Isaca Certification CRISC Passing Score

IT and business misalignment is the risk that the IT objectives, plans, and activities are not aligned with the business goals, needs, and expectations. This can result in wasted resources, missed opportunities, poor performance, and customer dissatisfaction. One of the best ways to mitigate this risk is to involve the business process owner in IT strategy. The business process owner is the person who has the authority and responsibility for a specific business process and its outcomes. By involving the business process owner in IT strategy, the organization can ensure that the IT initiatives and solutions are relevant, effective, and beneficial for the business process and its stakeholders. The business process owner can also provide valuable input, feedback, and support for the IT strategy and its implementation. The other options are not the best ways to mitigate the risk associated with IT and business misalignment, although they may be helpful and complementary. Establishing business key performance indicators (KPIs) is a technique to measure and monitor the achievement of business objectives and outcomes. However, KPIs do not necessarily ensure that the IT strategy is aligned with the business strategy or that the IT activities support the business activities. Introducing an established framework for IT architecture is a method to design and implement the IT infrastructure, systems, and services in a consistent and coherent manner. However, an IT architecture framework does not guarantee that the IT architecture is aligned with the business architecture or that the IT capabilities meet the business requirements. Establishing key risk indicators (KRIs) is a tool to monitor and communicate the level of exposure to a given risk or the potential impact of a risk. However, KRIs do not directly address the risk of IT and business misalignment or the actions needed to align them. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 22-231; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 76

An IT risk and control self-assessment (RCSA) is a process that helps organizations identify and evaluate operational risks and assess the effectiveness of their control measures12. It is a structured approach that involves identifying, assessing, mitigating, and monitoring risks across all levels of an organization12.

A report to senior management is a document that summarizes and communicates the results and findings of the RCSA, and provides recommendations and action plans for improving the risk management and control processes34.

The most important aspect of an IT risk and control self-assessment to include in a report to senior management is an increase in residual risk, which is the risk remaining after risk treatment, and represents the exposure or potential impact of the risk on the organization’s objectives56.

An increase in residual risk is the most important aspect because it indicates the level of risk that the organization is willing to accept or tolerate, and the gap between the current and desired risk profile56.

An increase in residual risk is also the most important aspect because it requires the attention and decision of the senior management, who are responsible for defining the organization’s risk appetite, strategy, and criteria, and for ensuring that the residual risk is within the acceptable range56.

The other options are not the most important aspects, but rather possible components or outcomes of an IT risk and control self-assessment that may support or complement the report to senior management. For example:

Changes in control design are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve modifying or updating the control measures to address the changes in the risk environment or the organization’s objectives56. However, changes in control design are not the most important aspect because they do not measure or reflect the residual risk, which is the ultimate goal of the risk treatment56.

A decrease in the number of key controls is an outcome of an IT risk and control self-assessment that indicates the improvement or optimization of the control processes, and the reduction of the complexity or redundancy of the control measures56. However, a decrease in the number of key controls is not the most important aspect because it does not indicate or imply the residual risk, which may depend on other factors such as the effectiveness or efficiency of the controls56.

Changes in control ownership are components of an IT risk and control self-assessment that involve assigning or reassigning the responsibility and accountability for the control processes to the appropriate individuals or groups within the organization56. However, changes in control ownership are not the most important aspect because they do not affect or determine the residual risk, which is independent of the control owners56. References =

1: Risk and control self-assessment - KPMG Global1

2: Control Self Assessments - PwC2

3: How-To Guide: Implementing Risk Control Self-Assessment Steps4

4: RISK MANAGEMENT SELF-ASSESSMENT TEMPLATE - Smartsheet5

5: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

6: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017

Detailed Explanation:A cost-benefit analysis evaluates the financial implications of acquiring cyber insurance versus the potential loss exposure. This approach enables informed decision-making by comparing the insurance cost with the potential savings from covered risks.

IT control self-assessments are techniques that involve identifying and evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the IT controls that are designed and implemented to mitigate the IT risks, by the managers and staff within the organization12.

An ineffective control is a control that does not achieve its intended objective or purpose, or does not operate as designed or expected34.

A low residual risk scenario is a situation or occurrence that has a low likelihood and impact of affecting the organization’s objectives, performance, or value creation, after considering the existing controls and their effectiveness56.

The next course of action when reviewing management’s IT control self-assessments and noting an ineffective control that links to several low residual risk scenarios is to recommend management accept the low-risk scenarios, which is a risk response strategy that involves acknowledging and tolerating the level of risk exposure, and not taking any further action to reduce or eliminate it78.

Recommending management accept the low-risk scenarios is the next course of action because it is the most cost-effective and reasonable option, given that the level of risk exposure is low and acceptable, and the cost and effort of implementing or improving the control may outweigh the potential benefits or value78.

Recommending management accept the low-risk scenarios is also the next course of action because it is consistent with the risk management process and objectives, which are to identify and address the risks that may affect the achievement of the organization’s goals and the delivery of value to the stakeholders, and to optimize the balance between risk and reward78.

The other options are not the next course of action, but rather possible alternatives or steps that may be considered or followed in different circumstances or scenarios. For example:

Assessing management’s risk tolerance is a step that involves determining and communicating the acceptable or tolerable level of risk exposure for the organization or its business units, based on the organization’s risk appetite, criteria, and objectives78. However, this step is not the next course of action because it is usually done before or during the risk assessment process, and not after noting an ineffective control that links to several low residual risk scenarios78.

Proposing mitigating controls is a course of action that involves suggesting or recommending additional or alternative controls that can reduce or eliminate the level of risk exposure, and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk management process78. However, this course of action is not the next course of action because it is not necessary or appropriate for low residual risk scenarios, as the cost and effort of implementing or improving the controls may outweigh the potential benefits or value78.

Re-evaluating the risk scenarios associated with the control is a course of action that involves revising and updating the likelihood and impact of the risk scenarios, and the level of risk exposure or tolerance for the organization, based on the current or changed conditions or factors that influence the risk landscape78. However, this course of action is not the next course of action because it is not required or relevant for low residual risk scenarios, as the level of risk exposure is already low and acceptable, and the ineffective control does not significantly affect the risk assessment78. References =

1: Control Self Assessments - PwC1

2: Control self-assessment - Wikipedia2

3: Ineffective Controls: What They Are and How to Identify Them3

4: Ineffective Controls: What They Are and How to Identify Them4

5: Residual Risk - Definition and Examples5

6: Residual Risk: Definition, Formula & Management6

7: Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2009

8: IT Risk Management Framework, University of Toronto, 2017