Q: 5
Scenario:
You are working as an Enterprise Architect within an Enterprise Architecture (EA) team at an electric
vehicle manufacturer. The company produces electric cars and battery systems. The goal of the
company is to build the best technology and software platform for electric vehicles.
The company has decided to introduce a major change to its vehicle design over a five-year period.
This will be a cross-functional effort between hardware and software teams, delivering significant
new features in the vehicles they manufacture. It is planned to be developed in phases.
An architecture to support strategy has been completed with a roadmap for a set of projects.
The EA team has inherited the architecture for the hardware and software automotive platform used
by current vehicles, some of which can be carried over to the new vehicle design. The EA team has
started to define which parts of the architecture to carry forward.
The presentation and access to different variations of data that the company plans to offer through
its vehicles creates an architecture challenge. The application portfolio and supportinginfrastructure
must connect with multiple cloud services and data repositories in different countries to be able to
handle large-scale data.
Enough of the Business Architecture has been defined, so that work can commence on the
Information Systems and Technology Architectures. These architectures need to be defined to
support the primary business services that the company plans to provide. These services will manage
and process the data created by vehicles, paving the way for self-driving vehicles in the future.
The company uses the TOGAF Standard as the basis for its Enterprise Architecture framework.
The EA team reports to the Chief Technical Officer (CTO), who is the sponsor of the EA program.
The CTO requires that the EA team follow the purpose-based EA Capability model as described in:
The TOGAF Series Guide: A Practitioners’ Approach to Developing Enterprise Architecture Following
the TOGAF® ADM.
Refer to the scenario:
You have been asked how to decide and organize the work to deliver the requested architectures.
Based on the TOGAF standard, which of the following is the best answer?
Options
Discussion
C . B's a common trap here, but TOGAF expects you to start with what's already defined and plan dependencies/resources-exactly what C says.
C . B is a trap since it skips over leveraging the superior architecture and misses out on proper dependency/resource planning, which TOGAF wants at this point.
C . B looks tempting but it's too focused on data companies research, feels like a distractor. C actually matches TOGAF's guidance for this EA planning work-leveraging superior architecture and planning dependencies. Anyone think otherwise?
Makes sense to pick C here. It's the only one focusing on leveraging existing architecture, figuring out project dependencies, and detailing risks-which is straight from TOGAF ADM Phase A guidance. Pretty sure that's what the question wants but open to other views.
Option C Official practice exams and the TOGAF guide both match C as the usual method for this planning step.
C . B's tempting but it ignores the need to leverage your existing target architecture and do proper dependency mapping like TOGAF stresses. Pretty sure that's where people get tripped up here, but open to hearing why someone might think otherwise.
Option C. If they've inherited a superior architecture, TOGAF says use that as your base, so you focus on dependencies and planning before jumping into new designs. Surprised how often folks skip this step in practice.
C matches what I've seen in the official guide and practice tests. Organizing by using inherited architecture plus sequencing and analyzing resources fits the TOGAF ADM approach for this stage. Pretty sure C lines up best here.
B , had something like this in a mock and B was the pick there.
C vs D? Both mention planning and building blocks, but C sticks closer to TOGAF’s ADM cycle with inherited architecture and detailed dependencies. D would be better if innovation or external research was the top priority. Not 100 percent sure though!
Be respectful. No spam.
