Why should a Transformative Architecture Specialist provide input into a business case?

Question

Options

• AYou can best predict the future pricing levels for emerging technology
• BYou have a good view of the technology solutions roadmap and can make a fair assumption
• CYour insight will help the Account Manager create a proposal for the largest possible revenue
• DThis allows the contracts team to become aware of preferred pricing you might have made

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  88% (35)
• C
  8% (3)
• D
  3% (1)

Explanation

Option B is correct because a Transformative Architecture Specialist (TAS) sits at the intersection of business needs and technology solutions, giving them a clear view of the vendor's roadmap, what's technically feasible, and how solutions align with a customer's future state. This visibility lets them contribute grounded, realistic assumptions to a business case - making it credible and defensible rather than speculative.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is wrong because predicting future pricing is not a core competency of a TAS - that falls to pricing or product teams, and speculative price forecasting would undermine a business case's credibility.
• C is wrong because a business case should reflect genuine value for the customer, not be engineered to maximize deal size; that framing misrepresents the TAS's role and purpose.
• D is wrong because communicating preferred pricing to contracts is a separate commercial process - it's not why a TAS contributes to a business case.

Memory tip: Think of the TAS as the "roadmap translator" - their unique value is translating the technology roadmap into business-relevant assumptions. When you see a question about why a technical specialist should weigh in on a business decision, ask: "Who has the best view of what's technically possible and planned?" That's always the architect.

No community discussion yet for this question.