LEARN. PRACTICE. GROW.Concept and mechanism
A migration request may hide different objectives: reducing obsolescence, accelerating products, or lowering operating cost. Before designing a solution, identify the sponsor, which decisions remain open, and which constraints have already been agreed. Context determines the necessary depth. In a group with several units, a shared identity decision may need cross-functional alignment; changing an isolated component may need a narrower scope. Organize work around decisions and expected outcomes while retaining relationships between strategic, segment, and capability levels. Tailoring the ADM does not remove accountability for decisions or allow dependencies between teams to be ignored.
Guided application
In a fictional example, two units want to replace fund platforms. One needs fewer closing failures; the other needs new features delivered sooner. Start by agreeing separate measures, owners, and shared dependencies. Do not treat the number of migrated servers as automatic proof of value. Record assumptions about coexistence costs, skills, and decommissioning. An initial assessment may reveal that production cannot support two platforms for six months; that constraint should influence sequencing. Architecture makes these choices discussable through evidence. In daily work, bring decisions requiring alignment to meetings rather than an inventory disconnected from outcomes.
Two initiatives share identity but have different benefits and deadlines.
Common pitfalls
Confusing inventory with value; tailoring the method without explicit responsibilities.
Related topics: Stakeholders, conflicts, and views · Vision, scope, and feasibility · Architectures and gap analysis
Connect context, mandate, and observable outcomes.
Reference: Practitioner certification overview · OGEA-102; TOGAF Standard, 10th Edition