Explanation:
It is important that the data entered from a remote site is edited and validated prior to transmission to the central processing site.

Explanation:
The transaction journal would record all transaction activity, which then could be compared to the authorized source documents to identify any unauthorized input. A console log printout is not the best, because it would not record activity from a specific terminal.
An automated suspense file listing would only list transaction activity where an edit error occurred, while the user error report would only list input that resulted in an edit error.

Explanation:
When designing controls, it is necessary to consider all the above aspects. In an ideal situation, controls that address all these aspects would be the best controls. Realistically, it may not be possible to design them all and cost may be prohibitive; therefore, it is necessary to first consider the preventive controls that attack the cause of a threat.

Explanation:
A checksum calculated on an amount field and included in the EDI communication can be used to identify unauthorized modifications. Authenticity and authorization cannot be established by a checksum alone and need other controls. Nonrepudiation can be ensured by using digital signatures.

Explanation:
Production programs are used for processing an enterprise’s data. It is imperative that controls on changes to production programs are stringent. Lack of control in this area could result in application programs being modified to manipulate the data. Application programmers are required to implement changes to test programs. These are used only in development and do not directly impact the live processing of data. The implementation of changes to batch schedules by operations support staff will affect the scheduling of the batches only; it does not impact the live data. Database administrators are required to implement changes to data structures. This is required for reorganization of the database to allow for additions, modifications or deletions of fields or tables in the database.

Explanation:
Direct observation of results is better than estimations and qualitative information gained from interviews or status reports. Project managers and involved staff tend to underestimate the time needed for completion and the necessary time buffers for dependencies between tasks, while overestimating the completion percentage for tasks underway (80:20 rule). The calculation based on remaining budget does not take into account the speed at which the project has been progressing.

Explanation:
It is important to evaluate what the exposure would be when audit recommendations have not been completed by the target date. Based on the evaluation, management can accordingly consider compensating controls, risk acceptance, etc. All other choices might be appropriate only after the risks have been assessed.

Explanation:
Cost performance of a project cannot be properly assessed in isolation of schedule performance. Cost cannot be assessed simply in terms of elapsed time on a project. To properly assess the project budget position, it is necessary to know how much progress has actually been made and, given this, what level of expenditure would be expected. It is possible that project expenditure appears to be low because actual progress has been slow. Until the analysis of project against schedule has been completed, it is impossible to know whether there is any reason to reduce budget, if the project has slipped behind schedule, then not only may there be no spare budget but it is possible that extra expenditure may be needed to retrieve the slippage. The low expenditure could actually be representative of a situation where the project is likely to miss deadlines rather than potentially come in ahead of time. If the project is found to be ahead of budget after adjusting for actual progress, this is not necessarily a good outcome because it points to flaws in the original budgeting process; and, as said above, until further analysis is undertaken, it cannot be determined whether any spare funds actually exist. Further, if the project is behind schedule, then adding scope may be the wrong thing to do.

Explanation:
During the data conversion stage of a project, the data owner is primarily responsible for reviewing and signing-off that the data are migrated completely, accurately and are valid. An IS auditor is not responsible for reviewing and signing-off on the accuracy of the converted data. However, an IS auditor should ensure that there is a review and sign-off by the data owner during the data conversion stage of the project. A database administrator’s primary responsibility is to maintain the integrity of the database and make the database available to users. A database administrator is not responsible for reviewing migrated data. A project manager provides day-to- day management and leadership of the project, but is not responsible for the accuracy and integrity of the data.

Explanation:
A project steering committee that provides an overall direction for the enterprise resource planning (ERP) implementation project is responsible for reviewing the project’s progress to ensure that it will deliver the expected results. A project sponsor is typically the senior manager in charge of the primary business unit that the application will support. The sponsor provides funding for the project and works closely with the project manager to define the critical success factors or metrics for the project. The project sponsor is not responsible for reviewing the progress of the project. A system development project team (SDPT) completes the assigned tasks, works according to the instructions of the project manager and communicates with the user project team. The SDPT is not responsible for reviewing the progress of the project. A user project team (UPT) completes the assigned tasks, communicates effectively with the system development team and works according to the advice of the project manager. A UPT is not responsible for reviewing the progress of the project.