Pearson IIA-CIA-Part2 New Attempt

According to IIA guidance, a chief audit executive (CAE) may request external consultants to complement internal audit activity (IAA) resources when the audit universe is extensive and diverse. This justifies the need for additional expertise and resources that the internal team may not possess, ensuring comprehensive coverage and effective audit processes. External consultants can bring specialized skills and knowledge, enhancing the internal audit activity's ability to address a broad range of risks and issues within the organization. References: IIA Standard 1210 – Proficiency, IIA Practice Advisory 1210.A1-1

While discussing risks with the audit client can provide useful insights, it is the least structured method compared to using all available information from the risk-based plan, considering client efforts to manage risk, and reviewing prior risk assessments. These latter methods are more systematic and ensure that the audit work program is comprehensive and focused on relevant risks. References: = IIA Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning, IIA Practice Guide: “Developing the Audit Plan”.

The risk-factor approach involves developing a list of internal and external risk considerations, creating a scale to assess each risk, and allocating the relative importance of each risk. This approach allows the auditor to systematically evaluate risks based on predefined criteria and weightings, ensuring a comprehensive risk assessment across the organization’s processes.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Risk Assessment Methodologies in Internal Auditing

In internal auditing, the reliability of evidence is critical. According to IIA standards, evidence that is obtained directly from an external source, such as a customer, is generally considered more reliable, especially when it is timely.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors obtain sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement’s objectives. Evidence obtained directly from external sources is often deemed more reliable because it is less likely to be biased or manipulated.

Direct Evidence:

Evidence obtained directly from a customer is considered highly reliable because it comes from an independent and external party. It is less likely to be influenced by internal pressures or conflicts of interest.

Timeliness:

The timeliness of evidence also affects its reliability. Recent and relevant information is more likely to accurately reflect the current state of affairs, making it more reliable for decision-making.

Option A (Untested third party): Although external, the reliability of evidence from an untested third party is uncertain until their credibility is established.

Option B (Uncorroborated evidence from an employee): This is less reliable as it may be subject to bias or self-interest.

Option C (Undocumented evidence from a manager): Undocumented evidence is generally less reliable as it lacks supporting documentation that can be verified.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?