Primary Concern for In-House Application Development After Vendor EOL?
The software version of an enterprise's critical business application has reached end-of-life and is no longer supported by the vendor. IT has decided to develop an in-house replacement application. Which of the following should be the PRIMARY concern?
Community Votes
67% of anonymous learners picked answer A. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
Tests knowledge of business-IT alignment in risk assessment, where candidates commonly fall into the trap of selecting higher-level governance approvals instead of recognizing business ownership as the fundamental success factor.
Replacing an end-of-life application with an in-house solution introduces significant project and operational risks if not properly aligned with business needs. The CRISC community and ISACA materials consistently highlight that securing active business process owner participation is the top priority to prevent requirement gaps and project failure.
Option B is the most frequent wrong choice because test-takers assume all major IT initiatives require explicit board authorization; however, routine application replacements fall under management discretion, making missing business process ownership the true primary risk.
Community Discussion (3 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
The business process owner holds ultimate accountability for defining functional requirements, validating workflows, and accepting the final solution. Without their active engagement, the development team lacks clear direction, drastically increasing the likelihood of delivering a system that fails to support critical operations. CRISC prioritizes business value realization, making owner involvement the foremost risk indicator.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Board approval and ERM approval are strategic governance mechanisms, not tactical project prerequisites for standard application replacements. While valuable for high-level risk appetite, they do not replace the need for day-to-day business ownership. Missing documentation is a technical debt issue that can be remediated through reverse engineering, whereas misaligned requirements cause irreversible business disruption.Community Comment Notes
Users strongly advocate for option A, emphasizing that business process owner involvement directly prevents costly rework and ensures operational fit [1]. Some candidates initially lean toward board approval due to governance familiarity, but experienced reviewers clarify that boards oversee strategy rather than individual IT procurement or development mandates [3]. Consensus confirms that business alignment outweighs administrative sign-offs in risk-based decision making.Exam Strategy
When analyzing IT project risks, always identify who owns the business outcome before looking at committee approvals. If a stakeholder group essential to requirement definition and acceptance is absent, that absence represents a higher immediate risk than missing bureaucratic signatures.
Related Analysis
Practice All CRISC Questions
Access 332 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full CRISC Practice Test →