Set C

Enterprise Architecture Work Scenario

1: Architecting Transformation for a Research-Driven Higher Education Institution (HEI)

Scenario/Problem/Background and Context

The Advanced Research and Innovation University (ARIU) is a next-generation Higher Education Institution that differentiates itself from conventional universities by tightly integrating academic programs with industry-led research. Its mission is to bridge knowledge creation and technological application — addressing both current and emerging industry challenges through joint R&D programs, applied innovation labs, and student–industry co-projects.

Higher Education Institution (HEI) that was formed by merging three autonomous colleges into one integrated “University for IP-Driven Innovation.” However, the over the past decade, ARIU’s research centers, academic departments, and industrial partnerships grew in a siloed, organic fashion — each adopting its own systems for research data management, intellectual property tracking, industry collaboration, and postgraduate supervision. This fragmentation led to: Redundant applications and duplicated data repositories. Difficulty in measuring cross-disciplinary research impact. Poor integration between industry collaboration portals and academic administration. Security and compliance risks in handling shared research data. Recognizing the need for a unified digital research and academic ecosystem, ARIU launched an Enterprise Architecture (EA) initiative based on the TOGAF Standard, sponsored by the CIO and governed by the Research Strategy Council.

An Enterprise Architecture (EA) initiative is underway using the TOGAF Standard (ADM) to guide this transformation. The institution’s operating model has now been unified to focus on: Translating research and innovation into commercializable intellectual property (IP), Strengthening partnerships with industry, and Building an ecosystem at the intersection of technology, IP, and entrepreneurship.

Stakeholder discussions — involving research leaders, deans, IT directors, and industry partners — have centered on value, cost, and risk. Because transformation funding depends on outcomes, the CIO has emphasized an incremental, value-delivery approach, showing tangible improvements in each phase (for example, the rollout of the IP Management Portal, Digital Research Repository, and Partner Collaboration Platform).

The CIO, who is sponsoring the EA program, has approved an outline Implementation and Migration Strategy, and planning has begun to create a detailed Implementation and Migration Plan. The CIO has also stressed that non-EA units (such as IT Services, Research Office, and Finance) will eventually be responsible for funding, implementing, and operating the systems and processes defined by the Enterprise Architecture.

Solution(s)/Approach:

You are the Lead Enterprise Architect for a Higher Education Institution (HEI) that was formed by merging three autonomous colleges into one integrated “University for IP-Driven Innovation.” Given these dependencies and the need for stakeholder buy-in, your role is to guide how the detailed Implementation and Migration Plan should be created. You have been asked to describe how the detailed Implementation and Migration Plan for the HEI’s Digital Innovation Integration should be created. Based on the TOGAF Standard, which of the following is the best answer?

Based on the TOGAF Standard, which of the following is the best answer?

Option A

You would manage the migration planning activity, working together with the domain architects (Business, Data, Application, Technology, and Security) to finalize the Implementation and Migration Plan for the university’s integrated research and academic ecosystem. You would submit the plan to the University Architecture Board (chaired by the CIO and Research Council) for approval. The plan will include a prioritized list of transformation projects — such as the Research Data Warehouse, Collaboration Platform, and Cloud Integration — along with their approximate cost, estimated effort, and schedule. Feedback from the Board would be incorporated into the plan. The Implementation and Migration Plan would include a sequenced timeline, which would also serve as the Architecture Roadmap for transformation delivery.

Option B

The Research Strategy Office, Academic Planning and Operations, and IT Portfolio Management teams should all collaborate with the Enterprise Architecture team in the migration planning activity. Detailed resource and budget estimates should be prepared for each work package, and the business and academic value should be identified for all deliverables (e.g., faster research project onboarding, improved partner collaboration, enhanced compliance). A series of Transition Architectures should be designed to ensure that incremental improvements deliver measurable value to faculties and research centers while addressing stakeholder priorities and funding cycles. Once this collaborative analysis is complete, the Implementation and Migration Plan can be finalized and endorsed by the University Executive Council. After all deliverables are implemented, the architecture development cycle should be concluded and lessons integrated back into the EA repository.d.

Option C

Migration planning should be conducted primarily by the Project Management Office (PMO), using the Implementation and Migration Strategy from Phase E to create project plans focusing on scope, budget, and time. Project management best practices can then be used to perform more detailed analysis and define value for each project individually (e.g., data warehouse upgrade, collaboration portal, cloud migration). The PMO would select the projects with the highest apparent value and request funding from the Architecture Board. These approved project plans and roadmaps would together serve as the detailed Implementation and Migration Plan for the HEI’s digital transformation.

Option D

Migration planning should be conducted by the Enterprise Architecture team, particularly the domain architects responsible for the Business, Data, Application, Technology, and Security domains. They will define a series of Transition Architectures designed to deliver incremental value to the university — for example, by first consolidating research data, then deploying the integrated collaboration platform, and finally migrating core systems to the cloud. The EA team will then create a prioritized list of activities and dependencies to realize these transitions, documenting them in the Implementation and Migration Plan and detailing their sequence in the Architecture Roadmap. These deliverables would be circulated to the Faculties, Research Offices, and Executive Council to prepare for funding and operational rollout..

Answer

What do we need to know to drive down sustained costs using Phase C: Information Systems Architecture?

Option A Rank: 3rd Best Option or Partially Correct. 2 Points

Strength:EA-managed plan submitted to Board. Structured and formal, but lacks stakeholder input or business value linkage.

Weakness: Too centralized

This option covers prioritization, costing, scheduling, and Architecture Board review — all useful — but misses stakeholder participation, business value assessment, and Transition Architectures. In HEI terms, it’s like the EA team producing a plan in isolation and sending it for approval — technically correct but not enough to gain organizational buy-in.

Option B Rank: 1. Most Correct/Best Answer. 5 Points

Strength: Holistic, value-based, risk-aware, stakeholder-focused. Collaborative EA + Business Planning with Transition Architectures

Weakness: Slightly wordy ending, but correct intent

This option aligns best with TOGAF’s Phase F (Migration Planning) intent — collaboration between EA and business/operations functions (not EA in isolation). It includes Transition Architectures, stakeholder priorities, and business value assessment — all key to balancing cost, risk, and value. In the HEI case, it ensures that faculties, research offices, IT, and finance co-own the migration plan, linking it to research commercialization value and funding cycles. The only mild flaw: saying “the architecture development cycle should be completed” is slightly premature — but still the most comprehensive approach.

According to the TOGAF Standard: Migration planning (Phase F) should integrate EA, business, and project planning functions. The output — the detailed Implementation and Migration Plan — is based on: Transition Architectures (from Phase E), Cost-benefit and risk analysis, Stakeholder priorities and funding constraints. Option B is the only answer that: Engages multiple enterprise functions (business, portfolio, operations), Recognizes value, effort, and risk as planning factors, Plans Transition Architectures (incremental delivery), Produces resource estimates and business value linkages.

In the HEI context, Option B means: The EA team collaborates with: The Research Office (to prioritize IP-related capabilities), IT Services (for digital platform delivery), Finance & Planning (for funding models), Academic Deans (for adoption across faculties). Each Transition Architecture corresponds to a tangible increment of value: Phase 1: Unified Research Data Repository, Phase 2: IP Management & Commercialization Platform, Phase 3: Industry Collaboration & Analytics Dashboard. Each increment is costed, risk-assessed, and approved for funding. The Implementation and Migration Plan becomes the roadmap for this incremental transformation — ensuring that technology and information systems architecture directly serve HEI’s business mission of innovation-to-income.

Option C Rank: 4. Incorrect or Wrong Answer or Distractor. 0 Point.

Strength:None; Project Managers handle migration planning

Weakness: Violates TOGAF responsibility boundaries. Not EA-led, no architectural cohesion

This option completely delegates migration planning to Project Managers, which is not TOGAF-compliant — migration planning is an EA responsibility under Phase F, coordinated with PM teams later. EA team needs to guide the projects or project managers so that they get more focused on the design or operational issues and not the strategy oriented aspects which are EA team's prerogatives. In the HEI case, this would mean projects like “Research Data Portal” or “IP Dashboard” are planned ad hoc, without architectural cohesion or stakeholder traceability — high risk of fragmentation

Option D Rank: 2nd Best Option. Correct but Not Complete. 3 Points

Strength: EA-led with Transition Architectures and Roadmap. Correct structure and incremental delivery

Weakness: Missing business and operational collaboration

This option correctly emphasizes EA ownership and the creation of Transition Architectures and an Architecture Roadmap. It fits the CIO’s incremental value-delivery mandate. However, it lacks explicit collaboration with business and operations units — which is crucial in the HEI context, since faculties and administration must fund and execute the projects. It’s technically sound but complete as an answer.

Final Ranking

B — Most Correct / Best Answer

D — Second Best

This option correctly emphasizes EA ownership and the creation of Transition Architectures and an Architecture Roadmap. It fits the CIO’s incremental value-delivery mandate. However, it lacks explicit collaboration with business and operations units — which is crucial in the HEI context, since faculties and administration must fund and execute the projects. It’s technically sound but not complete an answer.

A — Third Best

This option covers prioritization, costing, scheduling, and Architecture Board review — all useful — but is incomplete as misses stakeholder participation (within or outside of the EA team or organisaiton) i.e. collaborateive planning, business value assessment, and Transition Architectures. In HEI terms, it’s like the EA team producing a plan in isolation and sending it for approval — technically correct but not enough to gain organizational buy-in.

C — Incorrect / Distractor

This option completely delegates migration planning to Project Managers, which is not TOGAF-compliant — migration planning is an EA responsibility under Phase F, coordinated with PM teams later. In the HEI case, this would mean projects like “Research Data Portal” or “IP Dashboard” are planned ad hoc, without architectural cohesion or stakeholder traceability — high risk of fragmentation.

HINT: Quick Mental Checklist for Similar Questions

In a complex university setting where academic, research, and industry systems are interdependent, migration planning must balance architectural integrity with stakeholder value. Hence, the most correct approach (Option B) is the one that ensures: Joint planning with all stakeholder groups, Value-driven prioritization, Incremental transition states and Traceable alignment from enterprise goals to project delivery

During Phase F: Migration Planning, different stakeholders will exercise their prerogatives: The Research Office may have the prerogative to prioritize projects aligned with industry collaborations.The IT Governance Board has the prerogative to decide on technology standards and vendors.The Finance Division has the prerogative to allocate budgets for implementation phases. “While the Enterprise Architecture team prepared the Migration Plan, the final sequencing of research infrastructure projects respected the prerogatives of the Research Office and the Finance Committee, who determined the funding and compliance priorities.”

When the HEI is planning its transformation, it has many possible projects — for example: Building a research data warehouse. Launching a digital IP management system. Integrating student and industry collaboration portals. Migrating legacy systems to cloud infrastructure. But it cannot do everything at once, because of: Budget limits, Staff capacity and Dependencies between systems

So the Enterprise Architecture team and stakeholders must prioritize — i.e., decide: Which projects should come first (highest value and lowest risk), Which can wait until later, and How to sequence them logically (e.g., data platform before analytics tools). Ex: “The HEI prioritized development of the Research Collaboration Portal before upgrading the Learning Management System, since industry-funded projects depend on shared research data access.”

Prior to Phase F, lets see what all key aspects to keep in mind from Architecture Development Phases in particular (B,C,D) and the Implementating Architecture Phase (E followed by F or iteratively as per the need or circumstances):

Phase B — Business Architecture: Establishing the Research–Industry Collaboration Model

Key Business Drivers: Enhance collaboration with industry for real-world impact. Improve efficiency and transparency in research project management. Enable secure and compliant data sharing with industry partners. Support digital transformation in postgraduate research programs

Business Baseline Architecture: The baseline identified fragmented processes and duplication: Each research center had its own workflow for project proposals, ethics, and funding approvals. Industry partner data was isolated in separate systems. No unified visibility existed over project pipelines or outcomes.

Business Target Architecture: Centralized Research Collaboration Platform (RCP) connecting faculty, students, and industry. Unified Research Lifecycle Management Process (RLMP). Single-source-of-truth dashboards for project and funding oversight.

Business Gaps: Lack of standardized processes. Poor data interoperability. Limited business ownership of integrated workflows

Phase C — Information Systems Architecture (covering both Data and Application Architecture)

Data Architecture Baseline: Research data stored in multiple local databases or even spreadsheets. No data governance or unified taxonomy. Inconsistent metadata and data ownership policies.

Data Architecture Target: Centralized Research Data Warehouse (RDW) with defined metadata and classification standards. Secure research data exchange via APIs with partner organizations. Defined data governance framework and data stewardship roles.

Application Architecture Baseline: Multiple unintegrated systems: ERP, LMS, CRM, and independent research management tools. Manual reconciliation of project milestones and partner deliverables.

Application Architecture Target: Integrated ecosystem with key platforms: ERP for funding and financials. CRM for industry partner management. RCP for project execution and collaboration. LMS integration for postgraduate research modules. Cloud-based interoperability with security controls.

Key Gaps: Application overlap and redundant licenses. Missing integration middleware. No common API or microservice layer

Phase D — Technology Architecture: Baseline Technology: On-premises infrastructure for research data storage. Outdated network and limited capacity for secure cloud operations

Target Technology: Hybrid cloud architecture supporting research workloads. Secure identity and access management (IAM). High-performance computing (HPC) clusters for data-intensive projects. Scalable integration middleware supporting RESTful APIs and microservices

Gaps Identified: Limited network bandwidth and security. Inadequate disaster recovery plan. Lack of unified DevOps or CI/CD framework for research software tools

5. Phase E — Opportunities & Solutions: Solution Building Blocks: Research Collaboration Platform (application layer). Research Data Warehouse (data layer). Cloud-based integration middleware. Industry collaboration API gateway. Identity and Access Management solution

Approved Work Packages: Work Package 1: Establish Data Governance and Data Warehouse foundation. Work Package 2: Deploy and integrate the Research Collaboration Platform. Work Package 3: Implement secure cloud and network modernization. Work Package 4: Develop API gateway for industry partners. Work Package 5: Training and change management for research staff. Each package was assessed for business value, effort, and risk to support incremental delivery.

6. Phase F — Migration Planning: Migration Planning Objectives: Sequence implementation of the approved work packages. Ensure alignment with stakeholder value priorities. Balance cost, risk, and organizational readiness. Produce the Implementation and Migration Plan and Architecture Roadmap

Key Concerns Raised: CIO emphasized risk reduction and incremental value demonstration. Research directors needed minimal disruption to ongoing projects. Industry partners sought continuity of access to collaboration data

Phase F Activities (TOGAF-guided): Collaborative Planning: EA team worked with Business Planning, Portfolio Management, and Operations to align migration phases with funding cycles and research milestones. Transition Architectures: Defined three incremental transition states — starting with data unification, then platform integration, and finally full cloud migration. Resource and Value Assessment: Each phase had cost and resource estimates tied to measurable business value (e.g., reduced time to project initiation, improved partner satisfaction). Risk Mitigation and Governance: Worked with enterprise risk management to address data security and operational continuity. Final Outputs: Implementation & Migration Plan showing phased rollout over 24 months. Updated Architecture Roadmap linking deliverables to Transition Architectures.

Decision Context and Alignment: The most correct approach (Option B) was followed — involving broad collaboration across EA, business, and operational units to finalize migration plans based on Transition Architectures and stakeholder priorities. The plan was reviewed and approved by the Executive Research and Industry Board, ensuring alignment with strategic research goals.

Key Learnings for the HEI: Collaboration is key — EA-led transformation must co-create migration priorities with business and operations. Transition Architectures anchor value — each increment delivered visible progress (e.g., unified data first, then integrated platforms). Governance ensures sustainability — traceability from business drivers to architecture components builds confidence in delivery.

Summary Table — Phase Deliverables Overview

TOGAF Phase

Main Focus

Key Deliverables

Example from ARIU Case

Business Architecture

Baseline, Target, Gap Analysis

Research collaboration processes unified

Information Systems Architecture

Data & Application Baseline/Target

Central data warehouse + integrated platform

Technology Architecture

Infrastructure Design

Hybrid cloud & secure IAM

Opportunities & Solutions

Solution Building Blocks, Work Packages

5 prioritized work packages approved

Migration Planning

Implementation & Migration Plan

3 transition architectures sequenced and funded

Step 1: “Risk and Security Considerations for Phases E, F, and G”

Overview: These phases mark the transition from design to execution: Phase E – Opportunities & Solutions: deciding what solutions and work packages will realize the architecture. Phase F – Migration Planning: deciding how and when these solutions will be implemented and migrated safely. Phase G – Implementation Governance: making sure the implementation actually aligns with the architecture and risk/security principles. Across all three, risk and security act as continuous governance and assurance threads — ensuring that transformation efforts don’t compromise the institution’s operations, research integrity, data privacy, or compliance mandates.

Applying this to the HEI Case: Your HEI is research-oriented and industry-partnered, working with sensitive data (industry prototypes, intellectual property, student and faculty records, external funding, etc.). Therefore, risk and security must be embedded deeply in every migration and implementation decision.

Phase E: Opportunities and Solutions – “Designing with Risk and Security in Mind”: General meaning: This phase transforms architecture definitions (from Phases B, C, D) into practical solution building blocks (SBBs) and work packages. Here, risk awareness and security measures are baked into the proposed solutions. In HEI context: When defining research data management platforms or digital collaboration tools with industry partners, the architecture must ensure: Data classification and access control for proprietary or confidential information. Compliance with research ethics, data protection, and IP regulations (e.g., NDAs with industry). Secure authentication for multi-organization access (e.g., federated identity). Risk owners (like the Chief Information Security Officer, Dean Research, or Industry Liaison Office) must be consulted to ensure that research and innovation risks (data misuse, plagiarism, IP theft) are mitigated.

Deliverables in this phase (HEI): Security-related SBBs defined (e.g., secure cloud storage, encryption, audit logging). Risk-related metrics included in business value statements (e.g., “Reduced data breach likelihood by 40%”).

Phase F: Migration Planning – “Planning Secure Transitions and Minimizing Risk”: General meaning: This phase determines the order and schedule of implementation. Here, risk management focuses on transition risk — ensuring that as systems or processes move from baseline to target, they don’t break or expose vulnerabilities. In HEI context: When migrating research databases, ERP, or learning management systems, each transition must: Include a Risk Mitigation Plan for downtime, data loss, or integration failure. Include rollback (regression) plans — if new systems disrupt live research, operations can revert to the old setup safely. Include security impact analysis — ensuring that partial migrations or hybrid environments don’t create new vulnerabilities (e.g., unprotected data in transit between old and new systems). Collaboration with stakeholders (IT Security, Research IT, Finance, Industry Partners) ensures all migration decisions reflect shared accountability for risk.

Deliverables in this phase (HEI): Risk and Security sections within the Migration Plan. Risk Register with mitigation and contingency plans. Schedule with dependencies that minimize critical research downtime.

Phase G: Implementation Governance – “Enforcing Compliance and Reducing Residual Risk”. General meaning: Phase G ensures that the actual implementation conforms to architectural intent and security policies. Deviations must be tracked and managed so that no unacceptable risks are introduced.

In HEI context: As systems (e.g., AI research cloud, Industry Data Exchange Platform) are implemented: Governance bodies (Architecture Board, IT Steering Committee) ensure implementation aligns with approved architecture and compliance standards (e.g., ISO 27001, research ethics policies). Security testing, audits, and compliance reviews verify that implemented solutions don’t introduce residual risks. Any deviation (e.g., vendor changes or shortcuts) is assessed for risk and approved through governance channels.

Deliverables in this phase (HEI): Implementation conformance reports. Security validation and risk acceptance statements. Updated risk log reflecting residual or mitigated risks.

Integrated View: Risk and Security Thread Across E–F–G

E: Opportunities & Solutions

Define solution options

Identify security building blocks and risk value metrics

Secure data-sharing framework for industry projects

F: Migration Planning

Plan implementation sequence

Develop Risk Mitigation & Regression Plans

Ensure safe migration of research data systems

G: Implementation Governance

Oversee implementation

Verify compliance, manage deviations

Security audit of research collaboration platform

Summary – Application to Your HEI: In this HEI’s transformation program: Phase E ensured secure and risk-informed solution design for research and academic systems. Phase F focuses on migration risk control — ensuring continuity of teaching, research, and partnerships. Phase G will provide assurance and governance — confirming that implementation adheres to architectural and compliance frameworks. Together, these ensure that the HEI’s digital transformation and research ecosystem modernization are secure, reliable, and aligned with institutional integrity and industry trust.

Step 2: “Creating the Implementation and Migration Strategy” (Phase E)

General Purpose: Phase E is about turning architecture intent into actionable change. You’ve already built: Baseline and Target Architectures (Phases B–D: Business, Data, Application, and Technology). Identified gaps and requirements. Now in Phase E, you: Analyze how to close those gaps pragmatically. Define what to implement first, how to manage dependencies, and what interim (transition) states are needed,. Produce an Implementation and Migration Strategy that drives migration planning in Phase F. So, this phase focuses on strategic realization: what opportunities exist, what constraints apply, and what route is most efficient and least risky to reach the target state.

Applying Each Step in the HEI Context:

Determine/Confirm Key Corporate Change Attributes: Identify institutional change characteristics — scale, pace, governance style, funding approach, and cultural readiness for transformation. In HEI Case: The HEI’s change nature is collaborative but research-driven — meaning slower decision cycles but high innovation appetite. Must consider academic calendar cycles, faculty autonomy, research project funding timelines, and joint-industry governance structures.

Output: Statement of Change Attributes — e.g., “Incremental transformation aligned with research cycles; modular implementation to reduce disruption to ongoing research.”

Determine Business Constraints for Implementation: Identify internal/external constraints such as funding, regulatory requirements, legacy systems, or skill gaps. In HEI Case: Constraints might include limited budget windows (linked to grants or fiscal year), compliance (e.g., research ethics, data protection laws), and dependency on legacy academic or research systems. Some systems (like lab instrumentation interfaces or grant-tracking systems) cannot be easily replaced.

Output: List of constraints with mitigation strategies — e.g., “Integrate legacy research databases via API layer instead of full replacement.”

Review and Consolidate Gap Analysis Results (from Phases B–D): Bring together the gaps identified in Business, Data, Application, and Technology architectures to form a complete picture of what’s missing or needs change. In HEI Case: Gaps include fragmented research data repositories, lack of centralized industry-collaboration portal, inconsistent cybersecurity policies across departments, and outdated HPC (High-Performance Computing) resources.

Output: Consolidated Gap Matrix summarizing what must be addressed by new solutions.

Review Consolidated Requirements Across Related Business Functions: Ensure all functional areas — teaching, research, administration, industry liaison — have aligned and non-conflicting requirements. In HEI Case: Align academic ERP modernization with research data management and industry-collaboration platforms. Ensure the same identity and access management works across all systems (students, researchers, and industry users).

Output: Unified Requirements Catalogue ensuring interoperability and shared services.

Consolidate and Reconcile Interoperability Requirements: Confirm data exchange, process integration, and interoperability across systems, platforms, and domains. In HEI Case: Define standards for research data exchange between HEI and industry partners. Adopt open standards (e.g., REST APIs, eduGAIN for federated identity, or Open Data standards).

Output: Interoperability framework for HEI digital ecosystem.

Refine and Validate Dependencies: Identify which projects depend on others — e.g., “Implement identity management before launching digital research portal.” In HEI Case: Data governance policy must precede data-platform deployment. Infrastructure (network and cloud security) must be upgraded before advanced AI-based research environments are implemented.

Output: Dependency Map or Sequencing Diagram.

Confirm Readiness and Risk for Business Transformation: Assess the institution’s readiness (skills, culture, systems) and identify risks to transformation. In HEI Case: Assess readiness of IT staff for cloud transformation, and faculty for digital-collaboration tools. Identify risks such as resistance to process standardization or data-sharing reluctance from research groups.

Output: Readiness Assessment & Risk Register with mitigation plans.

Formulate Implementation and Migration Strategy: Decide the overall strategy for transformation — e.g., Big Bang vs. Incremental, Pilot-first, Parallel run, etc. In HEI Case: The CIO and Architecture Board may choose Incremental Roll-out, delivering early value via pilot programs (e.g., Research Data Cloud for selected centers) before scaling. Ensure each increment demonstrates measurable value to stakeholders (faculty, students, industry partners).

Output: Implementation & Migration Strategy Document summarizing approach, principles, and sequencing rationale.

Identify and Group Major Work Packages: Group change activities into manageable work packages that align with business priorities and resource availability. In HEI Case: Work packages might include: “Unified Research Data Repository”. “Industry Collaboration Platform”. “Digital Learning Infrastructure Upgrade”. “Cybersecurity Modernization Program”

Output: Work Package Catalogue with ownership, scope, and value defined.

Identify Transition Architectures: Define intermediate states between the current and target architectures to manage risk and complexity. In HEI Case: Transition 1: Integrate research systems under a federated data model. Transition 2: Establish common authentication and access control. Transition 3: Move research and teaching workloads to hybrid cloud.

Output: Series of Transition Architecture Diagrams showing staged evolution.

Create the Architecture Roadmap & Implementation and Migration Plan: Combine all information (dependencies, priorities, risks, transition states) into a roadmap showing sequence and timing of initiatives. In HEI Case: The roadmap may show 3-year transformation with short-term, mid-term, and long-term deliverables: Year 1: Foundational IT & Governance setup. Year 2: Research and Collaboration Platforms. Year 3: Advanced Analytics, AI, and Automation in Research Services

Output: Architecture Roadmap: graphical sequence of initiatives. Implementation and Migration Plan: details on cost, timeline, risk, and dependencies (feeds directly into Phase F for migration planning).

How It Applies Collectively to the HEI Case

Identify transformation scale

Determine corporate change attributes

Incremental change aligned with academic cycles

Handle constraints

Determine business constraints

Budget and regulatory compliance considerations

Align architecture gaps

Consolidate gap analysis

Unified academic-research data infrastructure

Manage dependencies

Refine and validate dependencies

Security upgrade precedes digital collaboration launch

Plan migration strategy

Formulate strategy & group work packages

3-year incremental roll-out of digital research ecosystem

Deliver roadmap

Create roadmap & plan

Roadmap linking research goals with technology delivery

Summary (for your HEI): Phase E in your HEI transformation is about crafting a strategic and secure execution path from the architectural design to tangible outcomes. It ensures that: Institutional and research priorities drive the change sequence, Dependencies and risks are clearly known, Transition states are defined to minimize disruption, And the roadmap aligns academic, research, and industry innovation goals under one digital enterprise strategy.

Step 3: “Basic Approaches to Implementation”

What It Means in TOGAF Context: When implementing a target architecture, organizations must decide on the approach that balances: Risk, Cost, Speed, Organizational readiness. TOGAF identifies three fundamental implementation approaches and a few execution methodologies that shape how transformation is rolled out.

Implementation Approaches (Three Core Strategies)

Approach

Definition

When to Use

Risks / Constraints

Greenfield

Build everything new from scratch — as if starting afresh

When legacy systems are obsolete, fragmented, or too costly to integrate

Costly, high resource demand, but offers modern, clean architecture

Revolutionary (Big Bang)

Switch from old to new system in one go (“switch off, switch on”)

When timing is critical (e.g., compliance deadline), and confidence in readiness is high

Very risky — failure can disrupt critical operations

Evolutionary

Gradual implementation in phases or modules, often running old and new systems in parallel until stable

When continuity is vital, and gradual stakeholder buy-in is preferred

Slower transformation, requires synchronization across systems

Applying the Approaches to the HEI Case: Context Recap: Your HEI (Higher Education Institution) is unique because it: Runs research-level programs closely linked to industry collaborations. Handles sensitive research and academic data. Must maintain continuous operation (no downtime in research labs, academic systems, or partnerships). Is implementing digital modernization (data management, research collaboration platforms, academic ERP, etc.). Now, let’s see how each approach applies:

1. Greenfield Approach — Not Preferred but Selectively Useful: HEI Context: A Greenfield approach would mean building a completely new research and learning infrastructure — e.g., setting up an entirely new digital campus ecosystem, independent of the legacy systems. Example: Establishing a new Cloud-based Research Data Lake separate from old departmental servers. Launching a new AI-powered Research Collaboration Platform with no legacy integration at first. Use selectively when: The existing system is too outdated (e.g., paper-based research proposal workflows). You want to pilot a new initiative or innovation hub without legacy interference. Best Used For: New digital services or innovation pilots Not for: Core academic or administrative systems that can’t tolerate disruption

2. Revolutionary Approach — Least Suitable for HEI: HEI Context: A revolutionary or “big bang” implementation means turning off legacy systems (e.g., Student Information System, Research Grant Management System) and switching directly to a new system overnight. Example: Replacing the old ERP or Learning Management System (LMS) with a new one in a single cutover. Risks: Research projects may lose data continuity. Faculty and industry collaborators might face workflow disruption. Students and researchers could lose access to critical systems. Highly risky in an HEI environment where academic and research continuity is essential. Use only when: Systems are non-critical or small in scope (e.g., replacing old HR payroll system or email platform).

3. Evolutionary Approach — Most Suitable for the HEI: HEI Context: This approach gradually evolves the architecture through phased rollouts, integration layers, and transition architectures, ensuring stability and adoption over time. Example Implementation: Phase 1: Centralize research data standards (without migrating everything yet). Phase 2: Integrate existing departmental data repositories. Phase 3: Launch the new Research Collaboration Portal integrated with industry partners. Phase 4: Retire legacy systems once the new environment is fully operational. Why it fits HEI best: Supports continuous teaching and research operations. Allows gradual user adaptation (faculty, researchers, partners). Manages risk and funding constraints. Aligns with TOGAF’s Transition Architectures and incremental value delivery principle

Implementation Methodologies (Execution Styles): TOGAF identifies several practical execution methodologies within any of the above approaches.

Methodology

Meaning

How It Applies to HEI

Quick Win (Snapshots)

Deliver early, visible improvements that build stakeholder confidence

Launch a Research Data Portal MVP for one department before scaling institution-wide

Achievable Targets

Break large programs into realistic, measurable phases

Implement data governance policy and security upgrades before full digital research integration

Value Chain Method

Align initiatives to key institutional value streams

Map the digital transformation roadmap along research, teaching, and industry collaboration value chains

For your HEI, a combination of “Evolutionary + Achievable Targets + Quick Wins” is the most balanced and sustainable strategy.

Applying the Combined Approach to the HEI

Implementation Dimension

Approach Chosen

Example in HEI Case

Transformation style

Evolutionary

Multi-phase rollout of integrated research and learning platforms

Execution strategy

Achievable targets

Phase-wise implementation of digital identity, research data, and collaboration tools

Early stakeholder engagement

Quick Wins

Pilot new cloud-based lab management system for select research centers

Value alignment

Value Chain

Each architecture component supports HEI’s core value chain: Research → Collaboration → Innovation → Learning

Summary (HEI Case): What the Step Means: Phase E and F must define how the transformation will be implemented — choosing between Greenfield, Revolutionary, or Evolutionary approaches, and selecting appropriate implementation methodologies (Quick Win, Achievable Targets, or Value Chain). Given the complexity, stakeholder diversity, and need for operational continuity, your HEI should adopt an Evolutionary approach, driven by: Quick Wins to demonstrate immediate value (pilot research systems), Achievable Targets to maintain funding and focus, and Value Chain orientation to ensure technology aligns with academic and research outcomes.

“The HEI’s digital transformation follows an evolutionary approach, using phased rollouts and early ‘quick wins’ to modernize research, learning, and collaboration systems. This ensures continuous operations, risk management, and clear value alignment across academic and industry domains.”

Step 4: Identifying and Grouping Work Packages — Explanation

Once the Baseline and Target Architectures are defined (from Phases B–D) and the overall Implementation & Migration Strategy is shaped (in Phase E), the architecture team must translate abstract solutions into actionable chunks of work — work packages. These packages form the building blocks of migration planning and ultimately drive execution in later phases.

Conceptual Process:

Use the Consolidated Gaps–Solutions–Dependencies Matrix: Start with the analysis of gaps identified between baseline and target states for each architecture domain (Business, Data, Application, Technology, Security). Add potential solutions for each gap, and list interdependencies (which tasks rely on others). Example columns: | Gap | Solution | Dependency | Priority | Implementation Type |
Identify Proposed Solution Mechanisms: Determine how to address each gap: Build new capability (new system, service, process). Enhance existing capability. Purchase/adopt a commercial or open-source solution.
Classify Current Systems: Each system or capability should be categorized as: Mainstream: continues to be part of the future architecture. Contain: to be maintained temporarily, replaced later. Replace: to be phased out soon.
Define and Decompose Work Packages: Combine related solution activities into logical work packages. Each work package represents a manageable project or deliverable (e.g., “Research Collaboration Portal Upgrade”). Break down top-level packages into smaller increments that deliver measurable business or research value.
Analyze Transformation and Dependencies: Check how each package affects business transformation — for example, does it require training, new governance, or new partnerships?Validate dependencies — e.g., a data warehouse upgrade may depend on a network infrastructure enhancement.
Group Work Packages into Portfolios: Align with enterprise strategy and implementation approach (evolutionary, revolutionary, or hybrid). Create portfolios such as: Academic Digital Transformation, Research-Industry Collaboration, Administrative Process Automation and Data Governance & Security Modernization

Application to the HEI Case: Context Recap: The HEI in this case: Offers advanced, research-oriented programs. Collaborates with industry to solve real-world technological challenges. Has recently completed Phases B–E: Defined baseline and target architectures. Identified research data silos, fragmented collaboration systems, and lack of unified digital research infrastructure. Approved an overall migration strategy focused on “Digital Research Ecosystem Enablement.” Now, in Phase F, the HEI must organize implementation efforts into clear, fundable, and manageable work packages.

Applying the Step in the HEI Case:

Use Consolidated Gaps–Solutions–Dependencies Matrix

Example gaps include: lack of integrated research management, poor data interoperability, legacy applications for student services. These are mapped to proposed solutions such as a unified Research Collaboration Portal, central Data Lake, and upgraded Academic ERP. Dependencies like “Data Lake must precede AI-driven analytics platform” are documented.

Identify Solution Mechanisms

- For collaboration: Build a custom Research Collaboration Portal (new development). - For data integration: Use existing middleware tools (existing product). - For administrative modernization: Purchase and adapt a cloud-based ERP.

Classify Systems

- Mainstream: Library system, Learning Management System. - Contain: Current student information system (will be replaced). - Replace: Legacy research grants tracking system.

Define and Decompose Work Packages

1. Work Package 1: Research Collaboration Portal (Phase 1 – Research Faculty) 2. Work Package 2: Industry Research Data Lake & Analytics 3. Work Package 3: Academic ERP Modernization 4. Work Package 4: Cybersecurity & Compliance Framework

Analyze Business Transformation Impact

Each package involves cross-unit collaboration. For example, the Research Collaboration Portal impacts research administration, IT, and external industry partners, so governance and data-sharing agreements are needed.

Group into Portfolios

- Portfolio A: Digital Research Enablement - Portfolio B: Academic Operations Transformation - Portfolio C: Data Governance & Security Modernization

Deliverables Produced: From this step, the HEI produces: Consolidated Gaps–Solutions–Dependencies Matrix. List of Work Packages and Increments. Portfolio Groupings. Input to Implementation and Migration Plan (Phase F)

Summary: Purpose: Translate architectural vision into executable initiatives. Output: A structured set of work packages grouped into portfolios that guide migration planning and funding decisions. In HEI context: Ensures that complex research and academic transformation projects are aligned, prioritized, and feasible — enabling the university to modernize its digital ecosystem while supporting ongoing research collaborations with industry.

Step 5: Creating and Documenting Transition Architectures

When the Target Architecture (your final desired state) is too large, complex, or risky to achieve in a single leap, TOGAF recommends defining one or more Transition Architectures — intermediate states that guide the organization from the Baseline Architecture (today) toward the Target Architecture (future). These Transition Architectures act like milestones or waypoints on the transformation journey — each one delivering tangible business value, reducing risk, and ensuring the organization can absorb change gradually.

Purpose: To de-risk large-scale transformations by breaking them into achievable, value-driven stages. To help plan investments and migration activities aligned with business priorities and readiness. To visualize progress toward the Target Architecture through a series of evolving states.

Key Steps in Creating Transition Architectures

Step

Description

1. Assess Need for Incremental Change

Decide if the scope and scale of transformation require multiple stages (most real-world enterprises do).

2. Define Transition States

Identify logical intermediate architectures (e.g., “Hybrid Cloud State,” “Unified Data Access State”). Each should represent a stable and usable configuration.

3. Base on Implementation Approach and Capacity for Change

Choose number and nature of transitions based on organization’s readiness, funding, risk tolerance, and ability to manage concurrent projects.

4. Use Gap–Solution–Dependency and Portfolio Analysis

Leverage prior outputs (from Phases D & E) — these show what gaps must be filled first, what can wait, and how dependencies shape sequencing.

5. Prioritize Easier Wins First

Begin with simpler, lower-risk initiatives that deliver immediate benefits and build organizational confidence before tackling complex ones.

6. Document Transition Architectures

For each transition stage, describe the interim architecture across domains (Business, Data, Application, Technology, Security), including capabilities realized, dependencies, and exit criteria (what must be achieved before moving to the next stage).

Applying the Step to the HEI Case: Context Recap: The Higher Education Institution (HEI): Is a research-intensive university. Works collaboratively with industry to address emerging technological and societal challenges. Has completed Phases B–E: Defined Baseline and Target Architectures. Identified gaps (e.g., fragmented data systems, siloed research platforms, limited analytics). Defined solution building blocks and grouped them into work packages and portfolios (Phase E). Is now in Phase F: Migration Planning.

Why Transition Architectures Are Needed: The HEI cannot transform everything at once — the scope is too large: Core academic systems (student management, LMS) are critical and cannot risk downtime. Research systems depend on multiple data sources and external partnerships. Funding is staged (annual budgets, grants, industry sponsorships). The institution’s IT and change management capacity are limited. Hence, the HEI must plan Transition Architectures — incremental stages leading to the Target “Digital Research and Academic Ecosystem.”

Example: Transition Architectures for the HEI

Transition Architecture 1: Digital Foundations (Year 1)

Establish the technical and governance groundwork for transformation.

- Migrate infrastructure to hybrid cloud - Implement baseline security and IAM - Create data governance framework

- Enables secure, scalable infrastructure - Builds trust and readiness for data integration

Transition Architecture 2: Research Collaboration Enablement (Year 2)

Integrate data and tools to support interdisciplinary and industry research.

- Deploy Research Collaboration Portal - Implement Data Lake for research data - Pilot AI-driven analytics for one research cluster

- Facilitates industry collaboration - Provides early success and visible ROI

Transition Architecture 3: Academic and Administrative Integration (Year 3–4)

Modernize academic and administrative systems for holistic digital transformation.

- Implement ERP modernization - Integrate student and research systems - Expand analytics to institution-wide level

- Achieves operational efficiency - Enables institution-wide insights

Transition Architecture 4: Full Digital Ecosystem (Target)

Achieve seamless integration of all academic, research, and industry collaboration systems.

- Unified digital experience platform - Predictive and adaptive analytics - Continuous innovation and optimization

- Delivers the long-term Target Architecture

How It’s Done Practically: Start from Gap–Solution Matrix & Work Packages : Each transition stage clusters related work packages that can be logically delivered together and that build on one another.

Check Dependencies & Readiness: Cloud and security foundation must precede data integration. Data Lake must be live before analytics tools are deployed. ERP modernization can follow after stable data governance is in place.

Align with Implementation Approach: The HEI follows an evolutionary approach — phasing in capabilities while maintaining existing systems (parallel running) to ensure no disruption to ongoing academic or research operations.

Document Each Transition Architecture: Each stage includes: Updated architecture diagrams (Business, Application, Data, Technology layers). Key capabilities realized. Exit criteria (what must be achieved before moving to the next). Identified risks and mitigation plans.

Outcome: The result of this step is: A clearly documented roadmap showing how the HEI evolves through defined transition states. Confidence for stakeholders (researchers, administrators, IT, industry partners) that transformation will be steady and manageable. Input to Phase F (Migration Planning) for scheduling, prioritization, and funding. Input to Phase G (Implementation Governance) for tracking progress and compliance.

Summary Table

Bridge Baseline → Target through manageable stages

Defined set of Transition Architectures with capabilities and dependencies

Enables realistic, low-risk digital transformation of HEI while maintaining operations and partnerships

Step 6: The Impact of Migration Projects on the Organisation and the Coordination Required

This step ensures that: The Implementation and Migration Plan is realistic, prioritized, and actionable. The organization is prepared — structurally, financially, and operationally — for the changes that the migration projects will bring. Stakeholders understand how resources, risks, and timelines will interact. Governance and coordination mechanisms are in place across business, IT, research, and operations. Essentially, Phase F is where strategic architecture turns into a coordinated program of work.

Understanding Phase F Activities

Confirm management framework interactions

Define how EA will coordinate with Project Management, Portfolio Management, Change Management, and Governance frameworks.

Avoid duplication, ensure ownership, and align delivery and funding processes.

Assign business value to each work package

Quantify the value each project delivers (academic impact, research efficiency, revenue generation, etc.).

Prioritizes what matters most to the institution.

Estimate resource requirements & project timing

Identify funding, staffing, and infrastructure needs.

Enables capacity planning and scheduling.

Prioritize projects (cost–benefit–risk)

Assess feasibility, risk level, and stakeholder readiness.

Enables phased rollout and minimizes disruption.

Confirm Architecture Roadmap & update ADD

Sync the final project plan with the architecture vision and documentation.

Maintains alignment between EA and implementation teams.

Complete Implementation and Migration Plan

Produce final, approved document listing all projects, dependencies, and sequencing.

Acts as the formal guide for execution.

Close the architecture cycle and document lessons

Capture insights and prepare for next iteration of ADM.

Promotes continuous improvement and knowledge transfer.

Organisational Impact and Coordination: Migration projects affect multiple dimensions of the organization:

Impact Area

Examples in an HEI

Coordination Required

Business Processes

Changes in research proposal management, academic scheduling, or student services workflows.

Involve academic deans, research office, and admin units early to define transition processes.

Technology Landscape

Introduction of hybrid cloud, data lake, or ERP modernization.

Coordinate with IT operations, security, and vendor teams for rollout planning and regression testing.

People & Skills

Faculty and research staff need training on new tools and data platforms.

Coordinate with HR and learning units for training programs.

Governance & Compliance

Ensure data privacy, ethics in research data use, and grant compliance.

Align with legal and compliance offices.

Funding & Resources

Funding cycles tied to grants, budgets, and sponsorships.

Coordinate with finance office and research funding councils.

Applying to the HEI Case: Context: The HEI has: Defined Baseline Architecture (fragmented systems, siloed data). Defined Target Architecture (integrated research–academic–industry ecosystem). Defined Transition Architectures (digital foundation, collaboration enablement, full integration). Now in Phase F: Migration Planning, where projects must be sequenced and aligned with institutional strategy.

Step-by-Step Application:

Step 1: Confirm Management Framework Interactions: Define how the EA office works with: Research Program Management (for funded projects), IT PMO (for technology delivery), Change Management (for faculty and administrative adaptation), Finance (for budget control). Example: EA outputs feed the PMO project charter templates; governance board approves both architecture compliance and funding release.

Step 2: Assign Business Value: Each work package is assessed for strategic value:

Work Package

Value

Implement Data Lake

Enables cross-disciplinary research analytics

Integrate Student–Research ERP

Improves resource visibility and funding allocation

AI Research Collaboration Portal

Enhances industry partnerships and publication impact

This prioritization helps secure executive and sponsor support.

Step 3: Estimate Resource Requirements: Estimate cost, effort, duration, skill sets (cloud, data science, integration). Align timelines with academic and fiscal calendars (e.g., avoid rollout during exam periods or grant deadlines).

Step 4: Prioritize Migration Projects : Conduct cost–benefit–risk analysis: Low-risk + high-value projects → early transitions (e.g., Data Governance Platform). High-risk or dependency-heavy projects → later transitions (e.g., ERP modernization).

Step 5: Confirm Roadmap and Update Documents: Architecture Roadmap = timeline of Transition Architectures with project milestones. Architecture Definition Document (ADD) updated with: Refined dependencies, Updated data flow diagrams, Revised capability map.

Step 6: Finalize Implementation and Migration Plan: The plan lists: Project scope and objectives, Dependencies, Timelines, Assigned business owners and delivery teams, Risk mitigation plans.

Step 7: Close the Architecture Cycle: Once projects start, EA moves to governance role (Phase G). Conduct lessons-learned workshops: Capture unforeseen integration challenges. Update architecture repository and reusable building blocks. Prepare the new Baseline Architecture (after rollout).

Walk-Through: Architecture Supporting Projects: Finalising Scope & Budget: For each major migration project (e.g., “Research Collaboration Portal Implementation”): Validate architecture alignment. Confirm cost, schedule, and resource allocation. Update the enterprise roadmap to ensure sequencing consistency.

Preparing for Solution Delivery Governance: Define Solution Architectures (for each project). Establish variance metrics — how much deviation from target is acceptable. Update risk matrix (technical, operational, funding, adoption).

Realising the Solution & Closure

Stage

What Happens

HEI Application Example

Post-rollout (warranty period)

Monitor actual system behavior, user adoption, and data integrity.

Validate Data Lake performance and research user feedback.

Gap Analysis (Realized vs. Planned)

Identify mismatches between actual delivery and Target Architecture.

Adjust data models or APIs based on real use.

Document Lessons Learned

Feed back into EA repository.

Capture new best practices for academic digital ecosystems.

Closure and Sign-off

The realized system becomes the new Baseline Architecture.

The “Digital Foundations” state becomes the base for next Transition.

Outcomes of This Step

Output

Outcome for HEI

Approved Implementation and Migration Plan

List of prioritized, resourced projects for digital transformation

Updated Architecture Roadmap

Sequenced path to achieve Target Architecture

Defined Risk Mitigation and Governance Plans

Ensures operational continuity and security

Captured Lessons Learned

Enables institutional learning and maturity in EA practice

Summary: Phase F integrates architecture planning with project execution. For the HEI, this means translating the vision of an integrated research–academic ecosystem into a coordinated, value-driven, risk-managed sequence of projects — ensuring that transformation enhances teaching, research, and industry collaboration without disrupting the institution’s core mission.

This table captures the prioritization, sequencing, and reasoning behind migration projects aligned with the Target Architecture.

Sample: HEI Migration Project Prioritization Table (Phase F)

| WP 2: Unified ERP for Academic & Research Operations | Replace legacy systems for finance, HR, grants, and student data with unified ERP. | 🔹 High — Improves visibility, reduces duplication, supports funding management. | Very High (multi-year, multi-module) | High (change management complexity) | Data Lake & identity integration must be in place | Medium Priority / Phase 2–3 | Integrated Operations 2.0 |

| WP 3: AI-Powered Research Collaboration Portal | Platform for faculty–industry collaboration, proposal management, and IP tracking. | 🔹 High — Strengthens industry partnerships, accelerates innovation cycle. | Medium | Medium (adoption risk) | Requires Data Lake APIs and ERP identity sync | High Priority / Phase 2 | Digital Ecosystem 2.0 |

| WP 4: Digital Learning and Micro-Credential Platform | Extend LMS for online delivery of research-linked micro-credentials and industry-aligned courses. | 🔹 Medium–High — Expands reach, monetizes knowledge, improves student experience. | Medium | Low–Medium | Integration with ERP & identity management | Medium Priority / Phase 3 | Learning Innovation 3.0 |

| WP 5: Data Governance & Cybersecurity Framework | Establish enterprise-wide data and security policies, controls, and identity management. | 🔹 Critical Enabler — Ensures compliance, trust, and security. | Medium | Medium (organization-wide coordination) | None — prerequisite for all digital initiatives | Highest Priority / Immediate | Security & Governance 0.9 |

Key Insights for HEI Phase F Activities

Assigning Business Value: Projects are scored based on strategic impact (e.g., enabling research excellence, compliance, student success, or revenue growth). WP 1 and WP 5 are foundational enablers — their completion unlocks later transitions.

Dependencies & Sequencing: Data Lake → ERP → Collaboration Portal → Learning Platform. Governance and cloud readiness are cross-cutting dependencies.

Risk Mitigation Plans: Each high-risk project includes a rollback plan (regression planning). Risk matrix tracks technical, operational, and funding risks.

Stakeholder Coordination: Academic Council: approves projects affecting teaching and curriculum. Research Office: owns collaboration and grant data initiatives. IT & Finance: ensure technology and funding feasibility. Industry Partners: co-fund or co-develop research collaboration modules.

Architecture Roadmap Alignment:Transition 1: Build secure digital foundation. Transition 2: Integrate research and administrative systems. Transition 3: Expand digital engagement and innovation ecosystem.

Outputs from This Step

Deliverable

Purpose in the HEI Context

Implementation & Migration Plan (Approved)

Details projects, sequencing, resources, and funding.

Updated Architecture Roadmap

Maps Transition Architectures over time.

Risk Mitigation & Regression Plan

Ensures rollback and recovery options.

Resource Allocation Plan

Confirms staff, budget, and partner commitments.

Lessons-Learned Log

Feeds back into repository for next ADM cycle.

In summary: Phase F for the HEI turns the vision of a digitally integrated, research-driven institution into a coordinated transformation program. It aligns priorities, secures funding, balances risk, and prepares the organization for successful execution and governance in Phases G and H.

This timeline shows what happens when, why it happens in that order, and how each stage builds the foundation for the next one.

HEI Architecture Roadmap Timeline (3-Year View)

Year / Quarter

Transition Architecture Stage

Key Migration Projects / Work Packages (WPs)

Major Deliverables / Outcomes

Key Stakeholders

Year 1 Q1–Q2

Security & Governance 0.9 – Digital Foundation Setup

• WP 5 – Data Governance & Cybersecurity Framework • WP 6 – Cloud Infrastructure Modernization (Phase 1)

✅ Enterprise data governance policies ✅ Identity management system setup ✅ Hybrid cloud infrastructure pilot

CIO Office / IT Governance / Legal / Audit

Year 1 Q3–Q4

Digital Foundation 1.0 – Data & Integration Layer

• WP 1 – Research Data Lake & Analytics Platform • WP 6 – Cloud Infrastructure Modernization (Phase 2)

✅ Central data lake for research datasets ✅ Analytics sandbox for faculty research use

Research Office / IT / Academic Deans

Year 2 Q1–Q2

Integrated Operations 2.0 – Unified Processes & ERP

• WP 2 – Unified ERP for Academic & Research Operations • WP 7 – Digital Capability Program (Phase 1)

✅ Integrated Finance, HR, Student Data modules ✅ Training for administrative and academic staff

Registrar / Finance / HR / IT / Deans

Year 2 Q3–Q4

Digital Ecosystem 2.0 – Collaboration & Innovation

• WP 3 – AI-Powered Research Collaboration Portal • WP 7 – Capability Program (Phase 2)

✅ Research-industry portal for grants & IP ✅ Faculty collaboration analytics

Research Office / Industry Partners / Innovation Cell

Year 3 Q1–Q2

Learning Innovation 3.0 – Digital Teaching & Outreach

• WP 4 – Digital Learning & Micro-Credential Platform • WP 7 – Capability Program (Phase 3)

✅ Micro-credential platform launched ✅ Integration with ERP and Data Lake ✅ AI recommendation engine for courses

Academic Council / LMS Team / Industry Liaison

Year 3 Q3–Q4

Consolidation & Continuous Improvement – New Baseline

• Post-rollout support & warranty activities • Gap analysis between realised and target architecture

✅ New Baseline Architecture defined ✅ Lessons-learned log completed ✅ Next cycle roadmap initiated

All Stakeholders / Architecture Governance Board

How This Applies to the HEI Case

Logical Sequencing: Security & Governance (Year 1) → foundational; must exist before data, ERP, or learning systems. Integration & ERP (Year 2) → brings process efficiency and unified data. Digital Learning & Collaboration (Year 3) → leverages the unified data and secure infrastructure.

Transition Architectures Act as “Stepping Stones”: Each stage (0.9, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0) is an intermediate architecture that adds specific capabilities without disrupting existing operations.

Stakeholder Coordination: Governance Board: approves phase gates at each transition. PMO: manages dependencies and risk register. IT & HR: ensure resources and skills match workload. Deans & Faculty: validate adoption and change readiness.

Deliverable Alignment: Each phase updates the Architecture Definition Document, Implementation Plan, and Architecture Roadmap, ensuring traceability and business alignment.

Closure & Feedback Loop: At the end of Year 3, a baseline reassessment defines what’s achieved and sets up the next ADM cycle — possibly expanding into AI-driven personalization, blockchain credentials, or research ecosystem APIs.

Python Code: HEI Migration Roadmap

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import pandas as pd
import datetime as dt

# Define roadmap data (Work Packages for the HEI)
data = {
    'Work_Package': [
        'Data Modernization Initiative',
        'Digital Learning Platform Upgrade',
        'Industry Collaboration Labs',
        'Research Information System Integration',
        'Cybersecurity and Compliance Framework',
        'Smart Campus Infrastructure (IoT & AI)',
        'Governance and Capability Building'
    ],
    'Start': [
        '2025-01-01',
        '2025-03-01',
        '2025-05-01',
        '2025-07-01',
        '2025-09-01',
        '2025-11-01',
        '2026-01-01'
    ],
    'Finish': [
        '2025-04-30',
        '2025-06-30',
        '2025-08-31',
        '2025-10-31',
        '2025-12-31',
        '2026-03-31',
        '2026-06-30'
    ],
    'Phase': [
        'Transition Architecture 1',
        'Transition Architecture 1',
        'Transition Architecture 2',
        'Transition Architecture 2',
        'Transition Architecture 3',
        'Transition Architecture 3',
        'Stabilization & Governance'
    ]
}

# Convert to DataFrame
df = pd.DataFrame(data)
df['Start'] = pd.to_datetime(df['Start'])
df['Finish'] = pd.to_datetime(df['Finish'])
df['Duration'] = (df['Finish'] - df['Start']).dt.days

# Set up plot
fig, ax = plt.subplots(figsize=(12, 6))

# Define colors by transition phase
phase_colors = {
    'Transition Architecture 1': 'tab:blue',
    'Transition Architecture 2': 'tab:orange',
    'Transition Architecture 3': 'tab:green',
    'Stabilization & Governance': 'tab:purple'
}

# Plot Gantt bars
for i, row in df.iterrows():
    ax.barh(
        y=row['Work_Package'],
        width=row['Duration'],
        left=row['Start'],
        color=phase_colors[row['Phase']],
        edgecolor='black'
    )
    ax.text(row['Finish'] + dt.timedelta(days=5), i, row['Phase'], va='center', fontsize=8)

# Customize chart
ax.set_xlabel('Timeline')
ax.set_ylabel('Work Packages')
ax.set_title('HEI Implementation & Migration Roadmap (Phase F - Migration Planning)')
ax.grid(True, axis='x', linestyle='--', alpha=0.5)

# Format x-axis as timeline
plt.tight_layout()
plt.show()

Step 7: Assigning Business Value to Each Work Package

In migration planning, a work package is a discrete piece of work that contributes to a project or program. Assigning a business value to each work package helps the organization: Prioritize work packages based on their impact. Decide where to invest resources first. Communicate clearly why certain projects are more important than others. Key idea: You don’t just list work packages; you assess their value to the institution so decisions are objective and strategic.

How to assign business value: The methodology generally follows these steps: Define what “business value” means for your organization: Could include factors like improved student experience, revenue generation, cost reduction, compliance, research output, etc. In an HEI, examples: faster admission processing, better digital library access, or improved learning analytics. Measure business value for each work package: Use metrics such as Return on Investment (ROI), performance improvements, or strategic alignment. Techniques like Business Value Assessment or scoring models can quantify value (e.g., high/medium/low, or numeric scores). Identify projects from work packages: Group work packages into projects that will go into the Implementation and Migration Plan. Each project should have a clear scope and deliverable. Include risk assessment: Aggregate risks from the Consolidated Gaps, Solutions, and Dependencies Matrix (from the earlier Phase E). Assign risks to each project increment to make sure business value assessment considers potential issues.

Issues to consider when assessing business value: Performance Evaluation Criteria: How will you know the project is successful? (e.g., reduction in application processing time by 30%) ROI Criteria: What is the expected financial or operational return? Critical Success Factors (CSFs): Which factors are critical for the HEI’s strategic goals? (e.g., student satisfaction, accreditation compliance) Measures of Effectiveness (MOE): How will you measure the effectiveness of the project? (e.g., % of courses digitalized) Strategic Fit: How well does this work package align with HEI strategic initiatives (like modernization, digital transformation, or hybrid learning expansion)?

Communication with Implementers: Implementers (IT teams, admin staff, faculty) must understand: Where their work package fits in the overall roadmap. Their responsibilities, and which gaps or dependencies they are accountable for. How their contribution will be measured for conformance.

Managing the Current Approach: The Practitioner (project/architecture lead) needs to show that scrutiny and planning ensures that the solution architecture will meet HEI requirements. Stakeholders (administration, faculty, students) need assurance that requirements are met efficiently. Secure budget and resources for solution delivery once business value is clear.

Applying to a Higher Education Institution (HEI): Imagine an HEI planning a digital transformation project. Here’s how this step might be applied:

Work Package

Description

Business Value

Risks

CSFs

MOE

Student Admission Portal

Implement online admission system

High (reduces manual work, improves student experience)

Data migration errors, downtime

Portal uptime, accuracy of applications

% applications processed online

Digital Library Upgrade

Upgrade e-resources and access

Medium (improves learning & research)

Licensing costs, technical compatibility

Resource availability

Number of users accessing resources

LMS Analytics

Analytics dashboard for course progress

High (supports student success)

Data privacy, integration issues

Faculty adoption, timely interventions

Improvement in student outcomes

Steps in practice: Define value: Faster admissions, better learning analytics, improved research visibility. Score each package: Assign numeric score (e.g., 1–5) or qualitative (High/Medium/Low). Aggregate into projects: Work packages 1+2 could be one project: “Student Experience Digitalization.” Assess risks and dependencies: Portal depends on LMS being updated; library upgrade needs server upgrade. Communicate to implementers: IT team knows what they must deliver, which gaps they cover, and how success is measured. Secure budget and approval: Show stakeholders that these projects deliver measurable value and align with strategic goals.

Step 8: Prioritizing Migration Projects

Once each project has its business value and cost estimated (Step 7), you need to decide the order in which projects should be implemented. Not every project can be done simultaneously, and resources are limited, so prioritization ensures that: High-value projects are completed first. Risks are managed before heavy investments. Budget allocation aligns with strategic goals. Think of this step as balancing impact vs effort and reward vs risk.

Key considerations:

A. Cost/Benefit Assessment: Step: Compare each project’s business value against the cost to deliver it. Goal: Identify which projects deliver the highest value per unit of cost. Method: Calculate net benefit for each project (business value minus cost). Factor in the benefits delivered by the project’s SBBs (Solution Building Blocks). SBBs are the individual components of a solution. Rank projects based on net benefit or ROI. Example HEI metrics: Value = improved student satisfaction, reduced processing time, increased research output. Cost = IT implementation cost, staff training, licensing fees.

B. Risk Validation: Step: Evaluate residual risks after mitigation. Goal: Ensure that a high-value project is not too risky to start without proper safeguards. Method: Review risk assessments for each project. Include risk notes in the project list. Stakeholders agree on prioritization considering both value and risk. Update the risk assessment to reflect residual risk after mitigation. Example HEI scenario: Digital Library Upgrade (high value) depends on server infrastructure. Risk: downtime during exams. Risk mitigation: schedule implementation during summer break; residual risk is low. Project can be prioritized high once risk is mitigated.

Applying to HEI: Example: Imagine an HEI planning multiple migration projects:

Project

Business Value

Cost

Net Benefit (Value–Cost)

Risk

Prioritization

Online Admission Portal

High

Medium

High

Low (mitigated via phased rollout)

Learning Analytics Dashboard

Medium

Low

Medium

Medium (data privacy)

Digital Library Upgrade

Medium

High

Medium-Low

Low (mitigated by off-peak implementation)

Campus Wi-Fi Upgrade

High

Medium

High (hardware delays)

Step-by-step application in HEI: Cost/Benefit assessment: Calculate net benefit for each project using business value metrics (student satisfaction, efficiency, research output). Rank projects from highest net benefit to lowest. Risk validation: Identify residual risks (after mitigation) for each project. Ensure stakeholders are aware and agree on prioritization. Adjust prioritization if a high-value project has unmanageable risks. Outcome: Projects are prioritized not just on value or cost alone, but value-to-cost ratio adjusted for risk. Implementation sequence is clear, and resource allocation is justified.

Key Takeaways : Value vs Cost: Projects delivering the most benefit for the least cost get higher priority. Risk awareness: Even high-value projects may be deferred if risks are too high or unresolved. Stakeholder alignment: Prioritization must be agreed upon by leadership and implementers. Practical HEI example: Implement Online Admission Portal first because it delivers high value, moderate cost, and low residual risk.

import matplotlib.pyplot as plt

# Sample HEI projects data
projects = [
    {"name": "Online Admission Portal", "value": 90, "cost": 50, "risk": 10},
    {"name": "Learning Analytics Dashboard", "value": 70, "cost": 30, "risk": 40},
    {"name": "Digital Library Upgrade", "value": 60, "cost": 70, "risk": 20},
    {"name": "Campus Wi-Fi Upgrade", "value": 80, "cost": 80, "risk": 60},
]

# Extract data for plotting
names = [p["name"] for p in projects]
values = [p["value"] for p in projects]
costs = [p["cost"] for p in projects]
risks = [p["risk"] for p in projects]

# Normalize risk for marker size
marker_sizes = [r*5 for r in risks]  # adjust multiplier for visibility

# Create scatter plot
plt.figure(figsize=(10,6))
scatter = plt.scatter(costs, values, s=marker_sizes, c=risks, cmap='Reds', alpha=0.7, edgecolors='black')

# Add labels for each project
for i, name in enumerate(names):
    plt.text(costs[i]+1, values[i]+1, name, fontsize=9)

# Colorbar for risk
cbar = plt.colorbar(scatter)
cbar.set_label('Risk Level')

# Axis labels and title
plt.xlabel('Cost')
plt.ylabel('Business Value')
plt.title('HEI Migration Projects Prioritization Matrix\n(Size and color indicate risk)')
plt.grid(True)
plt.show()

How this works: X-axis: Cost of each project. Y-axis: Business value. Point size & color: Risk level (larger and redder = higher risk). Text labels: Project names directly on the plot. Interpretation: Top-left projects = high value, low cost → high priority. Bottom-right projects = low value, high cost → lower priority. Risk overlay: Helps visually spot risky projects that may need mitigation before startin

Step 9: Confirm the Architecture Roadmap

At this point in migration planning, the organization has: Identified work packages. Assigned business value and risk. Prioritized migration projects. Now, the Architecture Roadmap — a visual and strategic plan showing how and when projects will be implemented — needs to be confirmed and finalized.

This ensures that: All project deliverables and dependencies are captured. Implementation increments align with strategic goals. Risks and resource allocations are considered. Stakeholders have a clear, updated plan.

Key activities

A. Update the Architecture Roadmap: Include any Transition Architectures (intermediate states before reaching the target architecture). Example: Before full digital library integration, first upgrade servers and network infrastructure. Assess time-spans between transitions: How long will each increment take? Are business value increments delivered consistently? Are risks and resource constraints accounted for?Consolidate deliverables by project: Group work packages into their projects. Ensure each project increment contributes to overall HEI capabilities.

B. Update the Architecture Definition Document: If the implementation approach has changed during roadmap confirmation: Update project objectives, deliverables, and alignment with transition states. Create or update the Architecture Definition Increments Table, which maps: Projects → Deliverables → Transition Architectures → Business Value → Dependencies.

Applying to an HEI case: Suppose your HEI is implementing digital transformation. Here’s how this step can be applied:

Update Roadmap: Transition Architectures: Phase 1: Upgrade campus network and Wi-Fi. Phase 2: Implement digital admission portal. Phase 3: Deploy learning analytics dashboard. Phase 4: Digital library full integration.

Time-span assessment: Network upgrade: 3 months. Portal: 4 months. Analytics: 2 months. Library: 3 months

Deliverable consolidation by project: Each project’s work packages, timelines, and business value are captured.

Update Architecture Definition Document: Map each project to the incremental capabilities: Network upgrade → foundation for online portal and analytics. Portal → improved student enrollment experience. Analytics → improved student outcomes and reporting. Update objectives: Ensure each project contributes to strategic goals (digital learning, operational efficiency). Update the Architecture Definition Increments Table:

Project

Deliverable

Transition Architecture

Business Value

Dependencies

Network Upgrade

Campus Wi-Fi

Phase 1

Medium

None

Online Admission Portal

Admission System

Phase 2

High

Network Upgrade

Learning Analytics

Analytics Dashboard

Phase 3

High

Portal & Network

Digital Library

Full Integration

Phase 4

Medium-High

Network Upgrade

Key Takeaways: Architecture Roadmap = “big picture schedule” showing when and how projects deliver value. Transition Architectures = intermediate steps, necessary to reduce risk and enable smooth implementation. Architecture Definition Document = updated record of project objectives, deliverables, and dependencies. In HEI context: this ensures students, faculty, and admin staff benefit from each incremental improvement without major disruption.

Step 10: Outputs of Phase F

After all planning, prioritization, and roadmap confirmation in Phase F, the goal is to produce a formal, approved Implementation and Migration Plan. This plan ensures that: The organization knows what to implement, in what order, and with what resources. Stakeholders have a clear understanding of objectives, timelines, costs, and expected benefits. The architecture implementation can begin confidently, with risks and dependencies accounted for. Essentially, this step formalizes all the planning into a ready-to-execute plan.

Key outputs: The main deliverable is the Implementation and Migration Plan, which typically includes: A. Implementation and Migration Strategy: Explains how the organization will move from current architecture to target architecture. Defines overall approach (e.g., phased, big-bang, pilot-first). B. Project and Portfolio Breakdown: Includes details for each project:

Item

Description

Work package allocation

Assign each work package to a project or portfolio.

Capabilities delivered

Define what new capabilities each project provides.

Relationship to architecture

Link to Target Architecture or Transition Architectures.

Milestones and timing

Key dates and deliverables.

Work breakdown structure (WBS)

Hierarchy of tasks and deliverables.

Project charters (optional)

Includes objectives, business value, risks, resources, benefits, and cost estimates.

Summary Outcome: A set of approved projects, each with: Objectives and constraints, Required resources, Start and finish dates and Essentially a ready-to-execute project portfolio aligned with the roadmap.

Applying to an HEI case: Suppose an HEI is implementing digital transformation projects. Here’s how Phase F outputs would look: Example: Implementation and Migration Plan

Project

Work Packages

Capabilities Delivered

Target/Transition Architecture

Milestones

Business Value

Risk

Resources

Cost

Online Admission Portal

Application Form, Payment Gateway, Verification

Online admissions, faster processing

Phase 2

Q1–Q2

High

Low

IT staff, Admin

$50k

Learning Analytics Dashboard

Data collection, Dashboard UI

Monitor student performance, early alerts

Phase 3

High

Medium

IT, Faculty

$30k

Digital Library Upgrade

e-Resource Integration, Search Tools

Improved access to research materials

Phase 4

Medium

Low

IT, Library

$40k

Campus Wi-Fi Upgrade

Access Points, Network Security

Reliable network for all digital services

Phase 1

Medium-High

Medium

$70k

Step-by-step application: Strategy: HEI adopts phased implementation: Phase 1: Network upgrade → foundation for all other projects. Phase 2: Online admission portal. Phase 3: Learning analytics. Phase 4: Digital library full integration. Project breakdown: Assign work packages to specific projects. Timeline: Define milestones and start/finish dates. Resources & cost: Allocate staff, budget, and technology. Business value & risk: Ensure each project delivers measurable benefit and risks are mitigated.

Key Takeaways: Phase F outputs are essential for execution: they turn planning into actionable steps. The Implementation and Migration Plan provides a single source of truth for stakeholders. In HEI context, it ensures that students, faculty, and administrative functions benefit incrementally and systematically from the digital transformation. With this plan approved, the HEI can start allocating budget, scheduling projects, and tracking progress confidently.

Step 11: Inputs to Phase G – What it Means

Phase G: Implementation Governance is about making sure that the architecture and projects planned in previous phases are executed properly. It ensures that the solution delivery aligns with the architecture. It establishes controls, processes, and accountability to manage project execution and quality. Before Phase G can begin, you need inputs from prior phases (especially Phase F – Migration Planning) and other reference materials.

Types of Inputs: A. External/Reference Materials: Materials outside the enterprise that guide or influence implementation. Examples for an HEI: National education standards or regulations, Accreditation requirements, Best practices from other universities B. Architecture Reference Materials: Internal architectural standards or models previously defined: Existing IT architecture diagrams, Data models, system interfaces, or policies. C. Non-Architectural Inputs: Requests or triggers for architecture work not strictly part of architecture but necessary for implementation: Requests for new IT services or projects, New academic or administrative initiatives. D. Request for Architecture Work: Formal requests or approvals for architecture tasks arising in Phases E or F. E. Capability Assessment: Review of the organization’s ability to implement the planned architecture: Staff skills, IT infrastructure readiness, budgets

Architectural Inputs: To govern implementation effectively, Phase G requires detailed architectural inputs:

Input

Description

HEI Example

Organizational Model for Enterprise Architecture

Defines roles and responsibilities for architecture governance

IT department, Academic Affairs, Admin staff roles

Tailored Architecture Framework

Customized methodology for managing architecture

HEI may adopt TOGAF with education-specific adaptations

Statement of Architecture Work

Scope of architecture tasks

Upgrade digital library, portal, LMS integration

Architecture Vision

High-level goal of the transformation

Digital-first student services, improved analytics

Architecture Repository

Collection of architecture artifacts

Diagrams, process models, standards

Architecture Definition Document

Detailed architecture specifications

Target state IT architecture for HEI

Architecture Requirements Specification

Functional and non-functional requirements

Security, scalability, user experience standards

Architecture Roadmap

Timeline and sequencing of projects

Phases 1–4 as defined in previous steps

Architecture Governance Framework

Rules for oversight

Approval workflows for IT and academic systems

Implementation Governance Model

Defines how projects are monitored

PMO reports, milestone tracking, risk management

Architecture Contract (standard)

Formal agreement between stakeholders

Between IT, faculty, and administration

Request for Architecture Work

Work identified in previous phases

New LMS analytics requests, library integrations

Implementation and Migration Plan

Detailed plan from Phase F

Timeline, work packages, dependencies, resources

How it Applies to an HEI Case: For a university implementing digital transformation, Phase G needs all these inputs to monitor and control project execution: External Reference Materials: Accreditation guidelines may dictate digital record-keeping standards. Architecture Reference Materials: Existing LMS, library, and student information system architecture. Non-Architectural Inputs: Requests from faculty for new analytics dashboards. Capability Assessment: Check IT staff skills, network infrastructure, budget availability. Architectural Inputs: Roadmaps, WBS, and approved Phase F plans provide the baseline to compare against actual execution. Architecture Definition Document and contracts ensure alignment with the target architecture. Outcome: The HEI PMO and architecture team can ensure each project delivers expected business value, meets compliance and academic requirements, and stays within cost, time, and risk constraints.

Summary: Phase G uses inputs from previous planning phases and external/internal references to monitor and govern implementation. For an HEI, it ensures that digital transformation projects (portal, analytics, library, Wi-Fi) are executed according to plan, with proper governance, resource allocation, risk mitigation, and stakeholder oversight.

Step 12: Implementation Governance – What it Means

Phase G is about ensuring that the architecture and migration plans developed in earlier phases are implemented correctly. It provides oversight, guidance, and control during execution. The main goal is to achieve the adjusted target state while managing scope, risk, resources, and stakeholder expectations.

Key Steps in Phase G

Step

Description

HEI Example

Confirm scope and priorities

Ensure implementation aligns with approved roadmap and enterprise priorities

Decide which project starts first: e.g., network upgrade before digital portal

Identify deployment resources and skills

Ensure the right staff, tools, and skills are available

Assign IT team for portal, library, LMS; confirm faculty support for analytics

Guide development of solutions deployment

Provide direction to ensure projects are implemented according to architecture

Monitor LMS integration, ensure student portal meets design standards

Perform Enterprise Architecture Compliance reviews

Check that implementation aligns with architecture requirements

Verify portal, analytics, and library upgrades match target architecture specifications

Implement business and IT operations

Roll out solutions into production

Launch online admission portal; deploy Wi-Fi network; train faculty on analytics dashboard

Perform post-implementation review and close

Evaluate outcomes against objectives, capture lessons learned

Assess portal usage, student satisfaction, and network performance; document improvements

2. Summary Output of Phase G: Completion of projects that deliver the adjusted target state. Ensures that business benefits identified in Phase F are realized. Essential Knowledge: Implementation teams must operate within defined scope and constraints. Stakeholder priorities may adjust based on observed value, risk, effort, or project success. Risk mitigation is a key focus throughout implementation.

3. Supporting Change: Stakeholders often lack confidence that the projects will deliver expected outcomes. Implementation governance mitigates this uncertainty by: Monitoring project progress , Enforcing alignment with enterprise architecture, Ensuring transparency on risks and dependencies

4. Guidance for the Practitioner: The Practitioner (architecture lead or PMO) must: Focus on scope of each implementation project — ensure no deviation from strategic objectives. Facilitate enterprise-focused decision-making — choices should optimize overall enterprise benefits, not just project-level gains. Ensure stakeholders understand implications — explain trade-offs between time, cost, and enterprise value.

5. Implementation Governance Tools: TOGAF provides two key tools for governance:

Tool

Purpose

HEI Example

Architecture Contract

Directs and controls the implementation team toward a pre-defined target

IT, Admin, and Faculty agree on portal, analytics, library project objectives and standards

Architecture Requirements Specification

Provides boundaries and controls creativity

Allows the IT team to design the student portal or analytics dashboard while ensuring compliance with security, usability, and integration requirements

6. Applying to an HEI Case: Scenario: HEI is rolling out multiple digital transformation projects. Confirm scope and priorities: Start with network upgrade → foundation for other projects. Portal follows, then analytics, then library integration. Assign resources and skills: IT staff, system admins, faculty for testing analytics dashboards. Guide deployment: Ensure portal integrates with existing student info system. Verify analytics dashboard receives correct data. Compliance reviews: Check that the portal and LMS follow security, data privacy, and accessibility requirements. Implement operations: Launch portal and analytics tools for students and faculty. Train staff for daily operation. Post-implementation review: Evaluate student adoption, faculty satisfaction, IT performance metrics. Document lessons learned to improve future phases.

Outcome: All digital initiatives are delivered according to plan, aligned with enterprise architecture, and generate expected business value (improved student services, operational efficiency, better data for decision-making).

Key Takeaways for HEI: Phase G ensures projects don’t drift from the approved plan. Architecture Contracts and Requirements Specifications balance control and creativity. Governance focuses on enterprise benefits, not just individual project outputs. Risk mitigation and stakeholder communication are central to building confidence and success.

Step 13: Outputs to Support Architecture Governance

After executing implementation governance (Phase G), the organization produces formal outputs that demonstrate: Compliance with the planned architecture. Successful deployment of systems. Lessons learned and updated documentation. These outputs provide evidence that the implemented solutions align with enterprise objectives, meet standards, and deliver the intended business value.

Key Outputs of Phase G

Output

Description

HEI Example

Architecture Contract (signed)

Formal agreement that the implemented systems comply with architecture

Agreement between IT, Admin, and Faculty confirming the portal, LMS, and library system meet agreed architecture

Compliance Assessments

Evaluations of project alignment with architecture requirements

Review showing digital library upgrade meets security, integration, and accessibility standards

Change Requests

Modifications needed during implementation to maintain compliance

Adjusting analytics dashboard features based on student feedback

Architecture-compliant solutions deployed

Systems implemented according to architecture

Online admission portal, LMS analytics, upgraded Wi-Fi

Populated Architecture Repository

Updated repository with new system details

Records of portal modules, data models, interfaces, and workflows

Architecture compliance recommendations & dispensations

Notes on deviations or exceptions

Temporary waiver for minor integration issues, with mitigation plan

Recommendations on service delivery requirements

Guidelines for operating the solution

Hours of IT support, response times for portal queries

Recommendations on performance metrics

Key metrics to monitor solution effectiveness

Portal uptime, average admission processing time, LMS usage stats

Service-Level Agreements (SLAs)

Formal agreements on service performance

SLAs for Wi-Fi uptime, library system response time, portal support

Architecture Vision, updated post-implementation

Refined vision after lessons learned

Vision may now emphasize hybrid learning based on portal and LMS usage data

Architecture Definition Document, updated post-implementation

Updated architecture details

Incorporates lessons from implementation, system changes, and compliance notes

Business and IT operating models for the implemented solution

How systems are operated day-to-day

Process for admissions, library resource access, analytics reporting

Architecture Building Blocks (ABBs)

Components used in implementation

Modules of portal, LMS, digital library, and Wi-Fi systems

3. Summary Outcome: Completion of the projects to reach the adjusted target state. The organization now has operational systems that comply with architecture standards, with proper documentation and governance artifacts.

4. Applying to an HEI Case: Imagine an HEI implementing digital transformation projects:

Architecture Contract: Signed by IT, Admin, and Faculty to confirm compliance of portal, LMS, and library systems.
Compliance Assessments: Reviews show the student portal meets accessibility, data privacy, and integration standards.
Change Requests: Minor enhancements requested for the LMS analytics dashboard based on faculty feedback.
Architecture-compliant solutions deployed: Online admission portal operational, LMS analytics dashboard deployed, Wi-Fi network upgraded, digital library integrated.
Populated Architecture Repository: Repository now includes system diagrams, workflows, data flows, and technical specifications for all deployed systems.
Service delivery & performance recommendations: SLAs defined for portal response time, library resource availability, and Wi-Fi uptime. Performance metrics tracked for student satisfaction, portal usage, and analytics adoption.
Updated Architecture Vision and Definition Document: Reflect lessons learned and adjustments based on real deployment experience. Updated vision may now focus on hybrid learning and enhanced student engagement.
Business and IT operating models: Documented processes for admissions, library services, LMS analytics, and IT support.
Architecture Building Blocks: Reusable modules: portal components, analytics dashboard modules, library database modules, network configurations.

Outcome: The HEI now has operational systems that align with enterprise architecture, are fully documented, compliant, and provide the expected business and academic value.

Key Takeaways for HEI: Phase G outputs ensure formal governance, compliance, and documentation. They provide confidence to stakeholders that digital transformation projects deliver value and meet standards. The repository, SLAs, and updated architecture documents serve as a baseline for future improvements.

Step 14: Architecture Contracts – What It Means

An Architecture Contract is a formal agreement between: The architecting function (enterprise architects, IT architects). Business stakeholders (management, faculty, administration). Its goal is to communicate clearly with implementers: What they are responsible for? What standards and controls they must follow? How their work fits into the broader enterprise architecture? Why it’s needed: Often, implementers are just given diagrams and documents, which are not enough to understand the context, responsibilities, or compliance requirements. A contract ensures clarity and reduces misinterpretation, errors, and non-compliance.

Critical Items for Implementers: Implementers need explicit information about:

Item

What it Means

HEI Example

Project context

Where the project fits in the roadmap; its value contribution

Online admission portal is part of Phase 2; enables faster student intake

Scope

What work packages they are responsible for, and what gaps are not their responsibility

IT team implements the portal and integrates payment gateway; not responsible for network upgrade (Phase 1)

Conformance

Specific architecture specifications and controls to follow

Portal must meet security standards, accessibility requirements, and integrate with student info system

3. Communicating Specifications Effectively: John Carver’s Policy Governance approach suggests: Exclusionary specifications: Focus on what is prohibited, rather than prescribing everything allowed. Example: “Do not store student passwords in plaintext,” instead of detailing every encryption method. Reasonable interpretation test: Compliance is assessed using common sense judgment, not rigid rules. Helps implementers innovate while staying compliant.

4. Components of an Architecture Contract: A typical contract includes:

Component

Description

HEI Example

Introduction & background

Explains purpose and context

“This contract governs the implementation of the Online Admission Portal for Phase 2 of the digital transformation roadmap.”

Nature of agreement

Defines responsibilities

IT implements, Faculty tests, Admin approves

Scope

Defines work packages and responsibilities

Portal form, payment gateway, verification system

Strategic requirements

High-level objectives

Faster student enrollment, reduced manual effort

Architecture deliverables

What architecture components must be implemented

Security protocols, system interfaces, dashboards

Conformance requirements

Standards and controls to comply with

Data privacy, accessibility, integration standards

Architecture adopters

Who uses or monitors the implementation

IT staff, Admin, Faculty, Students

Time window

Project start and end dates

Q2 – Q3 for portal rollout

Architecture business metrics

How success will be measured

Processing time, student satisfaction, error rates

SLA

Service level agreements

99% uptime, response time for portal support

Additional Use: The same contract helps manage changes to the enterprise architecture in Phase H (Change Management).

5. Applying to an HEI Case: HEI is implementing an Online Admission Portal.

Architecture Contract provides context: Explains that the portal is part of Phase 2, relies on network infrastructure (Phase 1), and is critical to student intake efficiency.
Scope clarity for implementers: IT is responsible for portal development and integration, not Wi-Fi upgrade or LMS dashboard. Faculty responsible for testing portal workflow and providing feedback.
Conformance guidelines: Security: comply with data privacy regulations. Accessibility: meet accessibility standards for all students. Integration: connect with existing student information systems
Exclusionary specifications: Example: “Do not bypass authentication for internal testing” Example: “Do not store personal student data in unsecured formats”
Business metrics and SLA: Metrics: % of applications processed online, student satisfaction scores. SLA: portal uptime 99%, support response within 24 hours

Outcome: Implementers know exactly what to deliver, how it will be evaluated, and how it fits into the roadmap. Reduces miscommunication, delays, and risks. Supports enterprise-level objectives, not just project-level goals.

Key Takeaways for HEI: Architecture Contracts translate architecture into actionable guidance for implementers. They clarify scope, responsibilities, compliance, and metrics. Use exclusionary rules and reasonable interpretation to allow flexibility while ensuring standards. Critical for aligning digital transformation projects (portal, LMS, library, Wi-Fi) with enterprise objectives.

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?

PreviousSet B NextSer D

Last updated 15 days ago