IIA-CIA-Part2 Leak Questions

To obtain a responsive action plan from management, the auditor is most likely to achieve this when both parties agree on the "Effect" attribute of the audit finding. The "Effect" refers to the impact or potential impact of the identified issue on the organization's operations, objectives, or risk profile. When management and the auditor agree on the significance and consequences of the finding, there is a shared understanding of the urgency and importance of addressing the issue. This alignment increases the likelihood that management will develop and commit to an effective action plan to remediate the finding.

References:

IIA Practice Guide: "Formulating and Expressing Internal Audit Opinions"

COSO Internal Control – Integrated Framework

If the branch manager decides not to act on a significant risk that was previously acknowledged, the CAE should escalate the issue to the board. The board has ultimate responsibility for risk management and needs to be informed about significant risks and the decisions made by management regarding these risks. This ensures transparency and allows the board to take appropriate action if necessary.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Risk Management Frameworks and Reporting

When identifying specific processes to include in the scope of an assurance engagement, the most useful information for an internal auditor is recent area performance indicators against productivity metrics. This data helps the auditor identify areas with potential risks or inefficiencies that might warrant further examination.

IIA Standard 2200 – Engagement Planning:

This standard requires auditors to develop a plan for each engagement, including objectives and scope, based on a thorough understanding of the area under review. Performance indicators provide valuable insights into areas that may not be meeting productivity or efficiency targets.

Use of Performance Indicators:

Performance indicators allow the auditor to identify processes that may be underperforming or where there may be significant variances from expected outcomes. This helps in focusing the audit on areas with the greatest potential for improvement or risk.

IIA Practice Advisory 2201-2:

The advisory suggests that auditors should consider using performance data, such as productivity metrics, to determine where to focus their audit efforts. This data-driven approach ensures that the audit is relevant and adds value.

Option A (Recognition awards): Awards do not provide insight into risks or underperformance that might require audit attention.

Option B (Timing of the last audit): While useful, the timing alone does not indicate current risks or issues.

Option C (Management's presentation): This may provide some insights, but it is often more narrative and less data-driven than performance indicators.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct because recent performance indicators against productivity metrics provide the most relevant information for identifying processes to include in the scope of an assurance engagement, ensuring that the audit is focused on areas of significant risk or opportunity for improvement, in line with IIA standards.

For internal audit findings and recommendations to be effectively implemented and to ensure that they receive adequate consideration, formal follow-up procedures are essential. According to IIA guidance, it is important that the internal audit activity not only reports the results to management but also ensures that corrective actions are taken or that management consciously accepts the associated risks.

IIA Standard 2500 – Monitoring Progress:

This standard requires that the chief audit executive (CAE) establish a process to monitor and ensure that management actions are effectively implemented or that risks are appropriately accepted. Follow-up is crucial for verifying that management has taken the recommended actions or has acknowledged and accepted the risk of not doing so.

Formal Follow-Up Procedures:

These procedures involve tracking the status of management's responses to audit recommendations, checking if actions were implemented as planned, and determining whether the intended outcomes were achieved. If management decides not to act, the CAE must ensure that the decision is documented and the associated risks are understood and accepted by senior management.

IIA Practice Advisory 2500-1:

This advisory emphasizes the importance of follow-up to ensure that significant audit findings and recommendations are addressed. Without this follow-up, there is a risk that important issues might be neglected or forgotten.

Option A (Reporting results with recommendations): While reporting is important, it does not ensure that recommendations are acted upon.

Option C (Quarterly reporting on audit plan focus): This is related to audit planning, not to ensuring that specific findings and recommendations are considered.

Option D (Discussing findings with independent auditors): This might be useful, but it does not directly influence whether management considers and acts on the internal audit findings.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?