group’s priorities and fears.

Recording Concerns in the Architecture Vision Document:The Architecture Vision phase in TOGAF focuses on defining the high-level scope and objectives of the architecture project. By documenting stakeholder concerns and the corresponding views in the Architecture Vision document, the EA team ensures that these concerns are transparently acknowledged and addressed as part of the strategic direction. This step not only aligns with TOGAF best practices but also helps in building stakeholder buy-in and trust.

Architecture Requirements Specification and Risk Management:Risk management is a key aspect of TOGAF’s ADM, particularly in the Requirements Management and Implementation Governance phases. Documenting the requirements for addressing specific risks in the Architecture Requirements Specification provides a structured way to ensure that identified risks are acknowledged and managed throughout the transformation. Regular assessments and feedback loops ensure ongoing alignment and adaptability to emerging risks, which is particularly important given the dynamic nature of AI and its associated challenges.

Alignment with TOGAF ADM Phases:This approach follows the prescribed flow of TOGAF’s ADM, starting with stakeholder engagement in the Preliminary and Architecture Vision phases and progressing to risk assessment in the Requirements Management phase. By maintaining a focus on stakeholder needs and formalizing these into architecture requirements, the EA team can ensure that the architecture not only meets business objectives but also mitigates stakeholder concerns.

TOGAF Reference on Stakeholder Management Techniques:TOGAF places significant emphasis on managing stakeholder concerns through its stakeholder management techniques, which highlight the need to systematically identify, analyze, and address the concerns of all involved parties. This practice helps ensure that the architecture is viable and accepted across the organization.

By conducting a thorough stakeholder analysis and integrating the findings into both the Architecture Vision and the Architecture Requirements Specification, the EA team can proactively address stakeholder concerns, manage risks, and align the AI-first initiative with the agency’s strategic objectives. This approach is consistent with TOGAF’s guidance and provides a structured framework for addressing both business and technical challenges in the context of an AI-first transformation.

A Consolidated Gaps, Solutions and Dependencies Matrix is a technique that can be used to create work packages for an incremental rollout of the architecture. A work package is a set of actions or tasks that are required to implement a specific part of the architecture. A work package can be associated with one or more Architecture Building Blocks (ABBs) or Solution Building Blocks (SBBs), which are reusable components of business, IT, or architectural capability. A work package can also be associated with one or more Capability Increments, which are defined, discrete portions of the overall capability that deliver business value. A Capability Increment can be realized by one or more Transition Architectures, which are intermediate states of the architecture that enable the transition from the Baseline Architecture to the Target Architecture123

The steps for creating work packages using this technique are:

For each gap between the Baseline Architecture and the Target Architecture, identify a proposed solution and classify it as new development, purchased solution, or based on an existing product. A gap is a difference or deficiency in the current state of the architecture that needs to be addressed by the future state of the architecture. A solution is a way of resolving a gap by implementing one or more ABBs or SBBs.

Group similar solutions together to define the work packages. Similar solutions are those that have common characteristics, such as functionality, technology, vendor, or location.

Identify dependencies between work packages, such as logical, temporal, or resource dependencies. Dependencies indicate the order or priority of the work packages, and the constraints or risks that may affect their implementation.

Regroup the work packages into a set of Capability Increments to transition to the Target Architecture. Capability Increments should be defined based on the business value, effort, and risk associated with each work package, and the schedule and objectives of the clinical trials. Capability Increments should also be aligned with the Architecture Vision and the Architecture Principles.

Document the work packages and the Capability Increments in an Architecture Definition Increments Table, which shows the mapping between the work packages, the ABBs, the SBBs, and the Capability Increments. The table also shows the dependencies, assumptions, and issues related to each work package and Capability Increment.

Therefore, the best answer is B, because it describes the approach to identify the work packages for an incremental rollout meeting the requirements, using the Consolidated Gaps, Solutions and Dependencies Matrix as a planning tool.

References: 1: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 30: Gap Analysis 2: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part IV: Architecture Content Framework, Chapter 36: Building Blocks 3: The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 31: Architecture Change Management : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 23: Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions : 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 II: Architecture Development Method (ADM), Chapter 18: Phase A: Architecture Vision : The TOGAF Standard, Version 9.2, Part III: ADM Guidelines and Techniques, Chapter 23: Architecture Principles