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

According to the IIA guidance, when determining the need to follow-up on recommendations, the internal audit activity should consider factors such as the degree of effort and cost needed to correct the reported condition, the complexity of the corrective action, and the impact that may result should the corrective action fail. These factors are critical in assessing the importance and urgency of follow-up. However, the amount of resources required to conduct the follow-up activities should not be a primary consideration, as the focus should be on the significance of the issues and the potential risks associated with them. References: IIA Standard 2500 – Monitoring Progress, IIA Practice Advisory 2500.A1-1

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?

ï‚· Non-Assurance Engagements: Non-assurance engagements focus on advisory and consulting services rather than providing an independent assessment. These engagements aim to add value by offering insights and recommendations to management.

ï‚· Objective Characteristics:

Informing Management: Providing information on potential risks and advising on risk management strategies is typical for non-assurance engagements. This helps management make informed decisions and manage risks effectively.

Assessment and Compliance: Options A, C, and D are more aligned with assurance engagements, where the internal audit activity provides an independent assessment or ensures compliance with policies and procedures.

ï‚· IIA Guidance:

Standard 2120 – Risk Management: Internal auditors must evaluate and contribute to the improvement of risk management processes, often through advisory services in non-assurance roles.

ï‚· References:

Non-assurance engagements focus on informing and advising management about risks, improvements, and strategic decisions, as exemplified by informing management about risks related to moving the data warehouse to a third-party cloud server​​​​.

ï‚· Role of CAE as Consultant: The chief audit executive (CAE) can act as a consultant to help management establish a risk management system. Their role should be facilitative rather than directive, ensuring that management owns the risk management process.

ï‚· Appropriate Tasks:

Risk Workshops: Coordinating and facilitating risk workshops (option A) helps management identify and assess risks, allowing them to develop appropriate responses. This is a suitable task for the CAE.

Risk Appetite and Indicators: Establishing risk appetite (option B) and setting risk indicators and mitigation plans (option C) are management's responsibilities.

Reporting Risks: Determining the number of significant risks to report (option D) should also be a management function.

The primary reason for interviewing operational management during engagement planning is to understand the objectives of the area or process under review. This ensures that the audit aligns with business goals and assesses the relevance of internal controls.

Validating the engagement work program (A) occurs later in the planning process.

Assessing management’s knowledge of risks and controls (C) is important but not the primary purpose of interviews.

Reviewing past action plans (D) is relevant for follow-up audits, not initial engagement planning.

The scenario highlights that byproducts (normally waste) have market value and can also be purchased by employees at negligible cost. This creates a perverse incentive for production staff to increase production losses intentionally, since greater loss produces more byproducts available for resale or employee benefit. This risk directly affects internal controls and fraud risk assessment.

Options B, C, and D are not supported by the scenario. The most relevant engagement risk is Option A.

According to IIA guidance, sufficient and reliable information is characterized by the ability to reach consistent audit conclusions regardless of who performs the audit. This means that the information collected during the audit is adequate, factual, and well-documented so that different auditors would be able to draw the same conclusions based on the evidence. Consistency in audit conclusions enhances the reliability and credibility of the audit process.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) Practice Guide: Quality Assurance and Improvement Program

IIA Standard 2310 - Identifying Information

IIA Standard 2330 - Documenting Information

ISO 31000 Context: ISO 31000 provides guidelines on risk management, emphasizing the importance of understanding the external context.

External Context: This includes external factors such as regulatory and competitive environments that can impact the organization’s risk profile.

Regulatory Environment: Understanding regulations helps the organization ensure compliance and avoid legal risks.

Competitive Environment: Analyzing the competitive environment allows the organization to anticipate market changes and manage competitive risks.