The greatest concern with the situation of combining the second and third lines of defense in a new department that reports to a recently appointed C-level executive is that the independence of the internal third line of defense may be compromised. The second line of defense is the function that oversees and supports the risk management activities of the first line of defense, which is the function that owns and manages the risks.
The third line of defense is the function that provides independent assurance of the risk management activities, such as the internal audit function. Combining the second and third lines of defense in a new department may compromise the independence of the internal third line of defense, as it may create a conflict of interest, bias, or influence among the functions, and impair the objectivity, credibility, and quality of the assurance activities. The independence of the internal third line of defense is essential for ensuring that the risk management activities are performed in a consistent and effective manner, and that the issues and gaps are identified and reported without fear or favor. The risk governance approach of the second and third lines of defense may differ, cost reductions may negatively impact the productivity of other departments, and the new structure may not be aligned to the organization's internal control framework are also concerns, but they are not as great as the compromise of the independence of the internal third line of defense, as they do not directly affect the assurance and accountability of the risk management activities. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 36.

The MOST important stakeholders to include during the initial risk identification process for a business application are the business process owners, because they are the ones who have the authority and responsibility for the business processes that are supported or enabled by the business application. The business process owners can provide valuable input and feedback on the business objectives, requirements, and expectations of the business application, as well as thepotential risks, impacts, and opportunities that may affect the business processes and outcomes. The other options are not as important as the business process owners, because:
Option B: Business process consumers are the ones who use or benefit from the business processes that are supported or enabled by the business application, such as customers, employees, or partners. They can provide useful information and perspectives on the user needs, preferences, and satisfaction of the business application, but they are not as important as the business process owners, who have the ultimate accountability and authority for the business processes and outcomes.
Option C: Application architecture team is the one who designs and develops the technical architecture and components of the business application, such as the hardware, software, network, and data. They can provide technical expertise and guidance on the feasibility, functionality, and security of the business application, but they are not as important as the business process owners, who have the primary stake and interest in the business application and its alignment with the business processes and objectives.
Option D: Internal audit is the one who provides independent assurance and consulting services on the governance, risk management, and control processes of the organization, including the business application.
They can provide objective and impartial evaluation and recommendation on the effectiveness and efficiency of the business application and its compliance with the internal and external standards and regulations, but they are not as important as the businessprocess owners, who have the direct involvement and influence on the business application and its performance and value. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 103.

Key risk indicator (KRI): A metric that measures the level of risk exposure or the likelihood of a risk event1.
KRI threshold: A predefined value or range that triggers an alert or action when the KRI reaches or exceeds it2.
Loss expectancy: The estimated amount of loss that an organization may incur due to a risk event3.
The most helpful thing in developing KRI thresholds is loss expectancy information. Loss expectancy information provides an estimate of the potential or expected impact of a risk event on the organization's operations, reputation, or objectives. Loss expectancy information can help an organization to:
Quantify and prioritize the risks that pose the greatest threat to the organization Determine the acceptable level of risk exposure or tolerance for each risk Set the appropriate value or range for the KRI threshold that reflects the risk appetite and the risk mitigation strategy Monitor and measure the performance and effectiveness of the risk management process and controls Loss expectancy information can be derived from various sources, such as historical data, statistical analysis, expert judgment, or simulation models3.
The other options are not as helpful as loss expectancy information in developing KRI thresholds, because they do not directly address the potential or expected impact of a risk event.Control performance predictions, which are the forecasts or estimates of how well the risk management controls will perform in preventing, detecting, or mitigating risks, may help to evaluate the adequacy and efficiency of the risk management process and controls, but they do not provide a clear and quantifiable measure of the risk impact. IT service level agreements (SLAs), which are the contracts or agreements that define the quality and availability of IT services, may help to establish the standards and expectations for IT service delivery and performance, but they do not provide a comprehensive and current view of the risk exposure or likelihood. Remediation activity progress, which is the status or outcome of the actions taken to address and resolve a risk event, may help to monitor and report the effectiveness and compliance of the risk management process and controls, but it is usually done after the risk event has occurred and resolved, not before.
References = Key Risk Indicators: Definition, Examples, and Best Practices, KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva, Loss Expectancy: Definition, Calculation, and Examples

In an environment where reduced time-to-market for new software products is a top business priority, the risk practitioner's greatest concern should be whether sufficient resources are assigned to IT development projects.
Resources include human, financial, technical, and physical assets that are needed to plan, design, develop, test, and deliver high-quality software products in a timely manner. If the IT development projects are under- resourced, they may face challenges such as delays, errors, defects, rework, scope creep, or failure to meet customer expectations or requirements. These challenges can increase the risk of losing competitive advantage, market share, customer satisfaction, or reputation. The other options are less critical, as they are not directly related to the core business priority of reducing time-to-market for new software products.
Customer support help desk staff training, email infrastructure rollback plans, and corporate email system phishing detection are important aspects of information security and customer service, but they are not the primary drivers of software product development and delivery. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: Risk Response Options, p. 115-116.

The risk appetite of an organization is the amount and type of risk that it is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives1. Technology risk is the risk related to the use of information and technology in the organization2.
If an organization has raised its risk appetite for technology risk, it means that it is willing to accept more risk in exchange for more potential benefits from technology initiatives. This would likely result in lower risk management cost, as the organization would spend less on implementing and maintaining controls to mitigate technology risk. The other options are not the most likely results of raising the risk appetite for technology risk. Increased inherent risk is the risk before considering the effect of controls3, and it is not directly affected by the risk appetite. Higher risk management cost would be the opposite of the expected outcome, as the organization would reduce its risk management efforts. Decreased residual risk is the risk after considering the effect of controls3, and it would also be the opposite of the expected outcome, as the organization would accept more risk exposure. References = Organisations must define their IT risk appetite and tolerance; IT Risk Resources; CRISC | What Accurate CRISC Free Download Is