The correct answer is D. Implement compensating controls.
When an organization has budget constraints, it may not be practical to hire additional employees to fully separate incompatible duties. In that situation, the best approach is to implement compensating controls that reduce the risk created by inadequate separation of duties.
Examples of compensating controls include independent management review, activity log review, exception reporting, approval workflows, periodic access reviews, reconciliation by someone independent of the transaction process, monitoring of privileged activity, and detective controls over high-risk actions.
ISACA defines segregation/separation of duties as a basic internal control that prevents or detects errors and irregularities by assigning incompatible responsibilities to separate individuals. ISACA also defines a compensating control as an internal control that reduces the risk of an existing or potential control weakness resulting in errors and omissions.
Option A is not the best answer because hiring temporary staff may not be affordable and may create training, supervision, and access-control issues.
Option B is not the best answer because an independent audit may detect problems, but it does not itself resolve the separation of duties weakness.
Option C may help reduce long-term dependency on one person and may improve fraud detection, but job rotation alone does not adequately address incompatible duties if the same person can still perform conflicting functions during a given period.
Therefore, under budget constraints, the most practical and effective answer is to implement compensating controls.
[References: ISACA CISA Exam Content Outline, Domain 2; ISACA Interactive Glossary, “Segregation/separation of duties” and “Compensating control.”, , , ]