The most helpful way to mitigate the risk associated with an application under development not meeting business objectives is to include key stakeholders in the review of user requirements, because this ensures that the application is designed and developed according to the needs and expectations of the end users and the business owners. Including key stakeholders in the review of user requirements also helps to avoid scope creep, requirement changes, or miscommunication that may affect the quality, functionality, or usability of the application. The other options are not the most helpful ways to mitigate the risk, although they may also be useful in reducing the likelihood or impact of the risk. Identifying threats that may compromise enterprise architecture (EA), including diverse business scenarios in user acceptance testing (UAT), and performing risk assessments during the business case development stage are examples of preventive or detective controls that aim to identify and address the potential issues or problems that may arise during the application development process, but they do not address the alignment of the application with the business objectives. References
= CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

A risk response action plan is a document that specifies the actions to be taken to address the identified risks, the resources required, the timelines, the owners, and the expected outcomes. The risk response action plan should be aligned with the enterprise's risk appetite and tolerance, and should be approved by the relevant stakeholders. The best way to ensure the implementation of an effective risk response action plan is to assign clear roles and responsibilities to the individuals or groups who will execute the actions, monitor the progress, and report the results. This will help to avoid confusion, ambiguity, duplication, or omission of tasks, and will ensure accountability and ownership of the risk responses. The other options are not as directly related to the implementation of the risk response action plan, although they may be involved in some aspects of it. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1.1, pp. 121-122.

The person who should be accountable for resolving the situation where a root cause analysis indicates a major service disruption due to a lack of competency of newly hired IT system administrators is the chief information officer (CIO). The CIO is the senior executive who is responsible for the overall management and governance of the IT function within the organization, including the IT strategy, objectives, policies, processes, and resources. The CIO is also accountable for the performance and value of the IT services and systems, and for ensuring that they meet the needs and expectations of the business and its stakeholders. The CIO should be accountable for resolving the situation, because it involves a major IT service disruption that could affect the organization's operations and reputation, and because it is related to the IT staff competency and capability, which are under the CIO's authority and responsibility. The other options are not as accountable as the CIO, although they may have some roles or involvement in the situation. The HR training director, the business process owner, and the HR recruitment manager are not directly responsible for the IT function or the IT service delivery, and they may not have the authority or the expertise to resolve the situation. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.1.1, page 2-
3.

* Business Impact Analysis (BIA):
* Objective: The primary objective of a BIA is to identify and evaluate the effects of disruptions on business operations. This includes determining the criticality of IT assets that support key business processes.
* Risk Mitigation: By identifying critical IT assets, organizations can prioritize risk mitigation efforts to ensure that key business processes remain operational during and after disruptions.
* Appropriate IT Risk Mitigation:
* Critical Asset Identification: Knowing which IT assets are essential allows for targeted risk mitigation strategies. This ensures resources are allocated efficiently to protect the most important systems.
* Impact Assessment: Understanding the impact of potential disruptions on critical IT assets helps in developing effective disaster recovery and continuity plans.
* Comparison with Other Options:
* Validating Critical IT Risk: While important, this is typically part of a broader BIA process rather than its primary objective.
* Assigning Accountability for IT Risk: This is crucial for governance but does not directly enable risk mitigation actions.
* Defining IT Risk-aware Culture: Important for overall risk management but does not directly influence specific mitigation actions.
* Best Practices:
* Detailed Asset Inventory: Maintain an up-to-date inventory of IT assets and their dependencies on business processes.
* Regular Updates and Reviews: Continuously update the BIA to reflect changes in the IT environment and business processes.
References:
* CRISC Review Manual: Emphasizes the role of BIA in identifying critical IT assets and supporting risk mitigation strategies .
* ISACA Standards: Outline the importance of aligning IT risk management with business continuity planning through effective BIAs .

Artificial intelligence (AI) solutions can offer significant benefits to an organization, such as improved efficiency, accuracy, and innovation. However, AI also poses new challenges and risks that need to be considered and addressed by senior management. Some of these risks include:
* Ethical and social risks: AI solutions may have unintended or undesirable impacts on human values, rights, and behaviors, such as privacy, fairness, accountability, and transparency. For example, AI systems may exhibit bias, discrimination, or manipulation, or may infringe on personal data or autonomy.
* Technical and operational risks: AI solutions may have vulnerabilities, errors, or failures that affect their performance, reliability, or security. For example, AI systems may be subject to hacking, tampering, or misuse, or may malfunction or produce inaccurate or harmful outcomes.
* Legal and regulatory risks: AI solutions may have unclear or conflicting legal or regulatory implications or obligations, such as liability, compliance, or governance. For example, AI systems may raise questions about ownership, responsibility, or accountability, or may violate existing laws or regulations, or create new ones.
Therefore, a risk practitioner should communicate to senior management that AI potentially introduces new types of risk that need to be identified, assessed, and managed in alignment with the organization's objectives, values, and risk appetite. References = ISACA CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.2, page 113.