Isaca CISA Based on Real Exam Environment

 The primary focus of a post-implementation review is to verify that user requirements have been met. User requirements are specifications that define what users need or expect from a system or service, such as functionality, usability, reliability, etc. User requirements are usually gathered and documented at the beginning of a project, and used as a basis for designing, developing, testing, and implementing a system or service. A post-implementation review is an evaluation that assesses whether a system or service meets its objectives and delivers its expected benefits after it has been implemented. The primary focus of a post-implementation review is to verify that user requirements have been met, as this can indicate whether the system or service satisfies the user needs and expectations, provides value and quality to the users, and supports the user goals and tasks. Enterprise architecture (EA) has been complied with is a possible focus of a post-implementation review, but it is not the primary one. EA is a framework that defines how an organization’s business processes, information systems, and technology infrastructure are aligned and integrated to support its vision and strategy. EA has been complied with, as this can indicate whether the system or service fits with the organization’s current and future state, and follows the organization’s standards and principles. Acceptance testing has been properly executed is a possible focus of a post-implementation review, but it is not the primary one. Acceptance testing is a process that verifies whether a system or service meets the user requirements and expectations before it is accepted by the users or stakeholders. Acceptance testing has been properly executed, as this can indicate whether the system or service has been tested and validated by the users or stakeholders, and whether any issues or defects have been identified and resolved. User access controls have been adequately designed is a possible focus of a post-implementation review, but it is not the primary one. User access controls are mechanisms that ensure that only authorized users can access or use a system or service, and prevent unauthorized access or use. User access controls have been adequately designed, as this can indicate whether the system or service has appropriate security and privacy measures in place, and whether any risks or threats have been mitigated. 

 The auditor’s next course of action should be to evaluate the appropriateness of the remedial action taken by the auditee. The auditor should assess whether the alternative approach taken by the auditee is effective, efficient, and aligned with the audit objectives and recommendations. The auditor should also consider the impact of the change on the audit scope, criteria, and risk assessment. Conducting a risk analysis incorporating the change, reporting results of the follow-up to the audit committee, and informing senior management of the change in approach are possible subsequent actions that the auditor may take after evaluating the appropriateness of the remedial action taken. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version): Chapter 1 - Information Systems Auditing Process

 The results of the previous audit are an important source of information for an IS auditor to consider when performing the risk assessment prior to an audit engagement, as they can provide insights into the current state and performance of the auditee, identify any issues or gaps that need to be followed up or addressed, and highlight any areas that require special attention or focus. The designof controls is an important factor to evaluate during an audit engagement, but it is not the most important thing to consider when performing the risk assessment prior to an audit engagement, as it does not reflect the actual implementation or effectiveness of the controls. Industry standards and best practices are useful benchmarks or guidelines for an IS auditor to compare or measure against during an audit engagement, but they are not the most important thing to consider when performing the risk assessment prior to an audit engagement, as they may not be applicable or relevant to the specific context or objectives of the auditee. The amount of time since the previous audit is a relevant criterion to determine the frequency or timing of an audit engagement, but it is not the most important thing to consider when performing the risk assessment prior to an audit engagement, as it does not indicate the level or nature of risk associated with the auditee. 

The metric that would best measure the agility of an organization’s IT function is average time to turn strategic IT objectives into an agreed upon and approved initiative. IT agility is the ability of an IT function to respond quickly and effectively to changing business needs and opportunities. By measuring how fast an IT function can translate strategic IT objectives into actionable initiatives, such as projects or programs, an organization can assess how well its IT function can align with and support its business strategy. Average number of learning and training hours per IT staff member, frequency of security assessments against the most recent standards and guidelines, and percentage of staff with sufficient IT-related skills for the competency required of their roles are metrics that may indicate other aspects of IT performance, such as capability development, security maturity, and skills gap analysis, but they do not directly measure IT agility. References: ISACA Journal Article: Measuring IT Agility