CISM Information Security Programme Practice Question
A security manager is building a business case for additional security budget. Which THREE justifications are most effective for obtaining executive approval? (Select THREE)
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
✓
Compliance cost avoidance
Option B (Compliance cost avoidance) is correct because executives respond to quantifiable financial impact, and demonstrating how security spending prevents regulatory fines, penalties, and audit remediation costs under frameworks like PCI DSS, HIPAA, or GDPR directly ties budget to avoided losses. Option C (Breach avoidance value) is correct because it expresses security investment in business terms—expected loss from data breaches, ransomware, and downtime—using metrics such as ALE (Annualized Loss Expectancy) to show the cost-benefit of prevention versus the cost of a incident. Option D (Operational efficiency improvements) is correct because security controls that streamline processes, reduce manual effort, and lower incident response overhead deliver measurable productivity gains that justify spend beyond pure risk reduction. Option A (Number of security tools deployed) is not a strong justification because tool count is a vanity metric that does not demonstrate value or risk reduction and may even suggest inefficiency. Option E (Industry peer comparison) is not compelling on its own because peer spending benchmarks do not prove that the investment will protect this specific organization's assets or deliver a positive return.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Number of security tools deployed
Why it's wrong here
Tool count is not a justification; value is needed.
- ✓
Compliance cost avoidance
Why this is correct
Compliance cost avoidance quantifies fines, remediation and audit expenses avoided by funding controls, translating security spend into financial terms executives already track. This satisfies the stem's need for justifications that secure approval by demonstrating measurable regulatory cost reduction.
- ✓
Breach avoidance value
Why this is correct
Breach avoidance value expresses expected loss reduction from prevented incidents, using probability and impact figures executives can compare against investment. This satisfies the stem's requirement for effective justification by framing security spend as avoided business loss.
- ✓
Operational efficiency improvements
Why this is correct
Quantifying reduced manual effort and streamlined processes translates security spend into measurable business value, strengthening the business case beyond pure risk reduction. Executives approve budgets that demonstrate tangible operational returns, satisfying the stem's requirement for effective justification.
- ✗
Industry peer comparison
Why it's wrong here
Less compelling than direct financial impact.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
One of 924 original CISM 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 CISM 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 CISM exam.