Certified: The ISACA CISA Prepcast

Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CISA Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
Enterprise Risk Management frameworks provide the structure, but it is real-world implementation that reveals how well an organization actually manages risk. Frameworks like COSO or ISO 31000 define key components and principles, but in practice, what matters most is whether risk processes are embedded in daily operations, clearly owned, and linked to strategic outcomes. A mature ERM program is visible not only in policies and templates, but in the way decisions are made, risks are escalated, and controls are enforced. Auditors must go beyond checklist verification and assess whether ERM is actually influencing behavior, project selection, and resource allocation. Gaps between policy and execution often stem from communication failures, unclear ownership, or lack of executive buy-in. On the CISA exam, expect scenario-based questions that test whether you can evaluate risk governance in context—looking at implementation evidence and identifying whether ERM is truly functioning or only formalized on paper.
Laying the foundation for ERM requires careful planning and organizational alignment before risk assessments or controls can begin. This starts with defining the scope of the ERM program—whether it includes all business units or is initially focused on specific domains such as IT or operations. A formal governance structure must be established, including an executive sponsor and oversight committees that approve the framework and monitor performance. A risk management policy should be developed and approved by leadership, outlining expectations, reporting lines, and documentation requirements. A central ERM coordinator or risk function must be identified to manage the process and ensure consistency across departments. A standard methodology for identifying, assessing, and reporting risk should be created, including risk rating scales and reporting templates. Most importantly, ERM should align with business strategy and performance goals so that risk discussions are not isolated, but part of the broader planning and execution process. Auditors review whether this groundwork is in place and whether it supports sustainable ERM practices.
Risk identification across the enterprise involves gathering input from across departments and using structured techniques to capture threats that might otherwise go unnoticed. Auditors and risk managers use interviews with business leaders, workshops with cross-functional teams, and reviews of key documents such as strategic plans, contracts, incident logs, and compliance reports. The goal is to surface risks across all major categories—strategic, operational, financial, compliance, reputational, and cyber—and ensure that each function has input into the risk profile. Including stakeholders like finance, HR, IT, and legal ensures that risk inventories are not biased or incomplete. Engaging process owners during this phase helps confirm the accuracy of risk descriptions and enhances buy-in for future mitigation efforts. The result should be a living risk register—one that is updated regularly and not filed away after the first assessment. CISA candidates must recognize the importance of thorough, collaborative risk identification and be able to assess whether the register reflects current threats and responsibilities.
A helpful example comes from a company that began formal ERM implementation after a major data breach exposed customer records and operational weaknesses. The risk identification process uncovered several key concerns: weak access controls that allowed excessive privilege, heavy reliance on third-party vendors without adequate oversight, and aging infrastructure that lacked basic safeguards. IT and security teams worked together to map vulnerabilities and identify where controls were missing or ineffective. Each risk was documented in a standardized register with a unique ID, responsible owner, risk category, mitigation strategy, and target dates for control implementation. Quantitative ratings for likelihood and impact were assigned, especially around potential data loss and downtime, and the risk entries included financial and reputational exposure estimates. For CISA candidates, this example illustrates how ERM begins in response to crisis—but when executed properly, becomes a sustainable and strategic tool for managing risk long-term.
Risk assessment and prioritization is where risk becomes actionable—moving from a list of concerns to a ranked roadmap for control focus and audit engagement. In one example, a manufacturing company used scoring models to evaluate each risk on a scale from one to five for both likelihood and impact, multiplying the two to create a composite risk score. The highest-scoring risks included supply chain disruption due to single-source vendors and unplanned system outages affecting production lines. Management used heat maps to visualize the risk portfolio and support decision-making, highlighting which risks required immediate controls and which could be monitored over time. These scores also informed the internal audit plan, guiding which areas would receive detailed testing and follow-up. Auditors assessed whether the scoring process was consistent, whether approvals were documented, and whether prioritization decisions reflected the organization’s risk appetite. On the CISA exam, expect to be presented with similar scenarios and asked to evaluate the validity of a risk rating or whether audit resources are being applied effectively.
Implementation of controls and risk responses is where ERM moves from assessment to mitigation, and auditors must determine whether plans are being executed—not just drafted. Risk owners are assigned for each item in the register and are responsible for selecting a response strategy—such as reduce, transfer, accept, or share—and implementing specific controls. These controls should be supported by documented plans, timelines, budgets, and key performance indicators that track whether they are working. More importantly, controls should be embedded into daily processes—such as procurement reviews, IT change approvals, or HR background checks—rather than treated as side efforts. Auditors examine whether mitigation actions are traceable, implemented as planned, and periodically reassessed. Testing includes looking for completed documentation, system changes, training logs, or other forms of evidence. The CISA exam may require you to determine whether a control matches the selected response strategy, or whether the absence of follow-through represents a breakdown in accountability.
To ensure ERM remains dynamic and visible, risk reporting must be regular, data-driven, and reviewed by the right stakeholders. In one case, a retail organization developed monthly dashboards that tracked key risk indicators across inventory, logistics, finance, and IT. These dashboards were reviewed by executive leadership and included real-time metrics on access failures, fraud attempts, customer complaints, and incident resolution. Each dashboard entry was linked to a risk register entry, allowing executives to connect emerging incidents to previously identified risks. This link supported risk escalation and realignment of priorities when controls failed or when risks grew faster than anticipated. Auditors tested these dashboards by tracing the underlying data sources, validating metric definitions, and confirming that high-risk conditions triggered follow-up. The CISA exam may present visual dashboards or excerpts from reports and ask you to assess whether risk trends are being managed effectively or whether response procedures are properly activated.
Evaluating the maturity of an ERM program involves using frameworks or models to determine how well risk processes are integrated into business operations. Maturity stages typically range from ad hoc or informal, where risk discussions are isolated and undocumented, to optimized, where risk information drives strategy and is embedded in all decision-making. Auditors assess maturity by reviewing whether roles are defined, policies are enforced, assessments are repeatable, and metrics are reported regularly. Documentation such as risk registers, board briefings, and control plans can demonstrate maturity. Interviews with stakeholders reveal whether ERM is viewed as valuable, whether it’s used in budgeting and planning, or whether it’s seen as an administrative burden. Past audit findings, executive meeting minutes, and control dashboards all provide evidence. On the CISA exam, you may be asked to identify which maturity stage a company is in and what actions would help it advance to the next level.
There are common pitfalls that undermine ERM programs, and auditors must be alert to signs that the framework exists only in name. A risk register that was created during an audit but hasn’t been reviewed in over a year suggests low maturity and disengagement. Controls that are documented in mitigation plans but have not been implemented or monitored are a red flag for process breakdown. Inconsistent risk definitions or scoring methods between departments lead to confusion and prevent meaningful comparison of risks. When risks are not linked to business goals or strategic plans, risk becomes a parallel process rather than a supportive one. Lack of senior-level involvement—such as no executive sponsor or disengaged board committee—often signals that ERM is not embedded in the organization’s leadership culture. These warning signs often show up on the CISA exam in the form of scenarios where you must identify flaws or suggest next steps to improve ERM effectiveness.
For the CISA exam and professional audit practice, practical understanding of ERM implementation is just as important as knowing the frameworks. You’ll need to evaluate whether ownership is clearly defined, whether documentation is being maintained, and whether controls are more than paper artifacts. Expect to be tested on whether risk scoring is justified, whether mitigation plans are traceable, and whether risk reports inform executive decision-making. More importantly, understand that auditing ERM is about evaluating whether risk management helps the organization adapt, recover, and improve—not just comply. CISA-certified professionals are expected to provide insight into how well ERM supports enterprise goals and how to close gaps through actionable feedback. By mastering practical implementation examples, you’ll be able to bridge the gap between theory and impact, making yourself a stronger auditor and a more strategic partner to leadership.
Thanks for joining us for this episode of The Bare Metal Cyber CISA Prepcast. For more episodes, tools, and study support, visit us at Baremetalcyber.com.