CISA Practice Question: Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation
During a build vs. buy analysis, the IS auditor observes that the organization decided to build a custom application because no vendor solution met all requirements. Which of the following risks should the auditor emphasize?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISA often tests the ability to distinguish between risks associated with building versus buying software; candidates may incorrectly associate vendor-related risks like lock-in or external support dependence with custom development, when in fact the primary risks of building are internal, such as increased time-to-market and development costs.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Increased time-to-market and development costs
When an organization chooses to build a custom application instead of buying a vendor solution, the primary risks shift from external dependencies to internal development challenges. Building custom software typically requires significant upfront investment in time, skilled personnel, and financial resources, and it often takes longer to deliver than implementing an existing product. Therefore, the auditor should emphasize increased time-to-market and development costs as the key risk in this scenario.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Lack of customization
Why it's wrong here
Custom builds exist precisely to deliver bespoke functionality, so lack of customisation is not the exposure; the real risk is the organisation owning development, maintenance and support burden. It tempts because vendor packages often constrain tailoring, making customisation a genuine buying criterion when requirements are unusual.
- ✗
Dependence on external support
Why it's wrong here
External support dependence arises from vendor-supplied software, not in-house development; the salient risk is instead skill scarcity, key-person dependency and long-term maintenance burden. Vendor dependence would be the correct emphasis had the organisation purchased a commercial product.
- ✗
Vendor lock-in
Why it's wrong here
Vendor lock-in arises from proprietary purchased platforms, not from in-house development, so it cannot be the risk here. It tempts because lock-in dominates buy-side analysis, and would be the correct emphasis if the organisation had selected a closed vendor product with proprietary data formats or APIs.
- ✓
Increased time-to-market and development costs
Why this is correct
Building custom software demands staffing, tooling and iterative testing that vendor licensing avoids, so delivery slips and budgets overrun — directly satisfying the stem's build-versus-buy constraint. The auditor should emphasise that no vendor solution met all requirements, meaning bespoke development absorbs the full cost and schedule risk internally.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CISA question is part of Courseiva's 934-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official ISACA exam blueprint
This CISA practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CISA exam.