OG0-023 ArchiMate 2 Combined Exam: Legacy Format and Current Alternatives

OG0-023 was the ArchiMate 2 Combined Part 1 and Part 2 examination from The Open Group. It allowed a candidate to pursue the ArchiMate 2 Certified qualification through one scheduled combined assessment rather than taking the two parts as separate appointments. The historical format contained 48 questions across two sections and allowed two hours and thirty minutes of testing time.

The two sections measured different levels of performance. Part 1 used 40 simple multiple-choice questions and tested foundation knowledge. Part 2 used eight complex scenario questions with gradient scoring and open-book access. Candidates had to pass both sections; success in one section alone did not produce the combined qualification. That structure made OG0-023 more than a longer version of a foundation test because it shifted from recognition to applied modeling judgment.

OG0-023 is now a legacy exam. The Open Group recorded that ArchiMate 2 examinations were no longer available after August 31, 2022. New candidates should use the current ArchiMate 3 route, beginning with OGA-031 for Foundation and continuing with OGA-032 for Practitioner when that level is needed.

The combined format joined two different cognitive tasks

Part 1 rewarded exact knowledge of ArchiMate terminology, structure, elements, relationships, views, and viewpoints. Part 2 required candidates to apply the language to scenarios and select the best interpretation or modeling choice. Preparing for the combined exam therefore required two study modes: precise recall for the first section and slower analytical comparison for the second.

This distinction remains instructive even though OG0-023 is retired. Foundation knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for advanced modeling. A practitioner must know the notation and also decide how to use it under constraints. Candidates who treated the combined exam as one large memory test could perform adequately on Part 1 yet struggle when Part 2 required judgment among several plausible answers.

The preparation problem was therefore two-dimensional. Part 1 rewarded fast, precise recognition of terminology and language rules, while Part 2 required the candidate to evaluate a scenario and select the best answer under gradient scoring. A learner who trained only with definition questions could enter the second portion without enough practice ranking plausible alternatives. Conversely, scenario practice without secure terminology could turn each question into a slow reference exercise. A combined plan needed both fluency and application.

One effective historical study pattern is to keep separate error logs for the two parts. In the Part 1 log, record the term, notation rule, relationship, or viewpoint that was confused. In the Part 2 log, record why the chosen option was weaker than the best response and which detail in the scenario changed the ranking. That distinction helps reveal whether the problem is a knowledge gap or an application gap, which require different remedies even though both appear on the same combined result.

Part 1 created the vocabulary needed for the scenario section

The foundation section covered the same core territory associated with OG0-021: the language structure, elements, relationships, viewpoints, and related ArchiMate 2 concepts. This was not a preliminary formality. The scenario section depended on that vocabulary being automatic enough that the candidate could spend attention on the architecture problem rather than decoding every symbol.

A sensible historical study sequence therefore began with model reading. Identify the element type, layer, structural role, and relationship; then describe the model in plain language. Once this becomes fluent, more complex scenario questions are easier because the candidate can reason about what the model should communicate instead of hesitating over basic notation.

Part 2 used gradient scoring rather than simple right-or-wrong recall

The advanced section presented eight complex questions. Several options could have some merit, and the scoring model rewarded the best answer more than a merely plausible one. That design tested comparative judgment. The candidate had to decide which modeling choice most closely matched the ArchiMate rules and the scenario’s purpose, not simply identify an obviously false distractor.

Gradient scoring changes preparation. It is not enough to know why the preferred option works; the learner should also understand why the second-best option is weaker. Reviewing practice scenarios by ranking alternatives develops the exact discrimination the format demanded and remains useful for modern practitioner-level exams that use a similar style.

An architecture model is useful only when it helps someone understand a concern, compare options, or reason about change. For scenario practice, identify the stakeholder first and then ask what part of the model that person needs to see. An executive may need a high-level impact view, while an application owner may need dependencies and interfaces. This viewpoint discipline prevents diagrams from becoming collections of technically valid elements that fail to answer the decision in front of the organization.

The same approach improves relationship reasoning. Instead of asking only whether a notation is allowed, ask what claim the relationship makes about the enterprise. If the statement would be misleading in ordinary language, the model probably deserves another look. Explaining a diagram in a sentence forces the candidate to connect syntax with meaning and is especially useful for a Part 2 style question where several answers can appear superficially reasonable.

Open-book access did not remove the need to know the language

Part 2 was open book, but eight long scenarios in ninety minutes left limited time for searching basic definitions. Effective candidates used the reference to confirm details, not to discover the language from scratch. The better preparation method was to know the structure of the specification well enough to locate a relevant point quickly when uncertainty remained.

This is an important lesson for any open-book certification: reference access changes the skill from pure recall to efficient application, but it does not eliminate preparation. A candidate who repeatedly searches for foundational concepts loses time and may still misread the scenario. Familiarity with both the content and the reference organization supports better decisions.

The combined appointment increased the importance of pacing

Two and a half hours sounds generous until the candidate accounts for the very different sections. Part 1 rewarded steady progress through short multiple-choice items, while Part 2 required careful reading and evaluation of scenarios. Time spent overthinking a foundation question could reduce the mental energy available for the applied section later in the session.

Historical practice should therefore reproduce the section boundary. Complete a timed foundation set, take only the permitted transition, and then work scenario items under their own clock. This helps explain the endurance demand that OG0-023 placed on candidates and gives existing certificate holders a realistic frame for interpreting old preparation records.

The retirement of ArchiMate 2 changed the booking path, not the value of version history

The Open Group’s 2022 retirement of ArchiMate 2 exams means OG0-023 cannot serve as a new certification route. Nevertheless, many organizations still possess models, documentation, and training materials created under ArchiMate 2. Architects may therefore need to understand the older language to maintain or migrate those artifacts.

Historical knowledge is most useful when paired with a current-version map. Compare old concepts with ArchiMate 3, identify additions and changes, and document where an older model may need reinterpretation. This approach preserves organizational knowledge without confusing historical notation with what a current certification assesses.

OG0-023 is useful today mainly as historical context for ArchiMate 2 certification and for professionals encountering older study records or models. The current route uses ArchiMate 3 examinations, so anyone seeking a new credential should start with the current program requirements. Historical OG0-023 material should make that transition obvious while retaining enough detail to explain what the old code represented and how it related to the former combined route. This avoids the two opposite errors of pretending the old test is still bookable or erasing information that remains useful when maintaining older architecture material.

Current candidates should plan the ArchiMate 3 Foundation and Practitioner sequence

The modern path separates the current Foundation and Practitioner exams rather than relying on the retired ArchiMate 2 combined code. The Foundation examination uses straightforward multiple choice to confirm knowledge, while the Practitioner examination uses complex scenario questions and open-book reference access. This preserves the progression from comprehension to application even though the standard version and exam references have changed.

When building a current plan, study the ArchiMate 3 body of knowledge from the beginning. Do not try to “convert” an OG0-023 question bank by replacing version numbers in the title. Some older concepts remain relevant, but current preparation should be organized around current objectives, current notation, and the current specification.

Previously earned ArchiMate certifications do not require periodic renewal

The Open Group’s certification-renewal information states that ArchiMate certification does not require renewal once earned. That is separate from the fact that OG0-023 is retired. A professional who passed the historical combined examination does not need to retake it periodically, and indeed cannot book that retired exam today.

Professionals may still decide to update to the newer standard for practical reasons. Enterprise architecture teams benefit from shared current terminology, and newer capabilities may matter in active modeling work. The distinction is between voluntary knowledge currency and mandatory recertification. Keeping those concepts separate avoids misleading claims about the status of older holders.

OG0-023 should now function as a precise legacy reference

Historical OG0-023 material should answer the questions that bring readers to an old code: what the exam was, how the combined format worked, what certification it supported, whether it can still be scheduled, and what current exams replaced the route. It should not pretend that a historical question set is automatically appropriate for the current standard.

For active certification goals, use current ArchiMate 3 materials and the present exams. For historical research, OG0-023 remains valuable because it captures how The Open Group assessed both foundational and applied ArchiMate 2 knowledge in one appointment. Treating it accurately as legacy content protects both kinds of readers.