OCEG Updated GRCP Exam Questions and Answers by taran

In the GRC Capability Model, the REVIEW component is designed to ensure continuous improvement and accountability by monitoring, evaluating, and assuring the effectiveness of actions, controls, and strategies. This component ensures that the organization stays on track to achieve its objectives while addressing risks and obligations.

Key Objectives of the REVIEW Component:

Monitoring Actions and Controls:

Ensures that implemented controls and actions are functioning as intended to manage risks and seize opportunities.

Providing Assurance:

The REVIEW component validates that the organization's actions align with its objectives, policies, and obligations, often through internal audits or performance evaluations.

Continuous Improvement:

By analyzing the effectiveness of controls, the REVIEW component identifies areas for improvement and ensures the organization adapts to changing circumstances.

Holistic Focus:

Unlike a narrow focus on compliance or monitoring, the REVIEW component evaluates total performance, encompassing objectives, risks, and obligations.

Why Option B is Correct:

The REVIEW component focuses on continuous improvement by monitoring actions and controls and providing assurance that objectives, opportunities, risks, and obligations are being managed effectively, making it the most comprehensive answer.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A. Implementing new policies and procedures: Implementation is part of the Perform component, not the REVIEW component.

C. Exclusively focusing on monitoring: While monitoring is part of the REVIEW component, it also includes assurance and continuous improvement, making this option incomplete.

D. Conducting audits and inspections: Audits are a subset of assurance activities, but the REVIEW component goes beyond audits to ensure total performance improvement.

References and Resources:

OCEG GRC Capability Model – Provides guidance on the REVIEW component's role in monitoring and assurance.

COSO ERM Framework – Highlights the importance of monitoring and continuous improvement.

ISO 31000:2018 – Discusses evaluating risk management performance as part of an ongoing review process.

Assigning accountability for monitoring external factors ensures that the organization has a structured approach to assessing and responding to external risks and opportunities. External factors, such as changing regulations, market dynamics, or geopolitical developments, can significantly impact the organization's operations, and a lack of accountability may lead to missed risks or opportunities.

Key Purposes for Assigning Accountability:

Effective Monitoring:

Ensures dedicated individuals or teams are responsible for continuously tracking changes in external factors, such as regulatory updates or industry trends.

Example: Assigning a compliance officer to monitor regulatory updates related to data privacy (e.g., GDPR).

Authority and Resources:

Individuals with accountability must have the authority to make decisions and access resources to take timely action.

Example: A legal counsel may engage external experts to analyze complex regulatory changes.

Informed Decision-Making:

Having accountable individuals ensures the organization can act on external changes, mitigating risks and seizing opportunities.

Why Option B is Correct:

Assigning accountability ensures that competent individuals with the authority and resources are dedicated to analyzing, influencing, and sensing external factors that may impact the organization, aligning with governance and risk management best practices.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A: Assigning accountability does not eliminate the need for consultants or legal support; external expertise may still be necessary.

C: Accountability is about assigning responsibility based on authority and expertise, not just reducing management's workload.

D: While technology may support tracking, accountability goes beyond assigning access to tools and involves a broader scope of responsibility.

References and Resources:

COSO ERM Framework – Emphasizes the importance of accountability in risk management processes.

ISO 31000:2018 – Highlights the role of accountability in monitoring external contexts.

NIST Risk Management Framework (RMF) – Discusses the assignment of responsibility for external risk factors.

Correct/Recover Actions & Controls in the IACM focus on responding to adverse events by minimizing their impact and restoring normal operations.

Key Points About Correct/Recover Actions & Controls:

Purpose:

These controls aim to reduce the harm caused by unfavorable events and ensure a swift recovery to stability or an improved state.

Examples include incident response plans, disaster recovery measures, and corrective action processes.

Alignment with Risk Management:

Corrective and recovery actions are critical components of frameworks like NIST CSF and ISO 22301 (Business Continuity Management), which emphasize post-incident recovery.

Why Option B is Correct:

The role of Correct/Recover Actions & Controls is to decrease the impact of unfavorable events and restore the organization to its original or improved state after an incident.

Why the Other Options Are Incorrect:

A: Damage assessment is part of the recovery process but does not fully capture the role of Correct/Recover actions.

C: Adherence to the code of conduct falls under compliance, not recovery controls.

D: Preventing impact on profitability is not always possible; the focus is on recovery, not prevention.

References and Resources:

ISO 22301:2019 – Business Continuity Management Systems.

NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) – Focuses on corrective and recovery actions.

COSO ERM Framework – Highlights recovery as part of the risk response process.