IIA-CIA-Part2 Exam Dumps - Practice of Internal Auditing

The appropriate conclusion that can be drawn from the findings is that the internal controls guiding contract management are not operating effectively. The listed findings, such as noncompliance with contract provisions, lack of monitoring compliance with contract obligations and deliverables, and absence of contract agreements with key vendors, indicate significant control deficiencies in the contract management process. These deficiencies suggest that the controls intended to ensure compliance and effective management of contracts are either inadequate or not functioning as intended.References: IIA's Guide on Internal Controls and Audit Findings.

The internal auditor has primarily obtained testimonial evidence. Testimonial evidence is derived from interviews, discussions, and responses from employees or other parties. It involves collecting and analyzing verbal information to draw conclusions, which is precisely what the auditor did by conducting interviews, documenting them, analyzing the summaries, and drawing conclusions based on this information.

References:

IIA Standards: 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Practice Guide: Audit Evidence

The most beneficial approach for the newly appointed CAE to obtain details of the internal audit activity's collective knowledge, skills, and competencies is to review or establish a documented skills assessment of the internal audit staff and gather information from post-audit surveys. This method provides a comprehensive view of the team's capabilities and identifies any skill gaps that need to be addressed, ensuring that the internal audit function can effectively fulfill its responsibilities. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 1210 - Proficiency.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Building a Competency Framework for Internal Auditing.

According to IIA guidance, a draft work program prepared by the engagement supervisor after concluding a preliminary assessment would test the process controls. The work program outlines the specific procedures and steps the internal audit team will take to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls in place to mitigate identified risks.

References:

IIA Standards: 2240 - Engagement Work Program

IIA Practice Guide: Engagement Planning

To prevent the situation where discrepancies identified by the auditor are corrected after being noted, it is essential to preserve the audit evidence. Taking screenshots or extracting tender documents would provide a permanent record of the discrepancies, ensuring that any subsequent changes do not invalidate the auditor's findings. This practice is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the audit evidence and supporting the audit conclusions. Option B is related but not as direct as preserving primary evidence. Options C and D do not address the preservation of evidence effectively.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2310 - Identifying Information.

Analytical procedures involve evaluating financial and operational information by comparing it with expected values. These expectations can be based on historical data, industry benchmarks, budgets, or other relevant criteria. The primary purpose of analytical procedures is to identify any unusual or unexpected variations that could indicate potential issues or areas requiring further investigation.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2320: Analysis and Evaluation requires internal auditors to analyze and evaluate the information gathered during an engagement. Analytical procedures are a critical part of this process, as they help auditors identify trends, anomalies, and areas of risk by comparing actual results with expectations.

The Practice Guide on Analytical Procedures defines these procedures as the analysis of relationships between different sets of data, with the goal of identifying inconsistencies or unexpected patterns.

The efficiency of an audit is greatly influenced by the adequacy of preliminary survey information. Thorough preliminary surveys help auditors understand the audit scope, identify potential issues early, and plan their work efficiently, thereby increasing overall audit efficiency. References: = IIA Practice Guide: “Engagement Planning: Establishing Objectives and Scope” and IIA Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

According to IIA guidance, the internal audit plan should be based on an assessment of risks to the organization (1), designed to determine the effectiveness of the organization's risk management process (2), and aligned with the organization's goals (4). The development of the audit plan is typically the responsibility of the chief audit executive, often with input from senior management and the audit committee, rather than being solely developed by senior management (3). References: IIA Standard 2010 – Planning, IIA Practice Guide – Developing the Internal Audit Plan

When facilitating a risk and control self-assessment (RCSA) workshop, the internal auditor's most appropriate role is to provide the necessary techniques and guidelines for conducting the exercise. This involves guiding participants on the methodology and framework for identifying and assessing risks and controls without influencing their inputs or conclusions, thereby ensuring an objective and effective self-assessment process. References: = IIA Practice Guide: "Facilitation Skills for Auditors".

When reviewing the board of directors, internal auditors should consider testing the presence of an independent critical mass. This refers to the existence of a sufficient number of independent directors who can provide unbiased judgment and oversight. Independence is a cornerstone of effective governance, ensuring that decisions are made in the best interest of the organization without undue influence from management. This attribute is crucial for maintaining the integrity and objectivity of the board's decisions and actions.References: IIA's Practice Guide on Assessing Organizational Governance.

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.

According to IIA guidance, a request for an increase in the Chief Audit Executive's (CAE) salary for the next fiscal year should be submitted only to the CEO. Compensation matters typically fall under the purview of executive management rather than the board, as the board focuses on broader governance issues, including risk assessment, audit plans, and resource allocation. References: IIA Standard 1100 – Independence and Objectivity, IIA Practice Advisory 1110-1 – Organizational Independence

The chief audit executive should give the most consideration to the organization's risk management policy when communicating an identified unacceptable risk to management. The risk management policy outlines the organization's approach to managing risk, including risk tolerance levels, risk appetite, and the procedures for identifying, assessing, and mitigating risks. By aligning the communication with the risk management policy, the CAE ensures that the discussion about unacceptable risk is framed within the context of the organization's established risk management framework, facilitating a more structured and effective response from management.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2010 - Planning and COSO's Enterprise Risk Management Framework.

In the risk control map, Risk C is positioned in the upper left quadrant, indicating it is critical (high risk significance) but with a low level of control. This suggests that the current controls are insufficient to mitigate the high level of risk associated with Risk C. For critical risks, a higher level of control is necessary to ensure that the risk is properly managed and mitigated. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Risk Management Framework" (COSO)

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) guidance, workpapers are crucial for documenting the evidence that supports audit findings and conclusions. They serve as the primary reference for any reported control deficiencies, providing detailed documentation and justification for the audit results. Workpapers must be thorough and clearly demonstrate the basis for audit observations and recommendations. While audit reports summarize findings, the detailed support for these findings is found within the workpapers.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2330: Documenting Information.

IIA Practice Guide, "Audit Workpapers."

Discovery sampling is most effective for investigating the auditor's suspicion that the head of commercial lending has been granting loans without the required collateral. This sampling technique is designed to detect at least one occurrence of a specific characteristic (in this case, loans without collateral) within a population. It is particularly useful for identifying fraud or non-compliance with specific policies and procedures. Discovery sampling focuses on finding exceptions, making it suitable for the auditor’s investigation into potential misconduct.References: The IIA's Global Technology Audit Guide (GTAG) and The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.

According to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, the CAE must be kept informed of significant issues and deficiencies that are not addressed by management. Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks requires the CAE to report any situation where management has accepted a level of risk that may be unacceptable to the organization. If the engagement supervisor learns that agreed-upon remedial actions have not been implemented, the CAE needs to be notified to determine further steps, ensuring that risks are managed appropriately and in alignment with the organization's risk tolerance. This response aligns with the internal audit function's responsibility to follow up on management's corrective actions.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks.

A quality assurance and improvement program (QAIP) established by the chief audit executive (CAE) should ensure that the internal audit activity (IAA) adheres to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards) and the IIA Code of Ethics. It should also aim to add value and improve the organization's operations. This comprehensive approach ensures that the internal audit function is not only compliant but also effective in enhancing the overall governance, risk management, and control processes within the organization.References:

IIA Standard 1300: Quality Assurance and Improvement Program.

IIA Standard 1320: Reporting on the Quality Assurance and Improvement Program.

When the chief audit executive (CAE) evaluates the possibility of relying on external auditors' work, the primary focus should be on examining the objectivity and any perceived or actual conflicts of interest that might affect the external auditors' work. Ensuring that the external auditors are objective and free from conflicts is crucial for determining whether their work can be relied upon by the internal audit activity.

IIA Standard 2050 – Coordination and Reliance:

This standard requires that the internal audit activity coordinates its efforts with external auditors to ensure proper coverage and minimize duplication of efforts. When relying on external auditors, the CAE must assess the external auditors’ objectivity and independence.

Objectivity and Conflicts of Interest:

Objectivity refers to the unbiased mental attitude that allows external auditors to perform their work with integrity and impartiality. Conflicts of interest, whether perceived or actual, can compromise this objectivity. The CAE needs to ensure that external auditors are free from any relationships or interests that could affect their judgment.

IIA Practice Advisory 2050-2:

The advisory suggests that the internal audit activity should evaluate the competence, objectivity, and independence of external auditors before relying on their work. A thorough examination of potential conflicts of interest is essential to ensure that the reliance on their work is justified.

Option A (Perform comprehensive background checks): While background checks may be useful, the primary focus should be on objectivity and conflicts of interest.

Option B (Recalculate all financial calculations): This approach is excessive and unnecessary if the external auditors’ work can be relied upon.

Option D (Review audit tests in previous audits): While reviewing previous work is important, it does not address the key issue of objectivity and independence.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct because the CAE must focus on ensuring that external auditors are objective and free from conflicts of interest, which is essential for relying on their work, in accordance with IIA standards.

Effective risk management and internal control processes are best exemplified by having relevant risk indicators and mitigation plans in place. This demonstrates that the organization not only identifies and assesses risks but also actively monitors and manages these risks through appropriate mitigation strategies. The presence of risk indicators and mitigation plans indicates a proactive approach to risk management, ensuring that potential issues are addressed before they can impact the organization significantly.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2100 – Nature of Work: "The internal audit activity must evaluate and contribute to the improvement of governance, risk management, and control processes using a systematic and disciplined approach."

COSO Enterprise Risk Management Framework

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.

If management accepts the issue identified by the internal audit team but takes no remedial action, the next step for the chief audit executive (CAE) is to escalate the issue to senior management. This ensures that senior management is aware of the unresolved significant issue and can take appropriate action to address it. Escalation is a critical step in ensuring that risks are managed effectively and that necessary corrective actions are implemented.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2600

The IIA Standards emphasize that the chief audit executive (CAE) should develop the internal audit plan based on a thorough assessment of risks facing the organization. This risk-based approach ensures that the most significant and relevant areas are prioritized. While input from senior management and regulatory requirements are also important, the primary driver should be the most recent and comprehensive risk assessment. References:

IIA Standards - 2010: Planning

IIA Practice Guide - Developing the Risk-based Internal Audit Plan

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. Review year-over-year trending of total dollars spent in each period:This is the correct approach because year-over-year analysis focuses on identifying anomalies or significant variances in expenses over time. Trends in data can help detect unexpected spikes, dips, or patterns that indicate irregularities or inefficiencies. This aligns with analytical procedures in expense analysis under the CIA Exam Syllabus Part 2, which emphasizes the use of comparative techniques to evaluate reasonableness.

B. Review changes to the vendor master file for suspicious activity:While reviewing vendor master file changes is essential for fraud detection and control testing, it does not directly help in determining the reasonableness of monthly expenses.

C. Review the percentage of on-time payments against prior periods:Examining payment timeliness relates to operational efficiency and cash flow management, not directly to evaluating whether monthly expenses are reasonable.

D. Review total expenses for accounting against other department expenses in the organization:Comparing accounting department expenses to those of other departments might indicate disparities but does not consider differences in department-specific activities and needs.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Analytical Procedures and Testing Methods.

Internal auditors must corroborate employee testimonials with tangible evidence to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. Relying solely on testimonials without supporting evidence can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Standard 2310 – Identifying Information of the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing emphasizes that sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information should be obtained to achieve the engagement’s objectives.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2310 – Identifying Information.

One of the primary drawbacks of using internal control questionnaires is the risk that management may not provide honest or accurate answers. This can occur due to a variety of reasons, including a lack of knowledge, intentional deception, or a misunderstanding of the questions. As a result, the responses may not accurately reflect the true state of the controls, leading to incomplete or misleading audit conclusions.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Using ISO 31000

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

The primary reason for audit supervision to include the approval of the engagement report is to ensure that the findings and conclusions presented in the report are substantiated by adequate and appropriate evidence. This is critical for maintaining the credibility and reliability of the audit function.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be properly supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, audit work is performed according to appropriate standards, and that the results are supported by sufficient, reliable, and relevant evidence.

Substantiation of Findings:

Approval of the engagement report by the supervisor ensures that the findings and conclusions are not only accurate but also supported by documented evidence. This substantiation is essential for the report to be credible and for the audit to fulfill its purpose.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

The advisory emphasizes the role of supervisors in reviewing and approving the engagement report to ensure that all findings are well-founded and appropriately supported by the audit evidence.

Option A (Ensure objectives are met): While meeting objectives is important, the primary focus of report approval is to ensure that the findings are substantiated.

Option B (Ensure senior management support): Support from management is necessary, but it should be based on a report that is well-supported by evidence.

Option C (Ensure style and grammar): Style and grammar are secondary considerations; the primary focus should be on the accuracy and substantiation of findings.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct because the primary reason for the supervisor’s approval of the engagement report is to ensure that the findings are substantiated by evidence, ensuring the credibility and reliability of the audit report, in line with IIA standards.

In the scenario provided, the bakery chain's statistical model predicts that daily sales should have an inverse relationship with rainy days, meaning that on rainy days, sales are generally expected to be lower. However, if an auditor notices that on a rainy day, total sales are greater than expected when compared to the cost of ingredients used, this could indicate potential employee theft of food. The reasoning is that if sales are unusually high despite weather conditions that typically depress sales, it may be that the reported sales are inflated or that ingredients are being used without corresponding sales being recorded, which could suggest theft.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 1220: Due Professional Care implies that auditors should consider the likelihood of significant errors, fraud, or noncompliance when assessing risks and performing audit procedures. Unusual patterns or deviations from expected results, as seen in this scenario, should raise red flags for potential fraudulent activity, such as theft.

During an inventory audit, the activity that would most benefit from the use of computerized audit tools (CAATs) is valuating the obsolete inventory from all the warehouse locations. CAATs can efficiently analyze large volumes of inventory data from multiple warehouses, identify patterns and trends, and automate the valuation process, making it more accurate and less time-consuming compared to manual methods.

References:

IIA Standards: 1210.A3 - Proficiency in the Use of CAATs

IIA Practice Guide: Use of Technology in Auditing

When developing the work program for an engagement reviewing an organization’s small contracting services, the chief audit executive (CAE) should consider the organization's recent changes to how it processes payments. Changes in payment processing can significantly impact the control environment and may introduce new risks or control gaps. Understanding these changes will help the CAE design appropriate audit procedures to evaluate the effectiveness of the controls over the new processes.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Developing the Internal Audit Strategic Plan

IIA Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. The decision affects the test procedures performed:Correct. The choice between statistical and nonstatistical sampling affects the design of the sample selection, execution of audit procedures, and the nature of conclusions drawn. Statistical sampling involves probabilistic techniques that influence sample size and evaluation, whereas nonstatistical sampling relies on auditor judgment.

B. The auditor's response to errors detected will be influenced:While error response is critical, it is influenced more by the nature and materiality of the errors than by the sampling approach.

C. The competence of the evidence obtained is greater with statistical sampling:This is incorrect because the competence of evidence depends on the procedure itself, not the sampling method used. Both methods can yield competent evidence if applied correctly.

D. Nonstatistical sampling may be more cost effective:While this can sometimes be true, it is context-dependent and not universally applicable, so it is not the best answer.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain II: Risk Management and Control – Sampling Techniques and Audit Evidence.

A properly supervised engagement ensures that the audit is conducted effectively, efficiently, and in accordance with IIA standards. The auditor in charge has the responsibility to oversee the audit process and ensure that the engagement objectives are achieved.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, work is performed according to appropriate standards, and the results are supported by sufficient, relevant, and reliable evidence.

Reasonable Assurance:

The auditor in charge must provide reasonable assurance that the audit engagement's objectives were met. This involves reviewing work performed, ensuring compliance with audit standards, and verifying that conclusions are supported by adequate evidence.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

The advisory emphasizes the role of the auditor in charge in providing oversight throughout the audit engagement. This includes ensuring that auditors follow procedures, apply professional judgment, and that all significant findings are appropriately addressed.

Option A (Daily record review): While keeping a record is good practice, it does not constitute comprehensive supervision.

Option B (Review by peers): Peer review is useful but does not replace the overarching responsibility of the auditor in charge.

Option C (Accompanying new auditors): This is part of training and guidance but does not alone ensure that engagement objectives are met.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

Detective controls are designed to identify and detect errors or fraud after they have occurred. Receipts for employee expenses serve as a detective control by providing evidence of transactions, enabling verification and review of expenses to identify any fraudulent or unauthorized activities. Awareness of prior incidents of fraud (Option A) is more of a preventive control, contractor non-disclosure agreements (Option B) are preventive controls to mitigate risks of information leakage, and verification of currency exchange rates (Option C) is more of a transaction control. References: IIA Glossary – Detective Controls, COSO Framework

An internal audit procedures manual typically includes detailed information on the methodologies, tools, and techniques used during audits. It also outlines the protocols and guidelines for auditors to follow, including their authority and the scope of their work. Clearly defining the extent of the auditor's authority to collect data from management ensures that auditors understand their rights and limitations, which is essential for carrying out effective and efficient audits.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide on Developing the Internal Audit Manual

"Internal Auditing: Assurance and Advisory Services" by Urton L. Anderson, Michael J. Head, Sridhar Ramamoorti, Chris A. Bailey, and David A. Sarens

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. To provide a status update on a short engagement to management of the area under review and to the audit supervisor:While useful, this is not the primary purpose of issuing interim reports.

B. To confirm agreement with preliminary observations and conclusions identified during the engagement:Interim reports are not primarily for reaching agreement but for prompt communication of actionable items.

C. To provide those responsible for the area under review with the opportunity to act on certain observations immediately:Correct. Interim reports are issued when there are observations that require immediate action or management’s attention before the final report is issued.

D. To verify that the corrective actions required by senior management are completed as agreed:Verifying corrective actions occurs after final recommendations are implemented, not through interim reporting.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Reporting and Communication.

Discovery sampling is a statistical sampling method that is specifically designed for detecting fraud or other irregularities. It is most appropriate when the auditor expects that deviations or fraud may be rare but significant if found.

Discovery Sampling:

Discovery sampling is used when the auditor is trying to identify at least one occurrence of a particular event, such as fraud. The sample is designed so that if a single error is found, it suggests that more may exist within the population, warranting further investigation.

Application in Fraud Detection:

Discovery sampling is effective in fraud detection because it focuses on identifying whether any instances of fraud exist within a population. This approach is well-suited for situations where even a small number of fraudulent transactions could have a significant impact.

IIA Practice Guide on Statistical Sampling:

The IIA suggests that discovery sampling is appropriate when the goal is to find the presence of an error or fraud, particularly in populations where such occurrences are expected to be infrequent.

Option B (Stop-or-go sampling): This method is used to control the risk of over-auditing when errors are expected to be low, but it is not specifically designed for fraud detection.

Option C (Haphazard sampling): This is a non-statistical sampling method and is not appropriate for systematic fraud detection.

Option D (Stratified attribute sampling): This method divides the population into subgroups but is not specifically aimed at discovering fraud.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option A is correct because discovery sampling is the most appropriate statistical method for testing a population for fraud, as it is designed to detect even a small number of significant deviations, consistent with IIA guidance.

The most critical situation for the chief audit executive (CAE) to report to the board is the disagreement with the business unit manager's initial decision to accept a particular risk, which was only addressed after discussion with senior management. This situation is critical because it involves a risk that was initially accepted without proper mitigation, which could have significant implications for the organization. Reporting this to the board ensures that they are aware of potential disagreements regarding risk acceptance and management's approach to risk mitigation.

References:

IIA Standards: 2060 - Reporting to Senior Management and the Board

IIA Practice Guide: Reporting to the Board and Senior Management

When using benchmarking to test the employee turnover rate, the internal auditor should compare the organization's turnover rate to the published turnover rates of peer organizations. This method provides a relevant standard or point of reference to evaluate the organization's performance relative to similar entities. By using external benchmarks, the auditor can identify whether the turnover rate is above or below industry norms, which helps in assessing the effectiveness of the organization's HR practices.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Internal Audit and Organizational Performance

IIA Standard 1220 - Due Professional Care

While aligning organizational activities to internal audit activities and measuring according to approved IAA performance measures is important, it adds the least direct value to achieving the IAA's objectives compared to the other strategies. Establishing periodic reviews, using engagement results to guide future activities, and ensuring the format and frequency of IAA reporting align with the organization's governance structure are all more directly impactful strategies. References: = IIA Standard 1300 - Quality Assurance and Improvement Program and IIA Standard 1320 - Reporting on the Quality Assurance and Improvement Program.

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. Determine whether the purchasing department complies with policy by examining a random selection of purchase orders:Correct. Reviewing a random sample of purchase orders is a standard procedure for evaluating compliance with purchasing policies, such as approval requirements, vendor selection, and adherence to budget constraints.

B. Evaluate whether purchasing requests are properly approved by authorized staff by obtaining independent verification from the vendors:Vendor verification is not typically used to evaluate internal approvals as this information is available within the organization’s records.

C. Ascertain whether material receipts are recorded on a timely basis by reviewing physical inventory stock counts:Physical inventory reviews focus on inventory management and reconciliation, not specifically on the timeliness of receipts.

D. Determine whether prices charged for goods received are correct by reviewing the appropriate accounts payable record by vendor:While reviewing accounts payable records helps verify the accuracy of pricing, it does not directly evaluate the purchasing department’s adherence to procedures.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Audit Engagement Objectives and Procedures.

When preparing an internal control questionnaire for the procurement department, referencing relevant procurement laws or regulations ensures that the questions are aligned with the legal and regulatory requirements governing procurement activities. This approach helps to ensure that the questionnaire addresses all necessary compliance issues and identifies potential gaps in the organization's procurement processes that could lead to non-compliance.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations

Ensuring that risks to the timely completion of the engagement are assessed should be performed first during engagement supervision activities. This initial step is crucial as it sets the foundation for the entire audit process. By identifying and assessing risks early, the audit supervisor can develop appropriate plans and strategies to mitigate these risks, ensuring that the engagement stays on track and is completed within the allocated time frame. Addressing this aspect first helps in prioritizing tasks, allocating resources effectively, and managing any potential obstacles that might delay the audit process.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Internal Audit Engagement Planning and Risk Assessment Procedures

The most appropriate course of action for the CAE is to evaluate the robustness and feasibility of the management's action plan to address the identified weaknesses. The CAE should monitor the implementation progress, key dates, and deliverables to ensure that corrective actions are on track and will effectively mitigate the risks within the stipulated timeline. References: = IIA Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

The chief audit executive (CAE) has the responsibility to provide assurance and insight on risk management processes. In a meeting with senior management to discuss significant risks, the CAE should focus on evaluating whether the risks accepted by senior management align with the organization’s risk appetite and are within acceptable levels. The CAE should ensure that the risk management practices are adequate and that senior management is aware of any risks that might exceed the organization's tolerance levels. This approach is aligned with the role of internal audit in providing independent and objective evaluations.

References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards: Performance Standards 2120: Risk Management

IIA Practice Guide: Assessing the Risk Management Process

A key planning step for internal auditors to establish appropriate engagement objectives is to evaluate management's risk assessment and the internal audit activity's risk assessment. This step ensures that the audit focuses on areas of highest risk and aligns with the organization's risk management framework. By understanding and incorporating the organization's risk priorities, the internal auditors can design their engagements to provide maximum value and assurance regarding the control environment and risk management processes.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2010: Planning

IIA Practice Advisory 2010-2: Using the Risk Management Process in Internal Audit Planning

An assurance map is a tool that provides a visual representation of the coverage of risks by various assurance providers. It supports the auditor's decision by showing which risks are being addressed by internal audit and other functions, and which risks are not being tested. This can help justify the auditor's decision not to test a particular risk, by demonstrating that it has already been covered or deemed low priority. References:

"Internal Auditing: Assurance & Advisory Services" (The Institute of Internal Auditors)

"Creating an Assurance Map" (IIA Practice Guide)

When addressing excessive overtime being paid to employees in an organization's customer service call center, the most relevant techniques for the internal auditor to use would be trend analysis, external benchmarking, and internal benchmarking. Trend analysis helps in identifying patterns over time, which can highlight the causes of excessive overtime. External benchmarking compares the organization's overtime data with industry standards to identify discrepancies. Internal benchmarking compares overtime across different departments or similar call centers within the organization to identify best practices and areas needing improvement. Confirmation is not as relevant in this context as it is primarily used to verify the accuracy of information through direct verification. References:

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Data Analytics.

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

The primary purpose of financial statement audit engagements is to review financial reports and ensure they comply with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). This involves verifying the accuracy and fairness of the financial statements, ensuring they provide a true and fair view of the organization's financial position and performance. References: = IIA Practice Guide: “Auditing Financial Statements” and IIA Standard 2110.A1.

Best practices for engagement planning involve setting objectives that align with the business objectives of the audit client. This ensures that the audit is relevant and provides valuable insights to the organization. Planning should also be systematic and documented, ensuring that specific testing procedures and expected outcomes are outlined and communicated. References: = IIA Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning and IIA Practice Guide: “Planning the Engagement”.

A compliance assurance engagement focuses on evaluating whether an organization is adhering to applicable laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. Assessing the design adequacy of controls related to consumer privacy and confidentiality is a prime example of such an engagement, as it ensures that the organization’s controls are designed to comply with relevant privacy laws and regulations, thereby protecting consumer data and maintaining compliance.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating

In internal auditing, when assessing the accuracy and completeness of employee time reporting, auditors often use sampling to determine the overall compliance of the process. In this scenario, the internal auditor sampled 30 employee time reports and found 5 incorrect and 4 unsupported reports. This indicates that a majority (21 out of 30) were accurate, suggesting that the organization generally ensures accurate reporting. However, the presence of incorrect and unsupported reports indicates deficiencies that need to be addressed, but do not point to systemic fraud or abuse. Thus, option D accurately reflects the findings by acknowledging both the general accuracy and the instances of errors.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing

COSO Framework - Control Activities and Monitoring

According to IIA guidance, curiosity is a key attribute that indicates a candidate’s ability to probe further when reviewing incidents that have the appearance of misbehavior. Curiosity drives the auditor to ask deeper questions, seek out underlying causes, and thoroughly investigate anomalies. While integrity (Option A), flexibility (Option B), and initiative (Option C) are important qualities for an internal auditor, curiosity specifically relates to the propensity to investigate and uncover the truth behind incidents.References:

IIA Standard 1200: Proficiency and Due Professional Care.

IIA Practice Guide on Competency Framework for Internal Auditing.

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) guidance, organizations have the most influence over the "opportunity" aspect of the fraud triangle. The fraud triangle consists of three elements: pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. While pressure and rationalization are largely influenced by personal and external factors beyond the organization's direct control, opportunity refers to the circumstances that allow fraud to occur, which can be directly managed and controlled by the organization through internal controls, policies, and procedures. References: = IIA's "Managing the Business Risk of Fraud: A Practical Guide" and the IIA's Practice Guide on "Internal Audit's Role in Preventing and Detecting Fraud".

If an internal auditor decides to adjust the audit work program during the fieldwork phase of an assurance engagement, the most appropriate next step is to obtain approval from the engagement supervisor. This ensures that any changes to the scope or procedures are reviewed and sanctioned by the audit management, maintaining the integrity and alignment of the audit objectives.

References:

IIA Standards: 2240 - Engagement Work Program

IIA Practice Guide: Engagement Planning

In the context of restructuring and consolidating divisions, providing consulting services that focus on operational efficiency is highly valuable. Internal auditors can leverage their understanding of the organization's processes and controls to advise division managers on streamlining operations. This includes identifying redundant processes, recommending best practices, and suggesting ways to optimize resource use. Such guidance helps the organization achieve a smoother transition and enhances overall efficiency, supporting the strategic objectives of the restructuring effort.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2120 - Risk Management and Standard 2130 - Control

When an internal auditor identifies a primary control failure due to a design weakness, the next step is to assess the risk and determine if there are any compensating controls that mitigate this risk. Compensating controls can help to reduce the overall risk to an acceptable level. Engaging with management to discuss the issue and determine the necessary corrective actions ensures that the control environment is adequately addressed. This approach aligns with the internal auditor's role in providing assurance and consulting services designed to add value and improve an organization's operations.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2120 - Risk Management.

When the internal audit activity lacks the expertise to perform an audit engagement in a specialized area like IT, the most appropriate action for the CAE is to outsource the engagement to a reputable IT audit consulting firm. This ensures that the audit is conducted by professionals with the necessary skills and experience, thereby maintaining the quality and reliability of the audit.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 1210: Proficiency requires that internal auditors possess the knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform their responsibilities. When the internal audit activity does not have the required expertise for a specific engagement, the CAE must obtain competent advice and assistance, either by hiring external experts or outsourcing the work.

IIA Standard 2070: External Service Provider and Organizational Responsibility for Internal Auditing advises that when the internal audit activity uses external service providers, the CAE must ensure that the provider possesses the necessary skills and knowledge.

A risk-based approach to control self-assessment focuses on aligning the organization’s business objectives with the risks managed by specific work units. This method ensures that the controls are effectively designed and operated to mitigate risks that could impede achieving business objectives. Options A, B, and C describe evaluating controls and processes in specific contexts but do not illustrate the primary focus of linking business objectives with the associated risks at the work unit level, which is central to a risk-based approach.References:

IIA Practice Guide on Control Self-Assessment.

IIA Standard 2120: Risk Management.

If the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) disagrees with management's decision to deem certain action plans no longer necessary, the CAE must discuss the matter with the board. The board has the ultimate responsibility for oversight of the internal audit function and for ensuring that management addresses audit recommendations appropriately. Escalating the issue to the board ensures that the CAE fulfills their duty to report significant issues and disagreements to those charged with governance.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2600 – Communicating the Acceptance of Risks: "When the chief audit executive believes that senior management has accepted a level of residual risk that may be unacceptable to the organization, the chief audit executive must discuss the matter with senior management. If the decision regarding residual risk is not resolved, the chief audit executive must report the matter to the board for resolution."

According to the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) guidance, the independence and objectivity of the internal audit function are fundamental principles. Independence is compromised if the internal audit function takes on roles or responsibilities that are part of management's duties. Coordinating and managing the risk management process is a management responsibility. If internal auditors assume this role, it impairs their ability to remain independent and objective when auditing the effectiveness of the risk management process. References: IIA Standard 1112 – Chief Audit Executive Roles Beyond Internal Auditing

The primary objective of an internal auditor during an exit conference is to ensure that the engagement conclusions are accurate and that the facts presented in the audit report are correct. This involves discussing the audit findings with the engagement client, clarifying any misunderstandings, and ensuring that the conclusions are based on accurate and complete information.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2440: Disseminating Results emphasizes the importance of accurate and clear communication of audit results. The exit conference is a key part of this process, ensuring that any discrepancies or concerns are addressed before finalizing the report.

The Practice Guide on Conducting Exit Conferences highlights the importance of using the exit conference to verify that the auditor’s conclusions are well-founded and that the client understands and agrees with the findings.

The best possible engagement objectives are those derived from a comprehensive risk assessment that incorporates inputs from both senior management and the company's risk function experts. This approach ensures that the internal audit objectives are aligned with the organization's strategic priorities and risk landscape. By combining insights from senior management with the technical expertise of risk function experts, the internal audit activity can develop well-rounded and relevant engagement objectives that address the most significant risks facing the organization.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2010 – Planning: "The chief audit executive must establish risk-based plans to determine the priorities of the internal audit activity, consistent with the organization’s goals."

IIA Practice Guide on "Internal Audit Planning"

When an assurance engagement concludes with no key controls being compromised but notes some opportunities for improvement, the most appropriate approach for the chief audit executive (CAE) is to send the final report to operational management. This ensures that the responsible management can act on the improvement opportunities. Additionally, notifying senior management and the audit committee that no significant findings were identified keeps them informed without overloading them with less critical details, maintaining transparency and proper communication channels. References: IIA Standard 2400 – Communicating Results, IIA Practice Guide – Communicating Assurance Engagement Results

According to the IIA guidance, the most appropriate next step when discovering a sales manager approving contracts beyond their authorization limit is to communicate the finding to the supervisor of the sales manager through an interim report. This approach ensures that the issue is addressed promptly and management can take immediate corrective actions to prevent further unauthorized activities. Including new contracts under negotiation in the final report would delay action, while reminding the sales manager of their authority limits does not escalate the issue appropriately.

References:

IIA Standards: 2440 - Disseminating Results

IIA Practice Guide: Communicating Audit Results

The primary objectives of engagement supervision in internal auditing, according to IIA guidance, involve several key activities: identifying engagement objectives, assigning responsibilities to individual auditors, and approving the engagement program. These steps are essential to ensure that the audit is conducted effectively and that the objectives are met.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard outlines the responsibilities of those supervising audit engagements. Supervisors must ensure that the audit is properly planned, that objectives are clearly defined, that the right personnel are assigned, and that the engagement program is appropriate for achieving the objectives.

Key Activities in Supervision:

Identifying Engagement Objectives: This is the first step in ensuring that the audit addresses the most important risks and areas of concern. The supervisor must ensure that these objectives are clear and aligned with the organization’s goals.

Assigning Responsibilities: Supervisors must ensure that tasks are allocated to auditors who have the appropriate skills and experience to carry them out effectively.

Approving the Engagement Program: The engagement program outlines the procedures and steps that will be taken to achieve the audit objectives. The supervisor’s approval ensures that the program is comprehensive and aligned with the audit’s goals.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

The advisory emphasizes the role of the auditor in charge in providing guidance, ensuring that objectives are met, and that the audit is conducted efficiently and effectively.

Option A (Enable training and development): While important, training and development are secondary objectives and not the primary focus of engagement supervision.

Option C (Training and development): Again, while important, these are supportive activities rather than the core focus of engagement supervision.

Option D (Training, development, and objectives): This option combines important activities but does not include assigning responsibilities, which is crucial in supervision.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

According to IIA guidance, the chief audit executive (CAE) should maintain independence and objectivity in their role. While the CAE can manage and coordinate risk management processes, audit those processes, and be involved in risk oversight committees, they should not accept management's responsibility for risk management without the board's approval. This ensures that there is no conflict of interest and maintains the CAE's independence. References:

IIA Standards - 1110: Organizational Independence

IIA Practice Advisory - 2060-1: Reporting to Senior Management and the Board

The chief audit executive (CAE) is responsible for the approval of the engagement objectives and scope. While the head of customer service and other stakeholders may provide input, it is ultimately the CAE's responsibility to ensure that the engagement aligns with the internal audit plan and meets the organization's overall objectives. The CAE's approval ensures the independence and objectivity of the internal audit function.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2010 - Planning

IIA Standard 2200 - Engagement Planning

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.

When the chief audit executive (CAE) is uncertain whether the internal audit team has the necessary knowledge to conduct a specific engagement, such as reviewing testing procedures for a large information system, the most appropriate course of action is to engage an external service provider with the required expertise. This option helps to preserve the independence and objectivity of the internal audit activity.

IIA Standard 1210 – Proficiency:

This standard requires that internal auditors possess the knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform their responsibilities. If the current team lacks the necessary skills, the CAE must seek external expertise.

Preserving Independence:

Engaging an external service provider helps maintain the independence of the internal audit function, as the expertise is sourced from an independent party. This prevents potential conflicts of interest that might arise if resources are borrowed from within the organization (e.g., from the IT department).

IIA Practice Advisory 1210.A1-1:

This advisory suggests that the CAE may employ external experts to provide specialized knowledge for certain audit engagements, ensuring the audit activity remains independent and objective.

Option A (Contract with the software vendor): This could compromise independence, as the vendor may have a vested interest in the outcome of the audit.

Option B (Ask for a knowledgeable resource from IT): Using internal resources, especially from the IT department being audited, could impair independence and objectivity.

Option D (Request resources through the external auditor): This might be appropriate in some cases, but it is not as direct and effective as hiring an external provider with specialized skills for this specific engagement.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct as it ensures the internal audit function maintains its independence while acquiring the necessary expertise to conduct the engagement effectively, in line with IIA standards.

A consulting engagement in internal auditing involves providing advisory and related client service activities, the nature and scope of which are agreed upon with the client. These are intended to add value and improve an organization's governance, risk management, and control processes. Helping in the design of the risk management program is a consulting activity because it involves advising management on how to establish or improve the processes for identifying, assessing, and managing risks. This is different from assurance engagements, which primarily focus on assessing existing processes.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2010: Planning

IIA Practice Advisory 2010-1: Linking the Audit Plan to Risk and Exposures

During the planning stage of an assurance engagement, internal auditors should focus their attention on identifying and assessing inherent risks. Inherent risk is the risk of a material misstatement or noncompliance due to error or fraud that could occur before any controls are applied. Understanding inherent risk is crucial as it helps auditors identify areas that may need more extensive testing and ensures that audit resources are appropriately allocated to the highest risk areas.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Using ISO 31000

IIA Standard 2010 - Planning

Root cause-based recommendations are most likely to propose long-term solutions. These recommendations address the underlying causes of issues rather than just the symptoms. By identifying and addressing the root causes, the solutions implemented are more likely to be effective in preventing the recurrence of the same or similar issues in the future.

Root Cause Analysis: This involves a thorough investigation to identify the fundamental reasons for the occurrence of a problem. It goes beyond immediate symptoms to understand the deeper issues.

Long-term Solutions: Recommendations based on root cause analysis focus on eliminating the underlying causes, leading to sustainable improvements and reducing the likelihood of repeat issues.

Systemic Improvements: Addressing root causes often leads to changes in processes, controls, or organizational practices, resulting in broader and more lasting benefits.

By focusing on the root cause, the recommendations provide more robust and enduring solutions, contributing to the overall improvement and resilience of the organization.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

IIA Practice Guide: Root Cause Analysis in Internal Auditing

The rotational model of internal audit staffing involves bringing in staff from other parts of the organization for a temporary period before they return to their original roles. While this model has several advantages, such as bringing diverse perspectives and business knowledge, it also has the disadvantage that auditors are often new to the internal audit function and are continuously in training.

Rotational Model:

In this model, employees from various departments are rotated into the internal audit activity for a specific period. They gain audit experience before rotating back to their original or other roles within the organization.

Disadvantages:

Since these individuals are not career auditors, they may lack the deep audit expertise of career auditors, and a significant amount of time is often spent on training. This constant influx of new, inexperienced staff can lead to a scenario where the team is always in training mode, potentially impacting audit efficiency and effectiveness.

IIA Practice Advisory 1210-1:

The advisory notes that while the rotational model can enhance business understanding within the audit team, it requires careful management to ensure that audit quality is not compromised due to the continuous learning curve of rotating staff.

Option A (Career model): This involves auditors who remain in the internal audit function throughout their careers, leading to a highly skilled and experienced team.

Option B (Center of competence model): This model focuses on a centralized group of audit experts, ensuring specialized skills and consistency.

Option D (Hybrid model): This combines elements of the rotational and career models, aiming to balance expertise with fresh perspectives.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

The primary objective of an internal audit engagement supervisor is to uphold the quality of the internal audit actively. This involves ensuring that the audit procedures are performed effectively, the findings are accurate and reliable, and the audit meets the necessary professional standards. The supervisor oversees the audit team's work, provides guidance and support, and ensures that the engagement is conducted according to the internal audit plan and methodology. This role is crucial in maintaining the credibility and integrity of the audit function.References:

IIA Standard 2340: Engagement Supervision

IIA Practice Guide: Internal Auditing and Assurance

The rotational model refers to a staffing arrangement where employees, such as internal auditors, are rotated into different roles within the organization, often for a fixed period. In this scenario, a senior internal auditor is hired within the internal audit activity for two years before transitioning to an operations manager role. This model helps in developing a deeper understanding of the organization, broadening skill sets, and fostering cross-functional expertise. It benefits both the internal audit activity and the broader organization by facilitating knowledge transfer and career development.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide on "Implementing a Rotational Internal Audit Program"

IIA Standard 1210 – Proficiency: "Internal auditors must possess the knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform their individual responsibilities."

Performing an entity-level controls analysis helps the auditor understand the overarching framework of activities and subprocesses within the accounts payable function. This approach provides a high-level view of the control environment and how different processes interrelate and contribute to the overall control objectives. By understanding the framework, the auditor can identify key controls, assess their design and implementation, and determine areas of potential risk. This foundational understanding is crucial before delving into more detailed, transaction-level testing.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2130 – Control.

The primary reason for internal auditors to conduct interim communications with management of the area under review is to provide timely discussion of results. This allows management to be informed of preliminary findings and issues as they arise, enabling quicker corrective actions and avoiding surprises in the final report. Interim communications help ensure that audit results are relevant and actionable. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2410 - Criteria for Communicating.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Communicating Results.

Data analytics is the most efficient technique to identify patterns and anomalies that may indicate the splitting of planned purchases to avoid the approval process. By applying data analytics, the internal auditor can analyze the entire dataset to detect unusual patterns, such as multiple purchases just below the approval threshold made within a short timeframe. This method is more effective than random sampling or manual examination as it can quickly and accurately identify instances of potential malpractice across large volumes of transactions.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Guide: Data Analytics

To determine if loans were granted in accordance with the organization's policies, the most effective approach is to validate a sample of loans against the applicable underwriting guidelines. This method allows the auditor to directly assess compliance with the specific criteria set out in the organization's loan granting policies, providing clear evidence on whether the loans meet the required standards.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Auditing Credit Risk Management

IIA Standard 2210 - Engagement Objectives

According to the IIA’s Implementation Guide for Standard 2340 - Engagement Supervision1, one of the activities that the chief audit executive or the designated engagement supervisor should perform is to review and approve the engagement work program before the commencement of fieldwork. The engagement work program should be based on the engagement objectives, scope, and approach, and should reflect the risks and controls identified during the planning phase. The engagement work program should also be discussed with the engagement team to ensure that they understand the tasks and procedures to be performed, and to address any questions or concerns. The engagement supervisor should document the approval of the work program and any subsequent changes in the workpapers.

When the rate of deviations discovered in the sample equals the tolerable deviation rate, it means that the control is functioning at the level deemed acceptable by the auditor's predefined criteria. This does not necessarily imply that the control is flawless, but rather that its effectiveness meets the minimum standards set by the audit plan. Therefore, the internal auditor can conclude that the control is acceptably effective, but should also note the potential need for improvement.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation

COSO Framework - Control Activities

A draft internal audit report citing deficient conditions should be reviewed with relevant stakeholders to ensure accuracy, address concerns, and plan corrective actions. This includes the client manager and her superior (Option 1) to inform them of the findings and obtain their perspective. It should also be reviewed with anyone who may object to the report’s validity (Option 2) to address potential disagreements or misunderstandings early in the process. Finally, it should include anyone required to take action (Option 3) so they are aware of their responsibilities and can begin planning remediation efforts. While it may be beneficial to review with those who receive the final report (Option 4), it is not essential for the draft stage. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2440 - Disseminating Results.

The role of the CAE includes ensuring that all significant risks, including those related to health and safety, are properly managed. Even though the chief health and safety officer reports directly to the CEO, the CAE should still coordinate with and review the work of this officer to understand and evaluate the management of health and safety risks. This helps ensure a comprehensive risk management approach within the organization and supports the overall assurance framework. It is not appropriate for the CAE to have no role (Option A), report directly to the regulator (Option C), or hire an external specialist annually without internal coordination (Option D).References:

IIA Standard 2010: Planning.

IIA Practice Guide on Coordinating Risk Management and Assurance.

One of the five basic financial statement assertions that an internal auditor evaluates when assessing controls over financial reporting is "existence or occurrence." This assertion verifies that assets, liabilities, and equity interests actually exist at a given date, and that recorded transactions have actually occurred during a given period. It ensures that the financial statements are not overstated through the inclusion of fictitious or erroneous items.

References:

COSO Framework

PCAOB Auditing Standard No. 15: Audit Evidence

Probability-proportional-to-size (PPS) sampling, also known as monetary unit sampling, is most appropriate for measuring the total misstatement in an accounts payable ledger. This method is used to determine the likelihood of individual items being selected based on their size, with larger items having a higher probability of being selected. This is particularly useful in identifying overstatements and misstatements in financial records, such as accounts payable, where the monetary value of transactions is a critical factor.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), Practice Guide – Auditing Sampling.

The appropriate formula to calculate residual risk is (Probability of events) × (Impacts). Residual risk is the risk that remains after controls are implemented to mitigate the inherent risk. It reflects the remaining exposure after considering the effectiveness of existing controls. This formula takes into account the likelihood of an event occurring and the potential impact if it does occur. References: IIA Practice Guide – Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Processes, COSO Framework

To determine the projected misstatement for the population using ratio estimation, the following calculation can be used:

Projected Misstatement=(Sample MisstatementSample Book Value)×Population Book ValueProjected Misstatement=(Sample Book ValueSample Misstatement​)×Population Book Value

Given:

Sample Misstatement = $420,000

Sample Book Value = $12,000,000

Population Book Value = $20,000,000

Projected Misstatement=(420,00012,000,000)×20,000,000Projected Misstatement=(12,000,000420,000​)×20,000,000

Projected Misstatement=0.035×20,000,000=700,000Projected Misstatement=0.035×20,000,000=700,000

Therefore, the projected misstatement is $700,000.

References:

IIA Standards: 2320 - Analysis and Evaluation

IIA Practice Guide: Statistical Sampling

According to IIA guidance, an engagement work program is designed to test the effectiveness of process controls within an organizational process. This involves evaluating whether the controls are adequately designed and operating effectively to mitigate identified risks and achieve the process objectives. The work program outlines the specific procedures and steps auditors will take to gather evidence and assess the controls in place, ensuring that they address the relevant risks and comply with the organization's standards and policies.References:

IIA Standard 2240: Engagement Work Program

IIA Practice Guide: Internal Audit Quality Assurance

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. The policy for granting, modifying, and deleting user access:Correct. Understanding the policy ensures the auditor knows the framework and controls in place.

B. A sample of change request forms:Useful for testing but not as foundational as reviewing the policy.

C. User access reports reviewed by management:This evaluates monitoring but does not establish a baseline understanding of controls.

D. A current listing of system users and employees:Important for reconciliation but secondary to understanding the control framework.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Preliminary Surveys.

Trend analysis is the analytics procedure that an internal auditor would use to compare performance information from one quarter to another. This technique involves analyzing data over a specific period to identify patterns, trends, and changes in performance metrics. Trend analysis helps auditors understand the direction of key performance indicators and assess whether performance is improving, declining, or remaining stable.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Data Analytics Techniques in Internal Auditing

Developing a tracking system to monitor the status of engagement recommendations ensures that the chief audit executive (CAE) can systematically track the progress and implementation of corrective actions. This approach provides continuous assurance that recommendations are being acted upon and allows the CAE to identify and address any delays or issues in the implementation process. It is a proactive strategy that enables regular follow-ups and reporting to senior management, thus maintaining accountability and transparency.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress

In internal auditing, it is crucial to have the necessary skills and expertise to effectively evaluate and assess the area under review. When internal auditors lack the required skills, the chief audit executive (CAE) must take steps to ensure the engagement is performed effectively. Option D suggests bringing in a consultant who is independent of the area under review and has the missing expertise. This approach ensures that the engagement is conducted with the necessary knowledge and objectivity, thus maintaining the quality and integrity of the audit process. Unlike options A and B, which compromise the audit's effectiveness, and option C, which could create conflicts of interest, option D provides an optimal solution.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 1210 - Proficiency and Standard 1220 - Due Professional Care.

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. To better understand and influence executives' planning:Influencing planning is not a primary purpose of networking.

B. To make executives aware of the benefits that the internal audit activity can provide:Correct. Networking ensures executives understand how internal audit can add value.

C. To assist executives in setting the organization’s risk appetite:Risk appetite is primarily a management responsibility.

D. To have a better understanding of the training needed for the audit team:Training needs can be assessed through other means.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain IV: Managing the Internal Audit Function – Stakeholder Engagement.

The primary reason the chief audit executive should consider the organization's strategic plans when developing the annual audit plan is that strategic plans reflect the organization's business objectives and overall attitude toward risk. Understanding the strategic direction of the organization helps the internal audit function align its activities with the key risks and objectives, ensuring that the audit plan is relevant and adds value to the organization by focusing on areas that could impact the achievement of strategic goals.

References:

IIA Standards: 2010 - Planning

IIA Practice Guide: Developing the Internal Audit Strategic Plan

The organization and content of workpapers should be based on the professional judgment of the internal auditor. Workpapers should provide sufficient detail to support the audit findings and conclusions but do not need to answer every conceivable question. Standard 2330 – Documenting Information states that internal auditors must document relevant information to support the conclusions and engagement results. This allows for flexibility and professional judgment in determining what is necessary and appropriate to include.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2330 – Documenting Information.

To increase the deterrent effect of a code of business conduct, it should include appropriate descriptions of penalties for misconduct and notifications that violations may lead to criminal prosecution. These elements clearly communicate the serious consequences of unethical behavior, thus reinforcing the importance of adhering to the code. References: = IIA Practice Guide on "Evaluating Ethics-related Programs and Activities".

According to IIA guidance, internal auditors are typically required to conduct a preliminary risk assessment when planning an assurance engagement to identify key areas of focus. However, for consulting engagements, the need for a preliminary risk assessment is not as stringent, as these engagements are often more flexible and driven by the specific needs of the client. Consulting engagements may not follow the same structured approach as assurance engagements, and the scope may evolve based on the client's requirements.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2201: Planning Considerations requires internal auditors to consider significant risks when planning engagements. However, this standard is more rigidly applied to assurance engagements.

The Practice Advisory 2201-2: Consulting Engagements notes that consulting engagements might not require the same level of preliminary risk assessment, depending on the nature of the engagement and the needs of the client.

A significant governance issue that must be reported to the board is the absence of a formal risk management and control process, with risk management being solely the responsibility of operational managers. Effective governance requires a structured risk management framework overseen at the highest levels of the organization. The lack of such a process indicates a critical deficiency that can have severe implications for the organization's ability to manage and mitigate risks.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2110 – Governance: "The internal audit activity must assess and make appropriate recommendations to improve the organization’s governance processes."

According to the theory of constraints, the performance of any system is constrained by a few bottlenecks or limiting factors. These bottlenecks directly impact the organization's profitability because they limit the system's output, leading to reduced efficiency and effectiveness. Addressing these bottlenecks can lead to significant improvements in throughput, which in turn enhances profitability.

IIA References:

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Risk Management emphasizes understanding how various constraints within processes affect overall performance, including profitability. Bottlenecks are crucial factors that can either limit or boost profitability depending on how they are managed.

If an internal auditor identifies that some employees have inappropriate access to a key system in the early stage of an audit, the best course of action is to issue an interim audit report so that management can implement action plans. This approach ensures that the identified issue is formally communicated to management promptly, allowing them to take immediate corrective action to mitigate the risk. It also documents the auditor's findings and recommendations, providing a clear audit trail and supporting accountability. Obtaining verbal assurance or creating a ticket might address the issue temporarily but lacks the formal documentation and follow-up mechanisms inherent in an interim audit report.

References:

IIA Standard 2440: "Disseminating Results"

IIA Practice Advisory 2440-1: "Communicating Interim Engagement Results"

The chief audit executive (CAE) is accountable for ensuring that adequate support exists for the conclusions and opinions formed by the internal audit activity. When relying on the work of external auditors, the CAE must ensure that the work is sufficient and appropriate to support the internal audit conclusions. This involves reviewing the external auditors' work to confirm its relevance and reliability, and integrating it into the internal audit processes as necessary.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2050 - Coordination and Reliance.

IIA Standard 2340 - Engagement Supervision

The greatest assurance over management's assertions would be provided by evaluating the completeness of the report and management's responses to identified deficiencies. This involves ensuring that all relevant control processes and deficiencies have been identified, and that management has provided appropriate and comprehensive responses to each issue. This step ensures that the internal control assessment is thorough and that management is actively addressing any weaknesses. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2130 - Control.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Assessing the Adequacy of Internal Controls.

An engagement work program is of greatest value to audit management when it helps ensure the achievement of the engagement objectives. The work program outlines the audit procedures and tests that need to be performed to gather sufficient and appropriate evidence to support the audit findings and conclusions. By aligning the work program with the engagement objectives, auditors can focus their efforts on the most critical areas, ensure that all necessary steps are taken, and ultimately achieve the intended outcomes of the audit.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2240 – Engagement Work Program.

The most likely reason the Chief Audit Executive (CAE) decided to prepare an audit memorandum for management of the logistics department is to allow management to address the identified weakness timely. An audit memorandum serves as a formal communication that highlights the issue and provides management with the necessary details to understand and address the control weakness promptly. This approach facilitates immediate corrective action, thereby reducing the risk associated with the identified weakness.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standard 2420 – Quality of Communications: "Communications must be accurate, objective, clear, concise, constructive, complete, and timely."

IIA Practice Guide on "Engagement Communication"

When developing the objectives for an assurance engagement in a newly acquired subsidiary, the most critical items to consider are the organizational strategy, objectives, risks, control framework, and the expectations of stakeholders regarding the audit. This holistic approach ensures that the internal audit aligns with the broader goals and risk management processes of the organization, providing a comprehensive evaluation of the subsidiary's operations within the context of the entire entity.

Organizational Strategy and Objectives: Understanding the overarching goals and strategic direction of the organization helps to align the audit objectives with business priorities and ensures that the subsidiary’s operations are evaluated in the context of their contribution to these goals.

Risks: Identifying and assessing the risks associated with the subsidiary is essential for focusing audit efforts on areas that could significantly impact the organization. This involves understanding both inherent and residual risks.

Control Framework: Evaluating the existing control framework within the subsidiary helps determine the adequacy and effectiveness of controls in mitigating identified risks.

Stakeholder Expectations: Considering what stakeholders expect from the audit helps in shaping objectives that address key concerns and provide valuable insights, fostering greater acceptance and implementation of audit recommendations.

This comprehensive approach ensures the audit is relevant, targeted, and capable of adding significant value to the organization by addressing key risk areas and strategic objectives.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

IIA Practice Guide: Formulating and Expressing Internal Audit Opinions

The focus of the effect section of the preliminary observations document should be on residual risk. Residual risk is the remaining risk after management has taken action to mitigate the inherent risk with controls and other risk responses. Documenting the effect in terms of residual risk helps in understanding the potential impact of the observed issues on the organization if not addressed.

References:

IIA Standards: 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Practice Guide: Communicating the Results of an Audit

Meeting with the procurement card program administrator is a crucial step in identifying relevant risks and controls. This individual can provide detailed insights into how the procurement card program operates, potential risks, existing controls, and any issues or areas of concern. This information is vital for developing a comprehensive understanding of the program and for planning the audit engagement effectively. Actions like comparing card transaction types against policy guidelines, determining cardholder limit exceedances, and developing scope and objectives are important but are typically undertaken after initial risk and control identification.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Guide: Engagement Planning

If a significant error or omission is found in the final audit report, it is crucial for the internal audit activity to correct the information and redistribute the corrected report to all original recipients. This ensures that all stakeholders are informed of the accurate findings and can take appropriate actions based on correct information.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2440: Disseminating Results requires that the internal audit activity communicate accurate and complete results. If an error or omission is identified, the corrected information must be promptly communicated to all relevant parties to maintain the integrity of the audit process.

The Practice Guide on Communicating Results emphasizes that errors in audit reports should be corrected and the revised report should be distributed to ensure stakeholders are acting on accurate information.

Vouching is the manual audit approach that involves testing the validity of a document by following it backward to a previously prepared record. This method helps auditors verify the authenticity and accuracy of transactions by tracing them back to their source documents, such as invoices, receipts, or purchase orders. Vouching is commonly used to detect errors or fraud.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Auditing Techniques and Procedures

In the five-attribute approach to documenting deficiencies, the attribute that answers the question "What should be in place?" is Criteria. Criteria represent the standards, measures, or expectations used in making an evaluation and/or verification (what should be). It defines what the process or control should achieve, serving as a benchmark against which the actual condition (what is) is compared. The criteria are essential for identifying deviations and determining the nature and significance of deficiencies.References: IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating.

According to IIA guidance, the chief audit executive (CAE) is responsible for reviewing and approving the final audit report and determining who will receive it. The CAE ensures that the report is complete, accurate, and disseminated to appropriate parties. Including management's responses in the final report and coordinating post-engagement conferences with management, while important, are not the CAE's primary responsibilities.

References:

IIA Standards: 2440 - Disseminating Results

IIA Practice Guide: Communicating Results to Management and the Board

The CAE has a responsibility to communicate significant risks to the board, particularly when the residual risk exceeds the organization's risk appetite. By communicating with the board, the CAE ensures that the highest level of governance is aware of the risk and can make informed decisions about how to address it. Ignoring the risk, assuming responsibility without authority, or only ensuring senior management's acknowledgment without further action would be insufficient and not in line with the CAE’s duties.

References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Standards

Internal Audit’s Role in Risk Management

When an internal auditor receives a document displaying all the steps of a process and the path taken as transactions flow between each step, the auditor is most likely to use this document to perform an assessment of the adequacy of process controls. This flowchart or process map helps the auditor understand the process, identify key control points, and evaluate whether the existing controls are sufficient to mitigate risks within the process.

References:

IIA Standards: 2201 - Planning the Engagement

IIA Practice Guide: Internal Auditing and Fraud

The primary weakness of internal control questionnaires (ICQs) is that the respondents, who are often managers or personnel responsible for specific areas, may have incentives to indicate that internal controls are in place, even when they might not be effective or fully operational. This can occur due to a desire to present their department in a positive light, avoid scrutiny, or because of misunderstandings about what constitutes a control. This bias in responses can lead to inaccurate assessments of the internal control environment.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2310: Identifying Information and its accompanying guidance highlight the importance of obtaining accurate, reliable, and unbiased information when assessing controls. The potential for biased responses in ICQs is a known risk that can undermine the quality of the audit evidence gathered.

The Practice Guide on Evaluating Internal Controls notes that while ICQs are useful for gathering information, auditors should be aware of the limitations and potential biases inherent in this method.

The purpose of a planning memorandum for an audit engagement, according to IIA guidance, is to document preliminary information that will be useful to the audit team. This includes background information on the area being audited, key risks identified, the scope of the audit, and any initial observations that might impact the audit's focus. The planning memorandum serves as a foundational document that guides the audit team's efforts and ensures that everyone involved in the engagement has a clear understanding of the audit's objectives and context.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2200: Engagement Planning and IIA Standard 2201: Planning Considerations require the preparation of documents that summarize the preliminary planning steps, which are critical to ensuring that the audit is well-focused and aligned with the organization's risks and objectives. The planning memorandum is a key output of this process.

According to IIA guidance, the chief audit executive (CAE) is responsible for evaluating and verifying management's response to audit recommendations. The CAE must also determine the need and scope for additional work based on the adequacy and timeliness of management's corrective actions. This ensures that the audit recommendations are effectively implemented and that any residual risks are appropriately managed. References: IIA Standard 2500 – Monitoring Progress, IIA Practice Advisory 2500.A1-1

The most likely reason the chief risk officer (CRO) chose the workshop approach is that it allows workshop participants to learn while contributing ideas toward the objectives. Workshops facilitate an interactive and collaborative environment where participants can share their insights and experiences. This approach helps in generating innovative solutions and fosters a sense of ownership among participants. It also enables participants to gain a better understanding of the issues at hand and the potential improvements that can be made. References: IIA Practice Guide – Facilitation and Collaboration Techniques, COSO Framework on Risk Management

Nonsampling risk refers to the risk that the auditor reaches an incorrect conclusion due to errors not related to the sample itself but to other factors such as misinterpretation of data, incorrect application of procedures, or human error.

IIA Practice Advisory 2320-3:

This advisory explains that nonsampling risk occurs when an auditor misinterprets results or applies the wrong audit procedure. It differs from sampling risk, which is the risk that a sample is not representative of the population.

Misinterpretation of Sampling Results:

In this case, the senior IT auditor misinterprets the sampling results during the audit of inventory valuation. This is a classic example of nonsampling risk, where the error is due to the auditor’s misunderstanding or misapplication of the data, rather than an issue with the sampling process itself.

IIA Standard 2320 – Analysis and Evaluation:

This standard requires that auditors apply sufficient care and skill in analyzing and interpreting audit evidence. Nonsampling risk can occur if this standard is not met, resulting in incorrect conclusions.

Option A (Sampling risk): This refers to the risk that the sample does not accurately represent the population, which is not the issue here.

Option B (Control risk): This refers to the risk that a control will fail to prevent or detect errors or fraud, unrelated to this situation.

Option D (Residual risk): This refers to the risk that remains after controls are implemented, also unrelated to this scenario.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct as it accurately describes the situation where the auditor misinterprets the sampling results, which is a form of nonsampling risk, according to IIA guidance.

To address the risk of fraud in the cash receipts process, it is essential to ensure that the accounts payable department reconciles all purchasing documents (purchase requisitions, purchase orders, packing slips, and invoices) before making payments. This step helps to detect discrepancies and prevent fraudulent activities, ensuring that payments are made only for legitimate and verified transactions. References:

IIA Standards - 1220: Due Professional Care

IIA Practice Guide - Auditing Accounts Payable: Reducing the Risk of Fraud

In internal auditing, the "condition" of an observation refers to the specific state or situation that has been identified during the audit. It describes what is actually occurring and provides the factual basis for the observation. In this case, the statement "... the subsidiary did not submit required documentation for registration in the prior year." explicitly describes the observed deficiency, which is the failure to submit the necessary documentation. This condition highlights the exact issue that needs to be addressed by management.

References:

IIA Practice Guide: "Audit Documentation"

IIA Standard 2410: "Criteria for Communicating"

Internal control questionnaires (ICQs) are useful tools for internal auditors to guide interviews with auditees. They help ensure that all relevant aspects of internal controls are covered systematically during the interview process. While ICQs can help in evaluating the design and existence of controls, they primarily provide a structured format for gathering information from auditees about controls in place, rather than serving as direct audit evidence themselves. Therefore, they aid in the interview process by ensuring comprehensive coverage of control-related inquiries.References: The IIA's International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations.

To confirm the existence of a specific vehicle selected from the fixed asset register, the best indirect evidence would be to compare the registered details of the vehicle with a date-stamped photograph. This method provides a verifiable form of evidence that the vehicle exists and matches the details recorded in the asset register. It ensures that the vehicle is still in possession of the organization and can be indirectly verified without the need for physical presence at an off-site location.

References:

IIA Practice Guide: "Auditing Fixed Assets"

COSO Internal Control – Integrated Framework

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?

According to IIA guidance, interim reports are typically produced during lengthy audit engagements that involve several organizational units. These reports help keep management informed about the progress of the audit, highlight any significant issues identified early on, and allow for timely corrective actions. Interim reports facilitate communication between the internal audit activity and management, ensuring that any critical issues are addressed promptly rather than waiting for the final report.

References:

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

IIA Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating: "Interim reports may be used to communicate information and issues that require immediate attention."

When preparing a detailed risk assessment during engagement planning, the internal auditor should collaborate with the management of the function being reviewed. Management has the most in-depth knowledge of their business objectives, processes, and the associated risks. This cooperation ensures that the risk assessment is comprehensive, accurate, and relevant to the specific context of the function under review. It also helps in identifying any potential areas of concern that might not be evident to external parties.

References:

IIA Standard 2201: "Planning Considerations"

IIA Practice Guide: "Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Processes"

Preparing a detailed audit program is a critical component of engagement planning. This program outlines the specific procedures and tests that the internal auditor will perform to evaluate the effectiveness of controls. It ensures that the audit is conducted systematically and thoroughly, addressing all relevant risks and objectives. A detailed audit program provides a clear roadmap for the audit, helping to ensure that all necessary areas are covered and that the audit's objectives are achieved.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2201 - Planning Considerations

The statement that the risk management process supports internal audit by evaluating whether critical controls are adequate and effective is true. The risk management process provides a framework for identifying, assessing, and managing risks, and internal audit uses this information to evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of controls in place to mitigate those risks. This support helps internal audit focus on areas of high risk and ensure that controls are functioning as intended.

References:

IIA Standards: 2120 - Risk Management

IIA Practice Guide: Assessing the Adequacy of Risk Management Processes

Step-by-Step Detailed Explanation:

A. Review a random sample of concluded disciplinary reports to assess how the policy was applied in each case:This is the correct answer because reviewing documented reports provides objective evidence of whether decisions complied with policies. This approach ensures that the auditor relies on concrete evidence rather than subjective opinions or observations.

B. Interview a sample of impacted employees for their opinions on the clarity and fairness of the policy:While employee feedback is valuable, it is subjective and does not provide sufficient evidence of compliance with the documented policy.

C. Observe several disciplinary hearings to determine whether they are in compliance with the policy:Observations are limited to current proceedings and do not account for how policies were applied in past cases, making this approach less comprehensive.

D. Conduct an interview to assess the disciplinary hearing chairman’s understanding of the policy and its appropriate use:Interviews provide insight into understanding and intent but do not offer evidence of actual compliance.

CIA Exam Syllabus Reference:

Domain V: Performing Internal Audit Services – Evidence Collection and Assessment Methods.

The chief audit executive (CAE) typically performs several activities following an audit engagement, including reporting follow-up activities to senior management, implementing follow-up procedures to evaluate residual risk, and evaluating the extent of improvements. These activities are crucial to ensure that audit recommendations are properly addressed and that any residual risks are managed effectively. However, determining the costs of implementing the recommendations is not typically a responsibility of the CAE. This task is usually handled by the management of the area being audited, as they have the detailed operational knowledge necessary to accurately estimate these costs. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), specifically Standard 2500 - Monitoring Progress.

The IIA’s Practice Guide on Follow-up Processes.

A finding can be removed from the final audit report if management provides additional information that accurately contradicts the initial findings. This indicates that the initial findings may have been based on incomplete or incorrect information. Disagreements (Option A) or beliefs about the insignificance (Option D) of the finding do not justify removal unless they are supported by new, contradicting evidence. Even if corrective actions are already taken (Option B), the original finding may still be relevant for documentation and historical context.References:

IIA Standard 2410: Criteria for Communicating.

IIA Practice Guide on Communicating Results.

Ensuring the quality of an audit engagement, especially a consulting engagement in a complex area like human resources, requires effective supervision and quality assurance measures. Peer review during fieldwork is a recognized method for maintaining high-quality audit work.

IIA Standard 2340 – Engagement Supervision:

This standard requires that engagements be properly supervised to ensure that objectives are achieved, quality is maintained, and audit work is consistent with IIA standards. Peer reviews during fieldwork can help identify issues early and improve the overall quality of the audit.

Fieldwork Peer Review:

Quality Assurance: Peer reviews involve having another auditor review the work performed during fieldwork. This process helps identify any potential issues or improvements in real-time, ensuring that the final work product meets the required standards.

Continuous Improvement: By incorporating peer reviews, the internal audit activity can ensure that best practices are followed, and any deviations from the standard audit process are corrected promptly.

IIA Practice Advisory 2340-1:

This advisory recommends peer reviews as a method to ensure quality and to provide feedback to auditors on their work, enhancing the effectiveness of the engagement.

Option A (Assign an experienced manager): While supervision is essential, peer reviews provide additional quality checks beyond just monitoring by a manager.

Option C (Standardized work program): This ensures consistency but may not be sufficient to ensure quality without additional review mechanisms.

Option D (CAE personally supervising): This is not the most efficient use of the CAE’s time. Peer review distributes the supervisory load and adds value through diverse perspectives.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option B is correct as it aligns with best practices for quality assurance in internal auditing, particularly in ensuring the effectiveness and efficiency of the engagement through peer reviews during fieldwork.

If a control is found to be poorly designed during the planning stage, testing its operating effectiveness becomes redundant because even a well-implemented but poorly designed control will not achieve its intended objectives. The primary focus should be on redesigning the control to ensure it is effective in mitigating risks. Therefore, the auditor should not have proceeded to test the operational effectiveness of a control that was already deemed poorly designed.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards)

"Auditing: A Risk-Based Approach to Conducting a Quality Audit" by Karla M. Johnstone et al.

For audit evidence to be considered reliable, it must be accurate, truthful, and verifiable. The absence of the bank heading, logo, or address on the bank statements raises concerns about the authenticity and integrity of the documents. Without these elements, there is no assurance that the statements are legitimate and have not been tampered with or falsified. Therefore, this evidence may not be reliable for audit purposes.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards)

"Auditing: A Risk-Based Approach to Conducting a Quality Audit" by Karla M. Johnstone, Audrey A. Gramling, Larry E. Rittenberg

The recognition element of a typical internal audit report should describe a brief synopsis of the process or area under review. This section provides context and background information about the scope and focus of the audit, helping readers understand the subject matter of the audit and its significance within the organization. It sets the stage for the detailed findings and recommendations that follow in the report.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2410 – Criteria for Communicating.

The primary reason for an internal auditor to use a risk and control questionnaire when auditing financial processes is to gain an understanding of the control environment. These questionnaires help auditors identify and evaluate the presence and effectiveness of controls within the financial processes. They provide a structured way to gather information about the control environment, helping auditors understand the organization's risk management and control practices before conducting detailed testing.

References:

IIA Standards: 2201 - Planning Considerations

IIA Practice Guide: Internal Auditing and Fraud

Confirmation letters are generally considered the most reliable source of documentary evidence because they involve direct verification of information with an independent third party. This type of evidence is less prone to bias or manipulation compared to internal documents like policy statements or remittance advices.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2310: Identifying Information requires that internal auditors gather sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to support engagement results. Third-party confirmations, such as confirmation letters, are considered highly reliable because they come from independent sources.

The Practice Guide on Audit Evidence highlights that external confirmations provide strong evidence of the accuracy of the information being audited.

According to IIA guidance, if management refuses to accept audit recommendations and implement corrective actions, the chief audit executive (CAE) has a responsibility to ensure that the audit committee or the board is aware of the unresolved risks. The CAE should escalate the matter to senior management first. If senior management still does not take action, the CAE should then inform the board. This escalation process ensures that the board is fully informed about significant risks that management has decided to accept and can take appropriate action if necessary.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, Standard 2600 - Communicating the Acceptance of Risks

Understanding a business process involves several steps, with determining the process goals being the next logical step after identifying the process. The goals provide context for why the process exists and what it aims to achieve.

IIA Standard 2201 – Planning Considerations:

This standard emphasizes the importance of understanding the objectives and goals of the area under review. Identifying the goals of a business process is crucial for evaluating its effectiveness and alignment with organizational objectives.

Process Goals:

The process goals define the purpose and desired outcomes of the process. Without understanding these goals, an auditor cannot effectively assess whether the process is functioning as intended or if it needs improvement.

IIA Practice Advisory 2201-1:

This advisory suggests that auditors should first understand the objectives (goals) of the process before delving into the details of inputs, activities, and outputs. The goals provide a framework for evaluating the relevance and effectiveness of these elements.

Option A (Determine process outputs): Outputs are important, but they should be understood in the context of the goals they are intended to achieve.

Option B (Determine process inputs): Inputs are the resources used in the process, but their relevance depends on the process goals.

Option C (Determine process activities): Activities are the steps within the process, but they must be aligned with the goals to be meaningful.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option D is correct because understanding the process goals is the next logical step after identifying the process, as it provides the context needed to evaluate all other aspects of the process.

When an internal auditor finds that the incidents of noncompliance exceed the organization's acceptable tolerance level, this should be included in the final engagement report. In this case, the 8 out of 90 desks found with sensitive information represent an 8.9% noncompliance rate, which exceeds the organization's tolerance limit of 4%. Reporting this observation in the final engagement report ensures that management is informed and can take necessary corrective actions to address the noncompliance.

References:

IIA Standards: 2410 - Criteria for Communicating

IIA Practice Guide: Reporting and Monitoring