mediumMultiple Choice
CISM Practice Question: An organization's security steering committee…
An organization's security steering committee meets quarterly but lacks decision-making authority. Projects are delayed due to lack of prioritization. What is the most effective improvement?
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates confuse operational efficiency (e.g., meeting frequency) with governance authority, mistakenly believing that more frequent meetings or higher-ranking members will solve prioritization delays, rather than recognizing that the fundamental issue is the lack of formal decision-making power.
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
✓
Empower the committee with budget and resource allocation authority
The core issue is that the security steering committee lacks decision-making authority, which prevents it from prioritizing projects and allocating resources. Empowering the committee with budget and resource allocation authority directly addresses this root cause by enabling it to make binding decisions, thereby eliminating delays caused by lack of prioritization. This aligns with the CISM governance principle that steering committees must have defined authority to effectively oversee the information security program.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Increase meeting frequency to weekly
Why it's wrong here
Weekly meetings consume committee time without granting the authority the stem identifies as missing; the delays stem from absent decision rights, not meeting cadence. Increasing frequency is tempting because cadence is visible and easily changed, and it would help a committee that already holds authority but struggles to cover its agenda.
- ✗
Outsource project prioritization to external consultants
Why it's wrong here
External consultants cannot supply decision rights that the organisation has not delegated; prioritisation requires accountable internal authority to enforce trade-offs. Outsourcing is tempting when internal prioritisation skills are lacking, and it would suit a committee that holds authority but needs an objective framework or facilitation.
- ✓
Empower the committee with budget and resource allocation authority
Why this is correct
Granting the committee budget and resource allocation authority converts it from an advisory forum into a decision-making body, directly resolving the prioritisation delays caused by its current lack of authority. Without control over funding and staffing, quarterly meetings cannot enforce project sequencing.
- ✗
Replace committee members with senior executives
Why it's wrong here
Swapping in senior executives changes membership, not the committee's charter, so decisions still lack authority and prioritisation stalls. Executive sponsorship is the right fix when a committee needs funding clout, not when its mandate itself is the obstacle.
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.