Isaca CGEIT - Certified in the Governance of Enterprise IT Exam

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

The CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition, in its Governance of Enterprise IT domain, addresses ethical governance and policy enforcement. When ethical violations occur, the first step is to conduct a root cause analysis to identify why policies failed (e.g., lack of oversight, inadequate controls) and remediate based on findings. This ensures targeted solutions, such as enhanced monitoring or training. The manual likely references COBIT 2019’s MEA03-Managed Compliance with External Requirements, which includes root cause analysis for governance issues.

Option A: Revise policies is premature without understanding the cause.

Option C: Document CSFs is unrelated to addressing violations.

Option D: Strict penalties may deter but don’t address underlying issues.

Double Verification: The answer aligns with COBIT’s MEA03 and the CGEIT domain’s focus on ethical governance. Root cause analysis is a standard ISACA response to policy failures.

ISACA CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition, Domain 1: Governance of Enterprise IT (focus on ethical governance).

COBIT 2019, MEA03-Managed Compliance with External Requirements.

ISACA Glossary (for definitions of root cause analysis), available at https://www.isaca.org/resources/glossary.

Developing an IT risk management framework begins with aligning it to the enterprise risk management (ERM) framework. This ensures consistency across all organizational risk domains and supports the integration of IT risk into the broader enterprise risk strategy. The ERM provides a foundation for identifying, assessing, and managing IT risks in a way that aligns with the organization's overall objectives. Promoting a culture of risk awareness, while critical, is a subsequent step once the framework is defined. References: COBIT 2019 Risk Management Process, CGEIT Exam Manual.

Collaborative tools and approachesenable integrated reporting, real-time data collection, and cross-functional analysis, which are crucial for measuring complex ESG metrics. These tools foster participation from different departments (HR, compliance, sustainability) and ensure that insights are holistic and timely.

While audit oversight provides governance validation and benchmarking offers external comparison,collaborative systems facilitate the ongoing operational visibility needed to manage ESG performance proactively.

 Engaging stakeholders to identify and validate business requirements is the best way to improve the success rate of future IT initiatives. Stakeholders are the individuals or groups who have an interest or influence in the IT initiatives, such as business users, customers, managers, sponsors, etc. Engaging stakeholders can help:

Understand the needs, expectations, and priorities of the stakeholders, and ensure that they are aligned with the business objectives and strategy

Define and document the business requirements that specify what the IT initiatives should deliver in terms of functionality, quality, performance, and value

Validate and verify that the business requirements are clear, complete, consistent, feasible, and testable

Communicate and manage any changes or issues that may affect the business requirements or the IT initiatives

Engaging stakeholders to identify and validate business requirements can help avoid missing key functionality in the corporate applications, and ensure that they meet the stakeholder’s needs and expectations. This can also reduce the reliance on spreadsheets and databases as alternative software solutions, and increase the user satisfaction and adoption of the enterprise applications.

The other options are not the best way to improve the success rate of future IT initiatives. Engaging the business user community in acceptance testing of acquired applications is a good practice, but it is not sufficient to ensure that the applications have the key functionality that meets the business requirements. Acceptance testing is done at the end of the IT initiative lifecycle, after the applications have been developed or acquired. If the business requirements were not properly identified and validated at the beginning of the IT initiative lifecycle, acceptance testing may reveal significant gaps or defects that may be costly or difficult to fix. Establishing a process for risk and value management is a useful technique, but it does not directly address the issue of missing key functionality in the corporate applications. Risk and value management involves identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and treating the risks and benefits associated with IT initiatives. However, without clear and valid business requirements, risk and value management may not be effective or accurate. Prohibiting the use of non-approved alternate software solutions is a restrictive measure, but it does not solve the problem of missing key functionality in the corporate applications. Prohibiting the use of spreadsheets and databases may force the users to use the enterprise applications, but it may also create dissatisfaction, frustration, or resistance among them. Moreover, it may prevent them from performing their tasks efficiently or effectively if the enterprise applications do not meet their needs.

For more information on engaging stakeholders to identify and validate business requirements, you can refer to these web sources:

Stakeholder Engagement - ISACA

Business Requirements - ISACA

Requirements Validation - ISACA

 A common risk management taxonomy is a set of terms and definitions that are used consistently across the enterprise to describe, measure, and report on risks. A common risk management taxonomy is essential for integrating IT risk with the ERM framework, as it enables a common understanding of risk concepts, categories, and levels among different stakeholders and functions. A common risk management taxonomy also facilitates the aggregation and comparison of risks across the enterprise, and supports the alignment of risk appetite and tolerance with business objectives12. References: 1: Integrated Enterprise IT Risk Management (ERM) Programs - CohnReznick3 2: Introducing Risk Taxonomy - ISACA4

In an international, multi-division enterprise, a consistent risk management methodology ensures that risks are analyzed uniformly across divisions, enabling comparability and enterprise-wide prioritization. The CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition emphasizes the importance of a standardized approach to risk management in complex organizations.

Extract from CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition (Domain 3: Risk Optimization):"In multi-division or international enterprises, a consistent risk management methodology is critical to ensure that risks are assessed and prioritized uniformly across the organization. This enables aggregation of risks and alignment with enterprise-wide objectives." (Approximate reference: Domain 3, Section on Enterprise Risk Management)

Using a consistent risk management methodology (option D) ensures that all divisions apply the same criteria, processes, and tools, facilitating a cohesive risk profile and effective decision-making.

Why not the other options?

A. Risk management methodologies are aligned with local best practices: Local alignment may lead to inconsistencies across divisions, undermining enterprise-wide risk management.

B. IT senior managers perform the analysis: While senior managers may be involved, the methodology itself is more important than who performs the analysis.

C. Risk scenarios are compartmentalized by division: Compartmentalization may prevent a holistic view of enterprise risks, reducing effectiveness.

Incorporating IT planning into the enterprise strategic planning processensures that IT initiatives are aligned from the beginning with enterprise goals. This proactive alignment allows IT to anticipate future business needs, allocate resources in advance, and reduce reaction time to strategic shifts.

While portfolio management and representation in reviews improve execution and oversight, true proactive value comes fromstrategic integration—ensuring IT is part of the planning conversation rather than reacting post-factum.

This is because an information steward is a person or group who is accountable for the quality, integrity, and usability of the information assets within a specific domain or function1. The responsibilities of an information steward include the following1:

Defining and enforcing data quality standards, policies, and procedures

Monitoring and measuring data quality performance and outcomes

Identifying and resolving data quality issues and errors

Collaborating with data owners, custodians, analysts, and users to ensure data quality alignment and improvement

Educating and training data stakeholders on data quality best practices and tools

An information steward plays a key role in ensuring that the information assets are accurate, complete, consistent, reliable, and fit for purpose1.

The other options, information custodian, information analyst, and information owner are not directly responsible for information quality. They are more involved in the creation, storage, access, and use of information assets, rather than their quality2. They may also have different perspectives and interests than the information steward regarding the information quality. For example, the information custodian may focus on the security and availability of information assets, while the information analyst may focus on the analysis and interpretation of information assets. The information owner may focus on the value and benefits of information assets. Therefore, they may not have the same authority or responsibility as the information steward for ensuring information quality. References := What Is an Information Steward? | Informatica, Data Roles: Data Owner vs Data Steward vs Data Custodian

A release and deployment plan outlines structured activities to transition new applications into production. It includes monitoring, testing, fallback procedures, and risk identification mechanisms—helping identify and address potential issues early.

While UAT and risk updates are helpful, and configurations ensure consistency, a formal release and deployment plan is the most comprehensive tool for early issue detection and delivery assurance.

The best way to ensure that security risk is properly addressed when implementing an information security policy exception process is to confirm process owners’ acceptance of residual risk. Residual risk is the risk that remains after applying controls or mitigating measures to reduce the original risk1. Process owners are the individuals or groups that are responsible for the design, execution, and performance of a business process2. By confirming process owners’ acceptance of residual risk, the enterprise can ensure that the security risk associated with the policy exception is understood, acknowledged, and agreed upon by the relevant stakeholders. This can also help to assign accountability and liability for the potential consequences of the policy exception, as well as to monitor and review the risk level and the effectiveness of the controls or mitigating measures. The other options are not as effective as confirming process owners’ acceptance of residual risk for ensuring that security risk is properly addressed when implementing an information security policy exception process. Performing an internal and external network penetration test is a useful technique for identifying and exploiting vulnerabilities in the network infrastructure, but it does not address the specific security risk related to the policy exception. Obtaining IT security approval on security policy exceptions is a necessary step for validating and authorizing the policy exception, but it does not ensure that the process owners are aware of and accept the residual risk. Benchmarking policy against industry best practice is a good practice for comparing and improving the policy quality and performance, but it does not address the security risk associated with the policy exception.

Demonstrating adequate strategic oversight of IT by the board involves providing transparent, formal, and authoritative evidence to stakeholders, particularly for a publicly traded enterprise. The CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition highlights that IT governance reporting in official documents, such as the annual report, is a key mechanism to communicate the board’s oversight role to shareholders, regulators, and other stakeholders.

Extract from CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition (Domain 1: Governance of Enterprise IT):"The board of directors is responsible for ensuring that IT governance is aligned with enterprise objectives and that oversight is transparent to stakeholders. Including IT governance reporting in the annual report provides a formal mechanism to demonstrate accountability, strategic alignment, and oversight to shareholders and regulatory bodies." (Approximate reference: Domain 1, Section on Governance Framework and Reporting)

Including IT governance reporting in the annual report (option C) directly addresses the need to demonstrate board oversight in a formal, public, and credible manner, as it reaches shareholders and regulators who expect such disclosures in official financial and governance documents.

Why not the other options?

A. Annual IT governance communication to all staff: Internal communication to staff is important for alignment but does not directly demonstrate board oversight to external stakeholders like investors or regulators.

B. Press releases targeted at large investors: Press releases are informal and may lack the credibility and permanence of an annual report. They are not a standard mechanism for governance reporting.

D. Annual presentation of IT performance metrics: While performance metrics are useful, a presentation is typically internal or limited in scope and does not provide the formal, public disclosure required to demonstrate board oversight.

Alignment with the enterprise risk management (ERM) frameworkis the top priority when developing IT risk management policies. This ensures that IT risk is not managed in a silo but is integrated into the broader enterprise risk posture, decision-making processes, and governance.

While corporate culture and best practices are influential, and goals and objectives shape strategy,only the ERM framework provides the structured foundation for aligning IT risk with enterprise-wide risk management.

According to the web search results, IT change management is the process of tracking and managing a change throughout its entire life cycle, from start to closure, with the aim to minimize risk1. One of the steps in the IT change management process is to collect and analyze data, quantify gaps and understand resistance, and modify the plan as needed2. The final step in completing the changes to IT processes is to ensure a return to stabilized business operations, which means that the change has been successfully implemented and the expected benefits have been realized3. This step also involves closing the change request, documenting the lessons learned, and celebrating the achievements4.

The other options are not the final step in completing the changes to IT processes, but rather intermediate steps that occur before or during the change implementation. Updating the configuration management database (CMDB) is a step that occurs during the change implementation, as it involves recording and tracking the changes made to the IT assets and services. Empowering the business to embrace the changes is a step that occurs before and during the change implementation, as it involves providing communication, training, and support to help the stakeholders adopt and adapt to the changes. Updating the enterprise architecture (EA) is a step that occurs before or during the change implementation, as it involves aligning the IT strategy, processes, and systems with the business goals and requirements.

The greatest consideration when evaluating whether to comply with new carbon footprint regulations impacted by blockchain technology is the enterprise's risk appetite. This involves understanding the level of risk the organization is willing to accept in relation to the potential environmental impact and regulatory compliance requirements associated with blockchain technology. The organization's risk appetite guides decision-making processes, influencing whether to invest in more sustainable practices or technologies, or to accept the risks associated with non-compliance. While the organizational structure, IT process capability maturity, and the IT strategic plan are relevant, the risk appetite is the key factor in determining the approach to compliance with environmental regulations.

Implementing a business intelligence (BI) tool requires integrating data from multiple enterprise applications, and the greatest challenge is often ensuring that data definitions and mappings are consistent and accurate. The CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition notes that data integration, particularly defining and mapping data sources, is a critical hurdle in BI projects due to varying data formats, structures, and semantics across systems.

Extract from CGEIT Review Manual 8th Edition (Domain 5: Benefits Realization):"The success of business intelligence initiatives depends heavily on the quality and consistency of data. Data definition and mapping from disparate enterprise applications is often the greatest challenge, as inconsistencies in data formats, structures, and meanings can lead to inaccurate insights and project delays." (Approximate reference: Domain 5, Section on Data Management for BI)

Data definition and mapping sources from applications (option D) is the greatest challenge because it involves resolving differences in how data is structured, labeled, and interpreted across systems, which is foundational to BI success.

Why not the other options?

A. Interface issues between enterprise and BI applications: Interface issues are technical but typically less challenging than data mapping, as they can often be addressed with middleware or APIs.

B. The need for staff to be trained on the new BI tool: Training is a manageable challenge that occurs post-implementation and is not as critical as data integration.

C. Large volumes of data fed from enterprise applications: While large data volumes pose a challenge, modern BI tools are designed to handle big data, making data mapping the more significant issue.