Ser D
Enterprise Architecture Work Scenario
1: Managing Implementation Governance for the Digital Campus
Scenario:
Novatech University is a large multidisciplinary Higher Education Institution (HEI) known for its focus on innovation, digital learning, and student-centered education. With more than 25,000 students across multiple campuses and online programs, the university is undergoing a major Digital Transformation Initiative (DTI) to enhance administrative efficiency, teaching quality, and student experience. The Digital Transformation Strategy (2025–2030) aims to: Build an integrated digital campus ecosystem, Improve student lifecycle management (from admissions to alumni engagement), and and Strengthen the university’s data-driven decision-making capabilities.
To ensure structured transformation, Novatech University established an Enterprise Architecture Office (EAO) under the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Strategy and Digital Innovation. The EA team uses the TOGAF framework to align: Academic and administrative goals, Business and IT architectures, and Governance and implementation processes. The EA team oversees several portfolios, including: Student Relationship Management (SRM), Learning Management Systems (LMS) Integration, Digital Library and Research Analytics and IT Infrastructure and Cloud Migration.
Novatech’s SRM Roadmap (Student Relationship Management) focuses on: Integrating student inquiries, chatbot support, and AI-based assistance, Enhancing cross-platform engagement tracking, and and Leveraging data analytics for proactive student support and retention. One major ongoing project extends SRM functionality for international student admissions, addressing local compliance, document verification, and multi-currency payment support. Another upcoming project aims to modernize the digital helpdesk with advanced chatbot and analytics features. This involves complex process redesign, staff training, and integration with academic and IT systems.
During the first two years of the transformation: The university successfully launched a Unified Student Portal for admissions, fee payments, and academic records. The Digital Helpdesk (chat/email-based) has become the central contact point for student support — now handling 10% of total student interactions, projected to double in adoption within the next academic cycle. These systems were rapidly assembled using SaaS-based solutions and commercial applications, leading to limitations in analytics, personalization, and scalability.
Problem(s):
The university’s initial digital transformation initiatives—such as the new student admission and engagement portal—have been successful. One of these digital platforms now handles over 10% of total student service requests and is projected to double its adoption this academic year.
The system supporting this successful platform is the student inquiry and support center, which manages student requests through email, chatbot, and helpdesk integration. This system was developed quickly using a mix of commercial applications and SaaS tools. However, it has limited capabilities for data analytics, student engagement tracking, academic promotions, and personalized communication.
You have completed delivery of your annual SRM roadmap. The projects aimed at improving service efficiency have been approved, and one of the ongoing projects—to extend the SRM system for international student admissions—is nearing completion.
Between developing the roadmap and providing implementation governance for the international module rollout, your schedule has been extremely busy. Looking forward, one of the upcoming projects—to enhance the SRM with chatbot and AI-assisted communication for student support—is expected to be highly complex, involving significant process, staffing, and system changes.
Solution(s)/Suggested Approaches:
You are a Senior Enterprise Architect working with the Digital Transformation and Enterprise Architecture (EA) team at a large university (HEI). You are responsible for the Student Relationship Management (SRM) roadmap at the portfolio level. You meet with the Director of Enterprise Architecture to discuss the status of your work. She asks what you see as the next steps for the SRM roadmap and how you envision your role in that process. “What do you see as the next steps for the SRM architecture, and what will your role be?”
Based on the TOGAF standard, which of the following is the best answer?
Option A:
You explain that you are going to have another busy academic year. Adding chatbot and AI-based communication to the university’s SRM will have major implications for process redesign, staffing, and system integration. You expect to be heavily engaged in implementation governance. With these new capabilities, you might be able to expand the SRM architecture to support student lifecycle analytics and digital learning engagement more directly.
Option B:
You explain that at this stage you need to seek guidance from academic and administrative stakeholders to determine their priorities, value measures, and preferences. If you follow the same approach as last year, you will be tied up managing the process, staffing, and system implications of adding chatbot and AI communication to the SRM, leaving little time to shape the future direction of the university’s student engagement architecture.
Option C:
You explain that you will need to focus on implementation governance for the major service efficiency project. Adding chatbot and AI communication to the SRM will have significant implications for staffing, process, and systems. Learning from last year’s roadmap development and expansion projects, you plan to start earlier on updating the next annual SRM roadmap.
Option D:
You explain that you are going to have another demanding year. Adding chatbot and AI-based communication to the SRM will have major resource implications, including staffing, process, and system changes. You would need to focus on implementation governance. Once these new capabilities are operational, you will be able to engage SRM stakeholders in a discussion about when to extend the SRM architecture to directly support advanced student analytics and engagement services.
Answer:
Option A — Rank: Third Best. 1 Point
You focus on implementing new capabilities (chat/email) globally, expecting heavy involvement in process, staffing, and system changes. You also plan to extend the architecture to support more digital services.
Why it’s not the best: You are operating mainly in Phase G: Implementation Governance, not Phase H: Architecture Change Management. You’re making decisions (expanding SRM, adjusting architecture) without stakeholder consultation. You’re treating architecture as a delivery task, not a strategic leadership function.
In HEI context: At Novatech, you are acting more like a project manager for SRM rollout than a portfolio-level architect. You’ve stopped engaging Deans, IT leadership, and the VC’s office about future priorities (like student analytics or cross-campus integration). This ignores the real purpose of Architecture Change Management — aligning architecture evolution with institutional strategy.
TOGAF View: Focused too much on implementation, not on managing change or stakeholder alignment. Rank: Third Best (A = 3rd)
Option B — Best or Most Correct. Rank 1. 5 Points
As the portfolio architect for the SRM, your primary job is to seek guidance from executive stakeholders (registrar, VC for Digital Innovation, Deans, Finance) about their changing priorities, preferences and value measures. Those stakeholder inputs are the triggers that drive architecture change decisions and re-prioritisation of the roadmap. You must lead at the portfolio level, not get absorbed in single-project delivery.
You plan to pause and consult key stakeholders (VC, Registrar, Deans, Student Services) to understand how success in recent projects changes their strategic priorities. You recognize that focusing too deeply on the implementation of chat/email could prevent you from aligning SRM’s roadmap with new strategic directions.
Why it’s the best?: This aligns with Phase H: Architecture Change Management — engaging stakeholders to determine triggers for change. You recognize that architecture is dynamic — priorities shift after successful digital pilots. You focus on portfolio-level decisions, not just project delivery.
In HEI context: At Novatech, after seeing how SRM chat/email improved engagement, you want to understand what’s next: Should we extend SRM to alumni or external partners? Should we integrate with the Learning Management System (LMS)? Should analytics and dashboards for student retention take priority? You initiate stakeholder discussions to realign the target architecture and roadmap accordingly.
TOGAF View: Perfect trigger for architecture change — stakeholder consultation on new value priorities. Rank: Most Correct (B = 1st)
Option C — Distractor/Incorrect - 1 Point
You will manage implementation governance for the SRM efficiency project (chat/email) and, based on past experience, start next year’s roadmap sooner.
Why it’s wrong? : Again, this keeps you in implementation governance (Phase G), not architecture change (Phase H). You don’t involve stakeholders — you decide the timing and approach yourself. You confuse operational improvement with strategic change management.
In HEI context: You’re spending your time inside the SRM implementation project (supporting IT teams) instead of reassessing institutional change priorities — such as new accreditation requirements or student retention strategies. This means you’re not identifying or responding to triggers that may demand architectural change.
TOGAF View: Not engaging stakeholders; focuses narrowly on delivery. Rank: Distractor / Incorrect (C = 4th)
Option D - 2nd Best Answer. 3 Points
You will focus on delivering the chat/email expansion first, then later discuss with stakeholders when to broaden SRM’s scope.
Why it’s second-best? You at least plan to consult stakeholders, which shows awareness of the need for architecture change. However, you’re still prioritizing implementation before stakeholder consultation — meaning the change management trigger is reactive, not proactive.
In HEI context: You tell leadership that after finishing the SRM communication rollout, you’ll talk to them about expanding SRM to other functions (e.g., alumni, analytics). This shows intent to manage change — but you are late in doing it. The university’s digital priorities might shift before your conversation happens.
TOGAF View: Acknowledges stakeholder engagement but still delayed. Rank: Second Best (D = 2nd)
Final Ranking
A
Implementation Governance
A (Third): Too focused on doing implementation work rather than consulting stakeholders — it assumes decisions without stakeholder input and pulls you into solution delivery. Acts as project manager; no change management
3rd
B
Change Management / Stakeholder Re-engagement
B (Best): Portfolio-level architects need stakeholder direction on value, priorities and preferences so the roadmap and architecture change decisions reflect institutional strategy. This is the correct trigger for Architecture Change Management per TOGAF. Proactive — seeks new priorities & triggers
1st
C
Implementation Governance
C (Distractor): Wrong because it confines you to a single implementation project; your remit covers the full portfolio (both physical and digital products).Misses change trigger & stakeholder input
4th
D
Implementation Governance → Change Mgmt later
D (Second): Recognizes large change and stakeholder conversation, but spends too much time on solution-level implementation (limits portfolio-level influence). Good but not ideal. Aware but reactive — not proactive
2nd
HINT:
As a Senior Enterprise Architect at Novatech University: You are responsible for the SRM portfolio roadmap, You ensure projects conform to the Target Architecture and EA principles, and You provide implementation governance during deployment phases. With new capabilities being added (e.g., AI chatbots), you now face decisions about balancing governance with forward planning, ensuring that each project contributes to the overall architecture vision — a fully integrated, student-centric digital ecosystem
Strategic Goals Aligned to TOGAF
Architecture Vision
Deliver a connected, digital student experience
Business Architecture
Streamline student engagement and service workflows
Information Systems Architecture
Build interoperable SRM, LMS, and analytics platforms
Technology Architecture
Leverage scalable, cloud-based infrastructure
Implementation Governance (Phase G)
Ensure SRM and chatbot systems conform to EA standards
Architecture Change Management (Phase H)
Update EA and contracts as new digital services evolve
The Novatech University case represents how a higher education institution can apply TOGAF-based governance to manage digital transformation complexity — ensuring that each new project (SRM, chatbots, analytics, LMS integration) is architecturally compliant, strategically aligned, and value-driven.
This is one of the most important parts of TOGAF (Phase H: Architecture Change Management), and it becomes very concrete when you apply it to a Higher Education Institution (HEI) like Novatech University, which is undergoing digital transformation. Let’s break it down in three parts — each with: Concept explanation (what it means in TOGAF) and Application in the HEI case (how it looks in practice)
Step 1. Inputs Triggering Change Management — Change Requests
Phase H is triggered when something changes — either from inside the organization or outside — that impacts the validity or value of the current enterprise architecture. These triggers are typically in the form of Change Requests, which could arise due to: Technology change (e.g., new systems or platforms) Business change (e.g., new strategies, partnerships, or regulations) and Lessons learned (from implementations or evaluations). Phase H takes these inputs and determines: “Do we just make a small update, or do we start a whole new architecture cycle (Phase A–F again)?”
HEI Application — Novatech University Example: At Novatech University, triggers might include:
Technology-driven
A new AI-based learning analytics platform becomes available
Requires integration with SRM and LMS — triggers architecture update
Business-driven
University decides to launch fully online degree programs
Need to rearchitect student services, admissions, and assessment systems
Lessons learned
During SRM rollout, teams realized chat system doesn’t support multilingual students
Generates change request to enhance architecture for inclusivity
So, the EA team receives and evaluates these change requests, deciding if they: Modify existing architecture (maintenance change), or Start a new cycle of architecture development (major change).
Step 2. Activities Necessary for Effective Change Management (Stakeholder Management)
This is the core work of Phase H — the ongoing management of change, ensuring that architecture continues to guide the enterprise effectively. Key activities include:
Establish value realisation
Ensure the promised business value from architecture changes (e.g., better student experience, cost savings) is achieved and measured.
Deploy monitoring tools
Use KPIs, dashboards, surveys, and performance data to track progress.
Manage risks
Identify new risks that arise due to architecture changes (e.g., data privacy, compliance).
Provide analysis for change management
Evaluate impacts of proposed changes — costs, benefits, dependencies.
Develop change requirements
Define what needs to be done to meet new performance or stakeholder targets.
Manage governance process
Ensure that all changes are approved through proper governance channels (Academic Council, IT Board).
Activate process to implement change
Approve and launch change projects (e.g., new data integration project).
Effective change management also means: Staying aligned with the academic and budget cycles. Applying “just enough architecture” — updating what’s needed without overcomplicating. Ensuring the EA team is linked to strategic planning, budgeting, and operations
HEI Application — Novatech University Example: This keeps the university’s digital transformation aligned with strategy and responsive to stakeholder needs.
Value Realisation
Confirm that SRM’s new chatbot actually improved student engagement metrics by 20%.
Monitoring Tools
Dashboards showing student service response times, enrollment trends.
Risk Management
Address GDPR and data privacy risks when introducing AI-based student analytics.
Change Requirements
Define new capabilities for multilingual student support and integration with mobile app.
Governance
Changes reviewed by Digital Transformation Steering Committee (comprising VCs, CIO, Registrar).
Implementation Activation
Approve a new project: “Unified Student Interaction Platform – Phase 2.”
Step 3. Outputs Relevant to Proceed with a Change
After analyzing triggers and performing stakeholder engagement, Phase H produces outputs that define how the organization will respond to change. These outputs decide whether: The architecture just needs a small update, or A new cycle (starting again from Phase A: Architecture Vision) must begin.
Key Outputs:
Architecture updates
Minor updates to architecture documents or principles.
Updated framework/principles
Adjusting methods or governance to suit new realities.
New Request for Architecture Work
Formal initiation of a new architecture cycle for major change.
Updated Statement of Architecture Work
Revises scope or objectives for ongoing architecture efforts.
Updated Architecture Contract or Compliance Assessments
Ensures new solutions remain compliant and aligned with EA.
Final Outcome: “A clear direction to proceed — to develop a Target Architecture that addresses new or changed enterprise needs.”
HEI Application — Novatech University Example: After reviewing all new inputs and stakeholder discussions:
Architecture updates
SRM architecture updated to include multilingual chatbot capability.
Updated principles
New EA principle added: “All digital systems must support multilingual engagement.”
Request for Architecture Work
Initiate a new architecture cycle to design AI-based Student Success Analytics Platform.
Updated Architecture Contract
Adjust the agreement with IT and Academic Services to include new performance metrics (e.g., student engagement time).
Compliance Assessment
Evaluate whether new chatbot vendor solutions comply with data privacy policies.
Outcome: Novatech’s EA team now has a clear mandate to proceed with new architecture development that aligns with evolving academic goals and stakeholder expectations.
Summary Table – Phase H in HEI Context
1. Inputs (Change Requests)
Identify bottom-up and top-down triggers
New tech (AI), new policy (accreditation), lessons learned
Change Requests
2. Activities (Stakeholder Mgmt)
Evaluate, monitor, manage, and plan change
Consult VCs, Deans, CIO; align with planning cycle
Change Requirements, Risk Assessment
3. Outputs (Proceed with Change)
Update or restart architecture
Launch AI Student Analytics initiative
Updated Architecture Docs, Request for Architecture Work
In Short: Phase H (Architecture Change Management) ensures the enterprise architecture remains alive and strategically relevant by: Listening to change signals (bottom-up and top-down), Engaging stakeholders to assess impact, and Deciding how to evolve the architecture responsibly.
In Novatech University, this means: Continuously improving the Digital Campus Architecture — guided by stakeholder needs, regulatory shifts, and emerging technologies — so that the institution’s digital transformation stays on course and future-ready.
2: Unified Enterprise Architecture Strategy
GlobalFin is a leading financial institution headquartered in London, with a sprawling presence in over 50 countries. Established in the early 2000s, the bank has grown both organically and through strategic acquisitions. Over the years, it has diversified its services, offering everything from retail banking and wealth management to sophisticated investment banking solutions. The enterprise architecture team at GlobalFin is central to ensuring that the bank's myriad of systems communicate effectively. They work in tandem with the IT, operations, and individual department heads. A key process in their operations is the real-time processing of transactions, which requires seamless integration across various platforms. However, due to the bank's rapid growth, decentralized decision-making in the past, and the integration of acquired entities with their own IT systems, different departments have adopted different technologies and standards. This patchwork of systems, while functional, often feels like a jigsaw puzzle that doesn't quite fit together, leading to inefficiencies and challenges at multiple levels. The lack of standardization has led to:
1. Inefficiencies in data processing due to varied data formats.
2. Increased operational costs because of the need for multiple system expertise.
3. Integration challenges when rolling out bank-wide initiatives or updates.
4. Potential security vulnerabilities due to inconsistent security protocols across departments.
**Which of the following approaches would best address the lack of standardization at GlobalFin?**
**Conduct a thorough audit in the Architecture Vision** to pinpoint the areas with the most significant standardization issues. Based on this audit, in the Architecture Development phase, design a targeted approach to address the most pressing challenges first. In Implementation Governance, monitor the implementation closely, ensuring that the solutions are effective and provide a foundation for broader standardization in the future.
**Initiate with an Architecture Vision** to outline the strategic importance of IT standardization across the organization. Engage with department heads to understand the unique needs and challenges of each department. In the Architecture Development phase, design a unified IT blueprint that promotes standardization while accommodating department-specific requirements. During Implementation Governance, oversee the transition to the new standardized systems, ensuring alignment with the vision and minimizing disruptions.
**Begin with a series of workshops during the Architecture Vision** to understand the depth and breadth of the standardization issue. Based on feedback, in the Architecture Development phase, design a framework that balances standardization with flexibility. During Implementation Governance, implement this framework, ensuring that each department aligns with the broader standardization goals while retaining some autonomy.
**In the Architecture Vision**, gather insights from a cross-section of employees, not just department heads, to understand the ground-level challenges caused by the lack of standardization. With this broader perspective, move to the Architecture Development phase to design solutions that cater to both top-level and ground-level needs. During Implementation Governance, roll out these solutions in a phased manner, ensuring that the transition is smooth and meets the diverse needs of the organization.
See all questionsBackSkip question
3: Develop a Comprehensive Risk and Security Architecture:
You are the Lead Architect at a global pharmaceutical company, XedMedCo. The company has research labs in 15 countries and distributes its products worldwide. It operates under four main divisions, each focusing on a different therapeutic area. Each division has historically functioned autonomously, with distinct research methodologies and minimal shared data. However, they all report financial and HR metrics to the central corporate office.
A recent proposal from an external consultancy suggests a restructuring to promote the sharing of research data across divisions. This would necessitate the creation of unified research data systems and patient trial databases.
XedMedCo has a well-established Enterprise Architecture practice, grounded in the TOGAF Standard. The CIO sponsors the Enterprise Architecture initiative. A Statement of Architecture Work has been greenlit, and the Enterprise Architecture team has secured the consensus of primary stakeholders to devise a Target Architecture to validate the proposed benefits. Several domain architectures have been ratified, revealing a set of gaps.
During the latest executive meeting, which included representatives from all divisions, concerns were voiced about the potential risks and security implications of this cross-divisional data sharing initiative.
**Question**
Given the Scenario 2, you are tasked with suggesting a strategy to address the raised apprehensions. Based on the TOGAF Standard, which of the following would be the most appropriate recommendation?
4: Agile Transformation and DevOps Integration
WaveTech, headquartered in San Francisco, is a pioneer in the world of smart home devices. Over the past decade, the company has introduced a range of products that have transformed everyday living, from smart thermostats to voice-activated lighting systems. With a mission to make homes smarter and lives more convenient, WaveTech has consistently been at the forefront of technological innovation. The enterprise architecture team at WaveTech, in collaboration with product development, marketing, and IT departments, has been instrumental in translating innovative ideas into market-ready products.
However, in the fast-paced world of tech, staying ahead of the curve is a relentless challenge. As competitors introduce new products at breakneck speed, WaveTech has found itself grappling with increasingly longer product development cycles. A deep dive into the issue revealed that while the ideas and innovations were aplenty, cumbersome IT processes often acted as bottlenecks, delaying product launches and impacting the company's competitive edge. The delayed time-to-market has led to:
1. Lost revenue opportunities as competitors get a head start.
2. Increased development costs due to prolonged product testing and iteration cycles.
3. Eroding brand perception among consumers expecting timely innovations.
4. Internal frustrations as teams feel their efforts are not translating into market success.
**Which of the following strategies would best address WaveTech's time-to-market challenges?**
5: Develop a Unified Patient Engagement Architecture
You are a lead architect working with the Enterprise Architecture (EA) team at the multinational healthcare technology firm, HealthTech Inc. Your personal responsibility within the EA team is the patient engagement platform. The ongoing roadmap for the patient engagement platform is focused on incremental efficiency gains with healthcare providers and providing localized health monitoring services with changes for language, different healthcare regulations, and integrated telemedicine support.
As part of the ongoing Digital Transformation, two of the product lines have now released digital health services and virtual consultations surrounding traditional healthcare services. Both product lines have faced difficulty managing subscriptions and follow-up consultations in the patient engagement platform.
The Product Manager is responsible for a new health service that will be offered directly to patients. It has been proposed that this be supported by a stand-alone patient engagement system that supports direct engagement with patients. The Product Manager is concerned about the long-term architecture, especially given that in the future, physical and digital health services will share the same patient interaction and support channels.
Question Text
You have been asked how to address the concerns raised by the Product Manager?
Which of the following is the best answer?
6: Evolving the Role of Enterprise Architecture in Digital Transformation for eCommerce
Your role is a senior architect working within the Enterprise Architecture (EA) team. Your area of responsibility is the eCommerce website.
Scenario
To date, the EA team has been focused on supporting the firm's IT Portfolio (Architecture to support Portfolio). The EA team has established a strong track record in developing robust architecture frameworks for various departments, including marketing, logistics, inventory management, and customer service platforms. These frameworks ensure seamless operations and integration across the firm's digital infrastructure. The team's efforts have been instrumental in enhancing operational efficiency and enabling data-driven decision-making.
Despite these successes, the EA team has not been involved in defining strategies for the Digital Transformation initiative. Recently, there has been an increasing number of requests from the product development teams and the user experience (UX) team for architecture support. These requests highlight a need for integrating advanced analytics, personalization features, and improved scalability to better serve the growing online customer base. However, the EA team has been referring these requests to external consultants due to a perceived lack of internal expertise in these specific areas.
Question
You have been asked by the EA team leader to recommend how the EA team could alter its role to support the Digital Transformation activity, specifically focusing on enhancing the eCommerce website's architecture to improve customer engagement and digital marketing capabilities.
Choose the right answer
7: IT Standardization Strategy for Digital Transformation
Your role is that of an Enterprise Architect for a global retail chain, ShopGlobal. Over the past two decades, ShopGlobal has expanded its presence across continents through mergers with regional retail chains. This expansion strategy has led to a patchwork of different IT systems, inconsistent data handling, and a myriad of custom integrations.
ShopGlobal's Enterprise Architecture team has embraced the TOGAF Standard for its practice, with the CFO as the sponsor of the Enterprise Architecture program. The company maintains a vast IT department, consistently juggling over 150 projects related to infrastructure and services.
Recent market analysis has shown a surge in e-commerce, with many customers preferring online shopping experiences. Competing retail chains have capitalized on this trend, offering seamless online shopping experiences, faster delivery options, and personalized customer interactions.
The CFO has initiated a Digital Transformation project to revamp ShopGlobal's online presence. The objective is to offer a unified online shopping experience across all regions. As part of this initiative, there's a need to standardize the underlying IT infrastructure and services to support this digital shift, keeping in mind the ever-evolving tech landscape.
You are now leading the IT standardization segment of this project. An Architecture Vision has been greenlit, allowing the development of a Target Architecture. Approved domain architectures and identified gaps have received stakeholder endorsement. The Enterprise Architecture team has outlined the necessary work to implement these changes.
**Question**
Refer to the Scenario.
You are tasked with proposing the next steps. Based on the TOGAF Standard, which of the following is the best answer?
You propose a phased implementation approach. Begin with the domain architectures that have the most significant impact on customer experience. As these are rolled out, iteratively refine ongoing projects to align with the new architectures. For requirements from Phases B through D not covered by current projects, initiate pilot projects to test and refine solutions. Ensure that all projects adhere to a standardized set of service interfaces for consistency. The outcomes of these pilot projects will inform the broader Implementation and Migration Plan.
You advocate for a risk-first approach. Identify the changes with the highest potential risks and address them first. Organize these changes into work packages, ensuring that each package has a clear risk mitigation strategy. Engage stakeholders to prioritize these packages based on business impact. Develop a series of Transition Architectures that focus on de-risking the most critical parts of the transformation. The risk assessment, mitigation strategies, and Transition Architectures will be detailed in the Architecture Roadmap
You recommend that the Enterprise Architecture team collaborates with domain architects to review the ongoing projects and their alignment with the new vision. Each domain architect should identify potential synergies between existing projects and the new requirements. The collective insights from all domains should then be synthesized into the Implementation and Migration Plan. The sequence of deliverables and their interdependencies will be outlined in the Architecture Roadmap.
You suggest a collaborative workshop approach. Organize workshops with stakeholders from each domain to brainstorm the implementation of domain architectures. These workshops will ensure that the practical challenges and nuances of each domain are considered. The insights from these workshops will lead to a detailed list of work activities, which will be integrated into an IT portfolio plan. This collaborative approach will culminate in a Target Architecture that is both visionary and grounded in practical realities.
See all questionsBackSkip question
8: Optimizing IT Infrastructure Costs in a Mature Digital Enterprise
SolarXpro Industries, headquartered in Berlin, is a renowned player in the renewable energy sector. Established in the early 2000s, the company has been at the forefront of solar technology innovations, providing solutions to both residential and commercial clients. Their mission, "Illuminating a Greener Tomorrow," reflects their commitment to sustainable energy solutions for a brighter future.
The company's organizational structure is vast, with departments ranging from R&D and production to sales and customer support. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) of SolarXpro holds a unique position, bridging the gap between the technical and business sides of the company. Reporting directly to the CEO, the CIO is responsible for ensuring that the company's IT infrastructure not only supports its current operations but also aligns with its vision for the future.
The enterprise architecture team, under the CIO's leadership, has been instrumental in implementing and maintaining the company's IT systems. They have overseen the digital transformation of key processes such as supply chain management, customer relationship management, and data analytics for performance monitoring. While the team is mature, with a blend of experienced architects and fresh talents, they are currently facing challenges in managing the rising costs associated with the IT infrastructure.
SolarXpro Industries is grappling with the financial strain of its IT infrastructure. The challenges include:
1. High costs associated with frequent software updates and licensing.
2. Expensive maintenance of legacy systems that are integral to some key processes.
3. Rising expenses in hardware procurement and replacements.
4. Increased spending on cybersecurity measures due to the evolving threat landscape.
**Question:**
Given the context and problematic, which approach should SolarXpro Industries' enterprise architecture team adopt to address the escalating and unsustainable IT costs?
Last updated