The external auditor has identified a number of production process control deficiencies involving several departments. As a result, senior management has asked the internal audit activity to complete internal control training for all related staff. According to IIA guidance, which of the following would be the most appropriate course of action for the chief audit executive to follow?
The chief audit executive should accept the engagement but hire an external training specialist to provide the necessary expertise. This course of action maintains the internal audit activity's objectivity and independence, as it avoids any potential conflicts of interest that might arise if internal audit staff, who may have been previously involved in the operational areas being trained, were to provide the training. Additionally, using a specialist ensures that the training is conducted by someone with specific expertise in internal control, which may lead to more effective and comprehensive training for the staff.
It's a consulting engagement - so its actually a benefit having an auditor who understands the area to provide training.
Plus there is no indication that the deficiency originated from a IAA audit. There is no conflict here.
Is internal audit personnel meant by relevant personnel? If so, internal audit will not provide training, it will receive training.
I chose B because IAA must ensure to train employees addressing deficiencies the external auditor identified. Why wrong?
it is consulting
answer D is wrong