Episode 44: Post-Implementation Review
Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CISA Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
A post-implementation review, often referred to as a PIR, is a formal evaluation conducted after a system or project has gone live, and it plays a crucial role in determining whether the intended business and technical objectives were achieved. The PIR assesses how well the system is performing in real-world use, whether users are satisfied, and whether controls are operating effectively. It also serves as a learning opportunity by capturing lessons that can improve future projects, reduce risk, and enhance organizational maturity. CISA candidates must understand that PIRs are a key component of the system lifecycle, offering audit assurance that goes beyond project completion and extending into real-world validation and operational impact. On the exam, expect PIR-related questions that test your ability to evaluate post-launch controls, assess benefit realization, and identify process improvements.
The timing and scope of a PIR are important to its effectiveness and audit value. Most reviews take place between thirty and ninety days after go-live, allowing time for the system to stabilize and for enough user data to be collected. The PIR should evaluate cost accuracy, schedule adherence, quality of deliverables, and the effectiveness of implemented controls. Depending on the size and importance of the project, the scope may also include user adoption metrics, support readiness, and strategic alignment. Participation should include business leaders, IT management, project sponsors, developers, and auditors to ensure a balanced and informed view. For auditors, evaluating whether the PIR was appropriately scoped is essential—especially in critical systems or high-risk environments where broader stakeholder involvement and deeper analysis may be required.
A central goal of the PIR is to determine whether the original business objectives and projected benefits outlined in the business case were achieved. This includes reviewing whether the new system delivered productivity improvements, cost reductions, revenue gains, or compliance enhancements. Performance should be measured using objective metrics—such as transaction speed, process accuracy, or system availability—and compared to baseline expectations. Strategic alignment must also be examined: does the solution support the organization’s broader goals, or has it created new risks or inefficiencies? User satisfaction should be measured through surveys or feedback sessions to understand how well the system meets practical needs. Auditors are responsible for verifying whether these benefits were quantified, tracked, and matched against the original case, and whether any gaps were clearly explained and addressed.
After implementation, control effectiveness becomes a primary focus of audit review. A PIR must verify that controls related to system access, data processing, change management, and security are working as intended under live conditions. Auditors examine whether logs are capturing activity, alerts are being triggered correctly, and segregation of duties has been preserved. Any issues discovered during operations—such as excessive access rights, failed alerts, or unmonitored exceptions—should be documented and analyzed. Control testing results must be compared against the original risk assessment to determine whether mitigation was successful. The CISA exam may ask how to audit post-launch controls or how to respond when a control works in theory but fails in practice, making real-world testing and validation a crucial part of PIR evaluation.
User feedback and support readiness are essential parts of a successful post-implementation review. Organizations should collect input from end users on usability, workflow integration, training effectiveness, and helpdesk responsiveness. High volumes of tickets or repeated complaints often signal issues with documentation, access, or user training. The PIR should also review whether support teams were adequately prepared, whether they had access to troubleshooting guides and escalation paths, and whether onboarding materials were accurate and complete. Recurring issues may indicate that the transition from development to operations was incomplete or rushed. For CISA candidates, understanding how to evaluate user sentiment and support capacity is critical, as these areas directly affect adoption, security, and operational resilience.
Budget, schedule, and scope variance analysis is another core element of the PIR, especially in projects with tight controls or high visibility. Auditors must review whether the final costs and delivery dates matched the original plan, and if not, why. All variances should be tracked, categorized, and supported by documentation—such as approved change requests or risk mitigation activities. Understanding whether the scope expanded due to evolving requirements, external pressures, or misaligned planning is key to extracting valuable lessons. This analysis should also evaluate whether change controls were effective, and whether cost and risk tradeoffs were properly communicated to stakeholders. On the CISA exam, questions often test a candidate’s ability to assess whether a project was properly governed, tracked, and documented in light of unexpected challenges or resource shifts.
Data integrity and system performance must be reviewed thoroughly in a PIR to ensure that the system is functioning accurately and consistently. Migrated or converted data must be validated for completeness, correctness, and referential integrity to avoid downstream reporting errors or decision-making failures. Error logs, transaction reports, and exception records must be reviewed for anomalies or processing gaps. Performance metrics—such as system uptime, response times, and resource utilization—should be compared against pre-implementation baselines and service level agreements. Database performance, network throughput, and user experience testing can help confirm whether the system is stable under real workload conditions. For CISA candidates, the ability to assess whether data and system behavior meet post-launch expectations is a key exam competency.
Documentation and knowledge transfer processes are also assessed during a PIR, as they form the foundation for long-term sustainability and support. Auditors review whether user manuals, technical documentation, and process guides are complete, accurate, and stored in accessible locations. Transition materials—such as training records, escalation matrices, and service desk procedures—must be handed off from the project team to operations. The PIR should confirm that support teams received the necessary resources and that knowledge was retained across turnover or reassignments. Operational checklists, system recovery guides, and communication protocols must all be finalized and verified. Poor documentation often results in unnecessary outages, slow incident response, and high training costs. On the exam, expect questions about the importance of handover documentation and the auditor’s role in verifying that it is usable and complete.
The PIR must generate actionable recommendations, not just summaries of what happened. Auditors and project teams should identify unresolved risks, recurring issues, and opportunities to optimize system performance or process integration. Recommendations may include further training, tuning of controls, updates to access rules, or refinement of project planning methods. Policy and procedural updates should also be initiated where lessons suggest that existing standards were inadequate. Most importantly, the findings from the PIR must be shared with governance bodies, quality assurance teams, and future project leaders to ensure organizational learning. CISA candidates should be able to evaluate whether PIR recommendations were documented, tracked, and integrated into improvement efforts, not simply recorded and ignored.
CISA candidates must be fully prepared to evaluate and audit post-implementation reviews. This includes understanding what to review, when to review it, and how to interpret the results across people, process, and technology. You will encounter questions that test your knowledge of which documents and performance metrics provide credible post-launch evidence. PIRs link the success of a project not just to its delivery, but to its ongoing risk and control posture, and they ensure that project completion is not confused with project success. PIRs are not optional—they are a best practice that helps organizations close the loop on their investments and improve execution over time. As an auditor, your job is to validate that organizations are learning, improving, and building sustainable systems—not just deploying them.
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.
