The primary purpose of documenting audit objectives when preparing for an engagement is to identify areas with relatively high probability of material problems. Audit objectives are statements that describe what the audit intends to accomplish or verify during the engagement. Audit objectives help the IS auditor to focus on the key areas of risk or concern, to design appropriate audit procedures and tests, and to evaluate audit evidence and results. By documenting audit objectives, the IS auditor can identify areas with relatively high probability of material problems that may affect the achievement of audit goals or business objectives.
Addressing the overall risk associated with the activity under review, ensuring maximum use of audit resources during the engagement and prioritizing and scheduling auditee meetings are also purposes of documenting audit objectives, but they are not as primary as identifying areas with high probability of material problems. References:
* CISA Review Manual, 27th Edition, page 1111
* CISA Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Database - 12 Month Subscription

The primary objective of a control self-assessment (CSA) is to educate functional areas on risks and controls. CSA is a technique that allows managers and work teams directly involved in business units, functions or processes to participate in assessing the organization's risk management and control processes1. CSA can help functional areas to obtain a clear and shared understanding of their major activities and objectives, to foster an improved awareness of risk and controls among management and staff, to enhance responsibility and accountability for risks and controls, and to highlight best practices and opportunities to improve business performance2.
The other options are not the primary objective of a CSA. Ensuring appropriate access controls are implemented is a specific type of control that may be assessed by a CSA, but it is not the main goal of the technique. Eliminating the audit risk by leveraging management's analysis is not a realistic or desirable outcome of a CSA, as audit risk can never be completely eliminated, and management's analysis may not be sufficient or reliable without independent verification. Gaining assurance for business functions that cannot be audited is not a valid reason for conducting a CSA, as all business functions should be subject to audit, and a CSA is not a substitute for an audit.
References:
Control Self Assessments - PwC
Control self-assessment - Wikipedia
Control Self Assessment - AuditNet

An IS auditor is analyzing a sample of accounts payable transactions for a specific vendor and identifies one transaction with a value five times as high as the average transaction. The next step that the auditor should do is to request an explanation of the variance from the auditee. This is because the variance may indicate an error, fraud, or an unusual but legitimate transaction that requires further investigation. The auditor should not report the variance immediately to the audit committee without verifying its cause and significance. The auditor should not increase the sample size to 100% of the population without considering the cost-benefit analysis and the sampling methodology. The auditor should not exclude the transaction from the sample population without justification, as itmay affect the validity and reliability of the audit results. References: CISA Review Manual (Digital Version), [ISACA Auditing Standards]

A post-implementation review (PIR) is a process to evaluate whetherthe objectives of the project were met, determine how effectively this wasachieved, learn lessons for the future, and ensure that the organisation gets the most benefit from the implementation of projects1. A PIR is an important tool for assessing the success and value of a project, as well as identifying the areas for improvement and best practices for future projects.
One of the key elements of a PIR is to measure the benefits of the project against the expected outcomes and benefits that were defined at the beginning of the project. Measurable benefits are the quantifiable and verifiable results or outcomes that the project delivers to theorganisation or its stakeholders, such as increased revenue, reduced costs, improved quality, enhanced customer satisfaction, or compliance with regulations2.
Measurable benefits should be aligned with the organisation's strategy, vision, and goals, and should be SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound).
The finding that measurable benefits were not defined is of greatest significance among the four findings, because it implies that:
* The project did not have a clear and agreed-upon purpose, scope, objectives, and deliverables
* The project did not have a valid and realistic business case or justification for its initiation and implementation
* The project did not have a robust and effective monitoring and evaluation mechanism to track its progress, performance, and impact
* The project did not have a reliable and transparent way to demonstrate its value proposition and return on investment to the organisation or its stakeholders
* The project did not have a meaningful and actionable way to learn from its achievements and challenges, and to improve its processes and practices Therefore, an IS auditor should recommend that measurable benefits are defined for any project before its implementation, and that they are reviewed and reported regularly during and after the project's completion.
The other possible findings are:
* A lessons-learned session was never conducted: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A lessons-learned session is a process of capturing and documenting the knowledge, experience, and feedback gained from a project, both positive and negative. A lessons- learned session helps to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the project management process, as well as the best practices and lessons for future projects. A lessons-learned session should be conducted at the end of each project phase or milestone, as well as at the end of the project. However, even without a formal lessons-learned session, some learning may still occur informally or implicitly among the project team members or stakeholders.
* The projects 10% budget overrun was not reported to senior management: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A budget overrun is a situation where the actual cost of a project exceeds its planned or estimated cost. A budget overrun may indicate poor planning, estimation, or control of the project resources, or unexpected changes or risks that occurred during the project implementation. A budget overrun should be reported to senior management as soon as possible, along with the reasons for it and the corrective actions taken or proposed. However, a budget overrun may not necessarily affect the quality or value of the project deliverables or outcomes if they are still within acceptable standards or expectations.
* Monthly dashboards did not always contain deliverables: This is a significant finding, but not as significant as the lack of measurable benefits. A dashboard is a visual tool that displays key performance indicators (KPIs) or metrics related to a project's progress, status, or results. A dashboard helps to monitor and communicate the performance of a project to various stakeholders in a concise and clear manner. A dashboard should include deliverables as one of its components, along with other elements such as schedule, budget, quality, risks, issues, or benefits. However, even without deliverables in monthly dashboards, some information about them may still be available from other sources such as reports or documents.
References: 1: What is Post-Implementation Review in Project Management? 2: The role & importance of the Post Implementation Review