User acceptance testing (UAT) is a type of validation testing that ensures that the product meets the needs and expectations of the end users and the business stakeholders. UAT is usually conducted by the actual or representative users of the product, who perform various scenarios and tasks to verify that the product functions correctly and satisfies the business requirements. UAT is an important step in the software development life cycle, as it helps to identify and resolve any issues or gaps between the product and the requirements before the product is released.
If UAT is not conducted when implementing a new application, the greatest concern is that the application could fail to meet the defined business requirements, which could result in user dissatisfaction, loss of trust, reduced productivity, increased costs, and missed opportunities. The application may have technical defects, security vulnerabilities, or redundant processes, but these are not the primary purpose of UAT. UAT is focused on validating the business value and usability of the product, not the technical quality or security of the product. Therefore, the lack of UAT could have a significant impact on the alignment of the product with the business objectives and user needs.

Section: Volume C
Explanation:
Risk assessment is a process of analyzing the identified risk, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Quantitative risk assessment requires calculations of two components of risk, the magnitude of the potential loss, and the probability that the loss will occur. While qualitatively risk assessment checks the severity of risk. Hence risk assessment helps in determining the present state of the risk.
Incorrect Answers:
B: Analyzing the effect of risk on an enterprise is the part of the process while performing risk assessment, but is not the reason for doing it.
C: Performing risk assessment may satisfy the regulatory requirements, but is not the reason to perform risk assessment.
D: Budgeting appropriately is one the results of risk assessment but is not the reason for performing the risk assessment.

The FIRST thing that should be done when a KRI has remained below its established trigger point for an extended period of time is to recommend a re-evaluation of the current threshold of the KRI, because it may indicate that the trigger point is set too high or too low, or that the KRI is not relevant or effective in measuring the risk exposure. A re-evaluation of the current threshold of the KRI may result in adjusting the trigger point, changing the KRI, or removing the KRI. The other options are not the first thing that should be done, because:
* Option B: Notifying management that KRIs are being effectively managed is not the first thing that
* should be done, because it may not reflect the true risk status and performance. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not be a valid or reliable indicator of the risk exposure, and it may not capture the changes or trends in the risk environment.
* Option C: Updating the risk rating associated with the KRI in the risk register is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not be accurate or consistent. A risk rating is based on the likelihood and impact of the risk, and it should be derived from a comprehensive risk analysis, not just from a single KRI. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not reflect the actual likelihood and impact of the risk, and it may not be aligned with the other risk indicators and assessments.
* Option D: Updating the risk tolerance and risk appetite to better align to the KRI is not the first thing that should be done, because it may not be appropriate or feasible. Risk tolerance and risk appetite are the acceptable level of risk exposure and variation that the enterprise is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives, and they are determined by the executive management and the board of directors, based on the enterprise's strategy and goals. A KRI that remains below its trigger point for a long time may not represent the desired or optimal level of risk exposure and variation, and it may not be aligned with the enterprise's strategy and goals. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 121.