IIA IIA-CIA-Part2 - Practice of Internal Auditing

The planning phase is crucial for any audit engagement and must be completed and approved before starting fieldwork. This ensures that the engagement has a clear scope, objectives, and methodology, which are necessary for conducting an effective and efficient audit. Without proper planning, the audit team may miss critical areas or waste resources on low-priority risks.

IIA References:

IIA Standard 2200: Engagement Planning requires that internal auditors develop and document a plan for each engagement, including the engagement’s objectives, scope, timing, and resource allocations, before starting fieldwork.

The Practice Guide on Planning emphasizes that completing and approving the planning phase ensures that all necessary preparations are made, and potential risks are identified and mitigated before fieldwork begins.

When an internal auditor identifies a major control weakness during a preliminary survey, the appropriate response is to bring it to the attention of the process owner for resolution. This approach aligns with the standards and guidelines provided by the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), particularly under the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards).

IIA Standard 2120 – Risk Management:

According to Standard 2120, the internal auditor must evaluate the effectiveness of the organization's risk management processes. Identifying and reporting control weaknesses is a key aspect of this evaluation. By bringing the issue to the attention of the process owner, the internal auditor ensures that those responsible for managing the process are aware of the risk and can take appropriate corrective actions.

IIA Standard 2060 – Reporting to Senior Management and the Board:

While it might seem logical to report directly to senior management (as option A suggests), the IIA recommends that the process owner be given the opportunity to address the issue first. Standard 2060 emphasizes that significant risk exposures and control issues should be reported to senior management and the board, but only after they have been discussed with the appropriate process owners.

IIA Standard 2440 – Disseminating Results:

According to Standard 2440, the communication of audit results should be consistent with the objectives of the audit engagement. It is good practice to inform the process owner promptly so they can address the issue before the audit report is finalized. This approach helps in mitigating the risk at an early stage and ensures that the control weaknesses are appropriately managed.

Ethical Considerations:

The IIA’s Code of Ethics requires internal auditors to act with integrity and to ensure that their communications are honest and constructive. Notifying the process owner immediately reflects a proactive and ethical approach to audit findings. It allows for timely corrective actions and demonstrates the auditor's commitment to improving the organization's control environment.

Option A (Issue a final report to senior management): This step is premature at this stage of the audit. Issuing a final report without allowing the process owner to address the issue could lead to unnecessary escalation and may undermine the collaborative nature of the audit process.

Option C (Note the control weakness for discussion during the exit meeting): While discussing the issue during the exit meeting is part of the process, it is more effective to address the control weakness immediately rather than waiting until the exit meeting, where valuable time might be lost.

Option D (Carry out an investigation for disciplinary action): This is beyond the internal auditor's scope unless the situation specifically warrants an investigation. The focus of the auditor should be on control improvements rather than disciplinary measures, which are typically managed by HR or legal departments.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?

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

For a consulting engagement, planning typically occurs after the engagement objectives and scope have already been determined. In consulting engagements, the objectives and scope are usually agreed upon with the client at the outset, and planning activities then focus on how to achieve these objectives within the defined scope.

The step that would accomplish the objective of testing management's identification and prioritization of critical data collected by the organization is to document and test a data inventory and classification program by determining the data classification levels and framework. This involves verifying that management has established a comprehensive data inventory and that data classification processes are in place and effectively implemented. It ensures that data is appropriately categorized based on its criticality and sensitivity, aligning with the organization’s risk management framework and data governance policies.References: IIA's Global Technology Audit Guide (GTAG) on Data Privacy and Protection, which outlines best practices for data classification and management.

The most effective management action to prevent similar issues in the future involves both corrective and preventive measures. Coaching the IT specialist addresses the immediate knowledge gap and mistake that occurred. Introducing a secondary control, such as a review or verification step, ensures that future access requests are granted correctly, thereby preventing similar errors. This combination addresses the root cause and adds a layer of assurance. References:

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

"IT Control Objectives for Sarbanes-Oxley" (IT Governance Institute)

An internal control questionnaire (ICQ) is a tool used by auditors to gather detailed information about the internal control system of an audited area. The primary purpose of an ICQ is to identify and assess risks that could prevent the area from achieving its objectives. By systematically covering various control points, the questionnaire helps the auditor evaluate the adequacy and effectiveness of controls in place and identify areas where controls may be lacking or need improvement.References:

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Guide: Internal Control Questionnaire

In the initial risk assessment phase, it is critical for the internal auditor to understand the current policies and procedures in place. By obtaining the most current approved copies of the organization's privacy policy, the auditor can assess whether these policies are in compliance with privacy laws and are effectively implemented. This approach provides a solid foundation for understanding the existing controls and identifying areas where there may be gaps or weaknesses. Consulting with legal counsel or a specialist can be subsequent steps if further expertise is needed, but understanding the internal policies is the primary and essential first step.References:

Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA), International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2210 – Engagement Objectives.

Entity-level controls provide the foundation for effective process controls. If these controls are poorly designed, they can undermine the effectiveness of process-level controls (COSO Framework, 2013). Internal auditors assess entity-level controls during risk assessments, as emphasized in CIA Part 2 (Section II). Option A is incorrect as auditors prioritize high-risk controls rather than all controls. Options C and D contradict best practices in engagement planning (Standard 2200), which encourage transparency and comprehensive evaluation of key risks.

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?