Free Practice Questions for IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam

A risk-by-process matrix is a tool that allows users to identify and analyze the associations between various business processes and the risks that affect them. This matrix helps in understanding how risks are distributed across different processes and can be instrumental in prioritizing audit activities based on risk.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2210: Engagement Objectives suggests that internal auditors should consider risks when setting audit objectives. A risk-by-process matrix is an effective tool for mapping out these risks in relation to processes, providing a clear visual representation of where the most significant risks lie.

The Practice Guide on Risk Assessment outlines the use of matrices, including risk-by-process matrices, to facilitate the identification and prioritization of risks within different processes.

According to IIA guidance, the internal audit activity (IAA) can evaluate risk management processes without the need for safeguards. This activity aligns with the internal auditors' role in providing assurance on the effectiveness of the risk management process. Coaching management (Option A) and developing risk management strategies (Option B) involve direct participation in management functions, which could impair objectivity and require safeguards. Facilitating the identification and evaluation of risks (Option C) might also involve a degree of management participation that could compromise independence without proper safeguards. References: IIA Standard 2120 – Risk Management, IIA Practice Guide – Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Processes

Structured interviews involve the internal auditor holding individual meetings with different people, asking them the same set of questions, and then aggregating the results. This method ensures consistency in the information gathered across multiple respondents, allowing for an effective comparison and analysis of the data collected.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2310: Identifying Information suggests that information gathered during an audit must be reliable and relevant. Structured interviews help achieve this by ensuring that each interviewee is asked the same questions, thus providing comparable data across the board.

The Practice Guide on Interviewing Techniques emphasizes the use of structured interviews for consistency and comprehensiveness in data collection.

Nonsampling risk is the risk that the auditor may reach incorrect conclusions for reasons not related to the sampling process, such as failure to recognize exceptions or misinterpretation of audit results. In this case, the internal auditor did not notice that some purchase requisitions were approved by unauthorized persons, which is an oversight unrelated to the sample size or selection process. This is distinct from sampling risk, which is the risk that the sample selected does not represent the population. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Audit Sampling.

An The top-down approach to understanding business processes is conducted from a broad organizational perspective, beginning with the overall objectives and strategic goals of the organization and then drilling down into the specific processes that support these goals. While this approach ensures alignment with the organization's objectives, it has the greatest risk of overlooking critical processes at the lower levels, especially those that might be operationally significant but not directly linked to top-level objectives.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2010: Planning suggests that internal auditors should understand the organization’s business processes in relation to its objectives. The top-down approach aligns with this but can risk missing important operational details that might be captured through a more granular (e.g., bottom-up) approach.

After management responds to audit findings and provides an action plan, it is crucial for the internal audit activity to follow up to validate that the promised changes have been implemented and are effective. This follow-up ensures that the issues identified, such as those related to segregation of duties in accounts payable, have been appropriately addressed.

IIA Standard 2500 – Monitoring Progress:

This standard requires the internal audit activity to monitor the implementation of management’s corrective actions. Following up on audit findings is essential to ensure that the actions taken effectively mitigate the identified risks.

Validation of Corrective Actions:

By conducting a follow-up review, the internal audit activity can verify that the changes have been made as planned and assess whether these changes are sufficient to resolve the issues. This process helps maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the internal audit function.

IIA Practice Advisory 2500-1:

The advisory emphasizes the importance of follow-up activities to confirm that management’s responses to audit recommendations have been implemented as intended.

Option B (Include in the next scheduled audit): While this is a backup plan, it may delay the validation of corrective actions, allowing potential risks to persist.

Option C (No further action): This approach is inappropriate because it assumes the problem is resolved without verification, which could lead to unmitigated risks.

Option D (Placing an auditor in the department): This could compromise the independence of the internal audit function and is not a standard practice.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because it ensures that the internal audit activity fulfills its responsibility to validate that management’s corrective actions have been implemented and are effective, aligning with IIA standards on monitoring progress.

A cause-based recommendation aims to address the root cause of an issue to prevent its recurrence. By recommending the removal of inappropriate user access, the audit report is identifying the underlying problem (the granting of inappropriate access) and suggesting a solution that will help prevent this issue from happening again. This type of recommendation is focused on mitigating risks by addressing their causes, thereby strengthening the control environment.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide on Writing Audit Reports

"Internal Auditing: Assurance and Advisory Services" by Urton L. Anderson et al.

An operational audit is the most appropriate type of audit engagement to determine how an organization could be more profitable in the long term. Operational audits focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of an organization's operations, processes, and procedures. They assess whether resources are being used optimally to achieve business objectives and identify opportunities for cost savings, process improvements, and enhanced productivity. This type of audit is designed to provide insights and recommendations that can help an organization improve its profitability over the long term by streamlining operations and eliminating inefficiencies.

One of the primary factors that could cause audit engagements to go over the planned budgeted hours is poor engagement supervision. Effective supervision ensures that the audit is progressing as planned, that issues are identified and addressed promptly, and that resources are used efficiently. Without proper supervision, audits may experience delays, scope creep, and inefficient use of time, leading to overruns in budgeted hours. Other factors, such as untimely follow-up and limited staff resources, can contribute to inefficiencies, but poor supervision is often a key driver.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2340 - Engagement Supervision

To maintain independence and objectivity, the internal auditor should seek permission to extend the current engagement and obtain approval from the process owner before performing any improvement tasks such as training staff on how to use macros. This ensures that the improvement task is formally acknowledged and approved, maintaining the integrity of the audit process. References: = IIA Standard 1130 - Impairment to Independence or Objectivity and IIA Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating.