IIA CIA IIA-CIA-Part2 New Questions

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

When risks are organized by processes, audits capture interfaces between organizational units (A) — i.e., the handoffs where errors and control breakdowns often occur. This approach ensures risks are evaluated across functional boundaries, improving coverage and understanding of interdependencies. Option B is incorrect — process-based audits can be more time-consuming, not less. Option C is subjective and not guaranteed. Option D exaggerates — no audit achieves "true completeness." The recognized advantage is that process-based audits capture risk and control interactions across departments, aligning with best practices in risk-based auditing.

When internal audit resources are limited, it is crucial to focus on the most critical aspects of the control environment. Preventive key controls are designed to prevent errors or irregularities from occurring, which are essential for maintaining a strong control environment. Given the mature control environment of the organization, prioritizing preventive key controls ensures that potential issues are addressed before they materialize, providing a proactive approach to risk management.

Facilitated team workshops are a risk assessment approach that involves gathering data from work teams representing different levels of an organization. This method encourages collaboration and open discussion among team members, allowing for a comprehensive identification and evaluation of risks from various perspectives within the organization. It helps in capturing a wide range of insights and facilitates consensus on risk priorities, making it a valuable tool for effective risk assessment.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide on "Risk Assessment in Audit Planning"

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework

When the chief audit executive (CAE) is uncertain whether the internal audit team has the necessary knowledge to conduct a specific engagement, such as reviewing testing procedures for a large information system, the most appropriate course of action is to engage an external service provider with the required expertise. This option helps to preserve the independence and objectivity of the internal audit activity.

IIA Standard 1210 – Proficiency:

This standard requires that internal auditors possess the knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform their responsibilities. If the current team lacks the necessary skills, the CAE must seek external expertise.

Preserving Independence:

Engaging an external service provider helps maintain the independence of the internal audit function, as the expertise is sourced from an independent party. This prevents potential conflicts of interest that might arise if resources are borrowed from within the organization (e.g., from the IT department).

IIA Practice Advisory 1210.A1-1:

This advisory suggests that the CAE may employ external experts to provide specialized knowledge for certain audit engagements, ensuring the audit activity remains independent and objective.

Option A (Contract with the software vendor): This could compromise independence, as the vendor may have a vested interest in the outcome of the audit.

Option B (Ask for a knowledgeable resource from IT): Using internal resources, especially from the IT department being audited, could impair independence and objectivity.

Option D (Request resources through the external auditor): This might be appropriate in some cases, but it is not as direct and effective as hiring an external provider with specialized skills for this specific engagement.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct as it ensures the internal audit function maintains its independence while acquiring the necessary expertise to conduct the engagement effectively, in line with IIA standards.