Pass the IIA CIA IIA-CIA-Part2 Questions and answers with ExamsMirror

Herzberg's Two-Factor Theory, also known as the Motivation-Hygiene Theory, distinguishes between motivators and hygiene factors. Motivators, which are related to job content, lead to higher job satisfaction and are intrinsic factors such as achievement, recognition, responsibility, and advancement. In contrast, hygiene factors, which are related to job context (e.g., salary, status, work conditions), do not lead to higher satisfaction but can cause dissatisfaction if missing.

Herzberg's research indicated that motivators like responsibility and advancement are more frequently mentioned by employees as sources of job satisfaction compared to hygiene factors like salary and status​​.

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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

While professional experience and judgment are important, conclusions in internal audit must be supported by objective, sufficient, and reliable evidence (Standard 2310). Merely believing that bid prices are too high is not enough. The auditor must provide substantiated and comparative evidence (C) — such as market benchmarks, independent price analyses, or comparisons with similar tenders — to justify the conclusion. A description of policies (A) or tender process summaries (B) provide context but do not prove overpricing. An impact analysis (D) highlights consequences but does not establish whether prices were indeed unreasonable. Therefore, the correct requirement is to gather and document comparative evidence that supports the auditor’s professional judgment.

Introduction:

When a compensating control is not considered, it can affect various aspects of the audit findings and conclusions.

Impact on Workpapers:

Effect of the Control Weakness: The impact of the control weakness needs to be reassessed considering the compensating control.

Conclusion on the Control Weakness: The overall conclusion about the severity of the control weakness may change.

Recommendation for the Control Weakness: Recommendations may need to be adjusted based on the new assessment.

Options Analysis:

Option A: Includes the effect, cause, and conclusion, but the cause might not change if it remains relevant regardless of compensating controls.

Option B: Includes the effect, cause, and recommendation, but the cause might not change.

Option C: The effect, conclusion, and recommendation would likely need adjustments.

Option D: Includes cause, conclusion, and recommendation, but the cause might remain unchanged.

Conclusion:

The sections of the workpapers that most likely require changes are the effect of the control weakness, the conclusion on the control weakness, and the recommendation for the control weakness.

Internal Audit Standards and Practice Guides

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.

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

COSO Framework - Control Activities and Monitoring

According to the International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing, the final audit report should be distributed to those responsible for the functions being audited (audit client management) and to those who oversee or are accountable for the audit function (executive management). Additionally, the chief audit executive (CAE) can approve distribution to other relevant stakeholders as necessary. This ensures that all relevant parties are informed and can take appropriate action based on the audit findings. References:

IIA Standards - 2410: Criteria for Communicating

IIA Practice Guide - Communication with the Board

Current ratio (A) measures general liquidity (Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities).

Quick ratio (C) (Quick Assets ÷ Current Liabilities) excludes inventory and prepaid expenses, giving a more immediate liquidity measure.

Profit margin (B) measures profitability, and times interest earned (D) measures solvency.

Thus, the best measure of immediate liquidity is the quick ratio (C).

 Conducting a documented skills assessment helps in identifying the existing competencies and any gaps within the internal audit team.

 Post-audit surveys can provide feedback on the performance and areas for improvement, which can be used to further refine the skills and competencies of the audit staff (Ref: [16†source])

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

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

To evaluate the project manager’s effectiveness at controlling costs, the auditor should verify whether payments are properly authorized, valid, and consistent with agreements. The most direct test is to track a sample of project payments (B) from accounts payable back to contracts and authorizations. This demonstrates whether project expenditures were controlled and aligned with agreements. Bank reconciliations (A) are unrelated to project-level cost control. Validating feasibility model assumptions (C) relates to project planning, not ongoing cost control. Checking budget approval timing (D) relates to compliance but not cost management effectiveness. Therefore, Option B best aligns with the engagement objective.

For a one-person audit function, the primary focus is on ensuring that there is a clear understanding of the audit policies and procedures without the need for extensive documentation. According to the IIA's guidance, a memorandum stating the policies and procedures would suffice for a one-person audit function, providing a concise yet comprehensive outline of the necessary protocols to follow. This approach ensures that the sole auditor has clear directives while avoiding the administrative burden of maintaining a more extensive manual that might be necessary for larger audit teams.

The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) - Practice Advisory 2040-1: Policies and Procedures

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.

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.

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.

The guidelines for preparing audit engagement workpapers emphasize clarity, completeness, and accuracy to ensure that they can be easily understood and used by others within the auditing function.

Option A: Workpapers should be understandable to the auditor in charge and the chief audit executive.

While workpapers must indeed be clear to the auditor in charge and the chief audit executive, this guideline does not fully capture the broader requirement for understandability to other auditors.

Option B: Workpapers should be understandable to the audit client and the board.

Although transparency with the audit client and the board is important, workpapers are primarily internal documents used to support the audit process and conclusions.

Option C: Workpapers should be understandable to another internal auditor who was not involved in the engagement.

This is the most comprehensive requirement, ensuring that any internal auditor, even if not originally involved, can review the workpapers, understand the procedures performed, and the conclusions reached. This is crucial for maintaining continuity, quality control, and facilitating reviews or future audits.

Option D: Workpapers should be understandable to external auditors and regulatory agencies.

While external auditors and regulatory agencies may review workpapers, the primary audience is internal auditors, who need to ensure the workpapers are detailed and clear enough for effective internal use and review.