CISA Exam Questions Tutorials

 The auditor’s best course of action in this situation is to notify the audit manager. The audit manager is responsible for overseeing the audit follow-up process and ensuring that audit issues are resolved in a timely and satisfactory manner. The audit manager can then decide whether to escalate the matter to higher authorities, such as the chair of the audit committee, or to accept management’s decision and close the audit finding. The other options are not appropriate for the auditor to do without consulting with the audit manager first. Notifying the chair of the audit committee is a drastic step that may undermine the relationship between the auditor and management, and it should be done only after exhausting other means of resolving the issue. Retesting the control is not necessary, as management has already decided not to implement therecommendations. Closing the audit finding is premature, as management’s decision may not be aligned with the audit objectives or risk appetite. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 2, Section 2.4

 The primary basis for selecting which IS audits to perform in the coming year is the organizational risk assessment. An organizational risk assessment is a formal process for identifying, evaluating, and controlling risks that may affect the achievement of the organization’sgoals and objectives3. An organizational risk assessment can help IS auditors prioritize and plan their audit activities based on the level of risk exposure and impact of each area or process within the organization. An organizational risk assessment can also help IS auditors align their audit objectives and criteria with the organization’s strategy and performance indicators. Senior management’s request, prior year’s audit findings, and previous audit coverage and scope are also possible bases for selecting which IS audits to perform in the coming year, but not as primary as the organizational risk assessment. These factors are more secondary or supplementary sources of information that can help IS auditors refine or adjust their audit plan based on specific needs or issues identified by management or previous audits. However, thesefactors may not reflect the current or emerging risks that may affect the organization’s operations or performance. References: ISACA CISA Review Manual 27th Edition, page 295

 The strategy that would provide the greatest assurance of system quality at implementation is delivering only the core functionality on the initial target date. This strategy can help avoid compromising the quality of the system by focusing on the essential features that meet the user needs and expectations. Delivering only the core functionality can also help reduce the scope creep, complexity, and testing efforts of the system development project.

Implementing overtime pay and bonuses for all development staff, utilizing new system development tools to improve productivity, and recruiting IS staff to expedite system development are not strategies that would provide the greatest assurance of system quality at implementation. These strategies may help speed up the system development process, but they may also introduce new risks or challenges such as burnout, learning curve, integration issues, or communication gaps. These risks or challenges may adversely affect the quality of the system.

 Data analytics can be used to compare data from different sources and identify any discrepancies or anomalies. In this case, comparing a population of loans input in the origination system to loans booked on the servicing system can help detect any errors or frauds in the loan origination process. The other options are not examples of data analytics, but rather controls for data integrity, reconciliation, and error handling. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3, Section 3.3.2