easyMultiple Choice
CISA Practice Question: During the feasibility study for a new inventory…
During the feasibility study for a new inventory system, the project team identifies that the expected benefits are significantly lower than the initial estimates. What is the MOST appropriate action for the IS auditor to recommend?
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates confuse the need for immediate project cancellation (Option B) with proper project governance, but the correct approach is to first re-evaluate the feasibility study to determine if the project can be salvaged with a revised business case.
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
✓
Re-evaluate the feasibility study and update the business case.
When expected benefits fall significantly below initial estimates, the IS auditor should recommend re-evaluating the feasibility study and updating the business case. This ensures that the project's justification is based on current, accurate data before proceeding, which is a key control in the systems development lifecycle (SDLC) to prevent investment in a project that may no longer deliver adequate value.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Proceed with the project as planned, focusing on cost reduction.
Why it's wrong here
Proceeding as planned ignores the revised cost-benefit position, committing funds to a project whose justification has weakened. It is tempting because cost reduction can restore viability, but that requires reworking the business case and scope first, not continuing unchanged.
- ✗
Cancel the project immediately and document lessons learned.
Why it's wrong here
Immediate cancellation skips the reassessment of scope, costs and alternatives that a feasibility study exists to support, discarding potentially viable options. It is tempting because a failed business case can justify stopping, but that decision follows analysis, not the first indication of reduced benefits.
- ✗
Continue with the project but postpone the benefits realization.
Why it's wrong here
Postponing benefits realisation leaves the investment unaligned with expected returns while costs continue, so it defers rather than addresses the shortfall. It is tempting because phasing benefits can suit long programmes, but here the feasibility study shows the business case itself no longer holds.
- ✓
Re-evaluate the feasibility study and update the business case.
Why this is correct
Lower-than-expected benefits invalidate the study's original assumptions, so the auditor should recommend revisiting the feasibility study and revising the business case before any commitment. This satisfies the stem's constraint that projected benefits no longer justify proceeding, letting governance bodies decide whether to continue, rescope or cancel.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 934 original CISA practice questions on Courseiva, each with a full explanation and wrong-answer analysis — not exam dumps or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
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.