In ISO 31000, risk assessment involves systematically identifying, analyzing, and evaluating risks to determine their impact and likelihood. Option A is correct because gathering historical data from similar expansions helps Ms. Adams understand potential risks associated with entering a new market. By reviewing past experiences and outcomes, she can identify common challenges, regulatory requirements, market conditions, and operational risks specific to the new geographical region. This information is crucial for developing effective risk management strategies and mitigating potential threats to the company’s objectives.

Option B, skipping risk assessment, contradicts ISO 31000 principles that emphasize thorough risk assessment to ensure informed decision-making and proactive risk management. Option C, consulting with competitors, may provide insights but does not substitute comprehensive risk assessment based on objective data and analysis. Option D, surveying local government policies, is relevant but represents a narrower focus compared to gathering comprehensive historical data on similar expansions.

The primary objective of the risk management framework in ISO 31000 is to facilitate systematic and proactive risk management practices within organizations. Option C is correct because the framework provides a structured approach to identifying, assessing, treating, monitoring, and communicating risks effectively. By implementing ISO 31000 guidelines, organizations can establish a risk management culture that enhances decision-making processes, improves resource allocation, and minimizes the likelihood and impact of risks on achieving objectives.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, ensuring compliance with industry standards, is an important consideration but does not encompass the comprehensive objective of the risk management framework in ISO 31000.
Option B, integrating risk management with quality management systems, is a beneficial practice but represents a specific application rather than the overarching objective of the framework.
Option D, minimizing financial investments in risk mitigation, does not reflect the proactive and systematic approach promoted by ISO 31000 to address risks holistically rather than focusing solely on cost reduction.

ISO 31000 emphasizes the importance of enhancing organizational resilience through proactive risk management practices, including the development of business continuity plans. Option C is correct because developing a business continuity plan helps organizations prepare for and respond to potential disruptions such as natural disasters, supply chain interruptions, or cybersecurity incidents. By identifying critical functions, establishing recovery strategies, and ensuring continuity of operations, organizations can minimize downtime, maintain customer trust, and sustain operations during adverse events, thereby enhancing overall resilience.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, implementing a new marketing strategy without risk analysis, neglects the fundamental principle of assessing and managing risks associated with business decisions.
Option B, ignoring low-probability risks, contradicts ISO 31000 principles that advocate for addressing all identified risks to prevent potential negative consequences.
Option D, increasing production without considering operational risks, overlooks the importance of risk assessment and mitigation in ensuring sustainable growth and operational stability.

In ISO 31000, effective risk treatment involves implementing measures to modify risks to reduce their likelihood or impact. Option A is correct because implementing multi-factor authentication for all employees enhances cybersecurity measures and mitigates the identified risk of cyberattacks due to outdated security systems. Multi-factor authentication adds an extra layer of protection by requiring users to provide additional verification beyond passwords, reducing the risk of unauthorized access and data breaches.

Option B, ignoring the risk, contradicts ISO 31000 principles that advocate for proactive risk management and addressing all identified risks to prevent potential negative consequences. Option C, hiring additional marketing personnel, is unrelated to mitigating cybersecurity risks. Option D, reducing the project budget, may impact the quality and effectiveness of cybersecurity upgrades but does not directly address the identified risk of cyberattacks.

According to ISO 31000, the risk owner is responsible for implementing risk treatment plans to manage identified risks effectively. Option C is correct because the risk owner plays a crucial role in developing and executing strategies to mitigate risks that could impact organizational objectives. This involves assessing treatment options, allocating resources, and overseeing the implementation of controls or measures to reduce risk exposure and enhance resilience.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, conducting risk assessments and identifying risks, is typically the responsibility of risk managers or assessment teams rather than the risk owner.
Option B, making final decisions on risk acceptance, may involve senior management or stakeholders who evaluate risk assessments and decide whether to accept residual risks.
Option D, communicating risks to stakeholders, is important but represents a broader responsibility shared among various roles within the risk management process rather than specific to the risk owner’s role in implementing treatment plans.

Building a risk-aware culture within an organization, as encouraged by ISO 31000, benefits decision-making processes by fostering a proactive approach to identifying, assessing, and managing risks. Option C is correct because a risk-aware culture encourages employees at all levels to consider potential risks in their decision-making, leading to more informed choices that align with organizational objectives and mitigate potential negative consequences. This cultural mindset promotes transparency, accountability, and collaboration in managing risks across departments and projects.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, increasing administrative overhead, is a potential concern but does not reflect the primary benefit of building a risk-aware culture as outlined by ISO 31000.
Option C, reducing employee engagement in risk management, contradicts the goal of fostering a culture where all employees are actively involved in identifying and managing risks.
Option D, minimizing stakeholder involvement, overlooks the importance of engaging stakeholders in risk management processes to ensure comprehensive risk identification and effective decision-making.

A risk matrix is a commonly used risk assessment technique in ISO 31000, involving the assignment of values (such as low, medium, high) to risks based on their likelihood and impact. Option C is correct because the risk matrix provides a visual representation that helps prioritize risks for further analysis and decision-making. By plotting likelihood and impact on a matrix, organizations can categorize risks into different levels of severity and prioritize mitigation efforts accordingly. This technique facilitates clear communication of risks to stakeholders and supports informed decision-making in risk management processes.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, Fault Tree Analysis (FTA), is a different technique used to identify potential causes of failures or events leading to undesired outcomes, focusing on logic diagrams rather than likelihood and impact assessment.
Option B, Delphi Technique, involves gathering expert opinions through iterative rounds of questionnaires to achieve consensus on future events or risks, not specifically assessing likelihood and impact.
Option D, SWOT Analysis, evaluates Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats related to a project or initiative but does not provide a structured approach to assess risks based on likelihood and impact.

In ISO 31000, effective communication and consultation are critical to ensuring stakeholders’ understanding of risks and their involvement in decision-making processes. Option B is correct because holding regular risk review meetings with project teams and stakeholders facilitates open dialogue, collaboration, and informed decision-making regarding risk management strategies. These meetings allow stakeholders to discuss risk assessments, review mitigation plans, address emerging risks, and ensure alignment with project objectives throughout the lifecycle.

Options A, C, and D are incorrect:

Option A, conducting monthly email updates, may provide information but lacks interactive engagement and real-time discussion of risks among stakeholders.
Option C, limiting access to risk information, undermines transparency and collaboration essential for effective risk management and stakeholder engagement.
Option D, publishing an annual risk report at project completion, delays communication and consultation until the end of the project, missing opportunities to address risks proactively and adapt strategies as needed.

Risk sharing involves distributing or transferring risks to third parties such as insurers, suppliers, or partners who can better manage or absorb the risk consequences. Option C is correct because in ISO 31000, risk sharing is a strategy to mitigate risks by collaborating with external parties who can provide expertise, resources, or financial support to address specific risks. This approach helps organizations reduce exposure to potential losses or disruptions and diversify risk management strategies.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, Risk Avoidance, aims to eliminate risks by not engaging in activities or situations that could lead to potential harm or loss.
Option B, Risk Retention, involves accepting the risks without implementing specific mitigation measures, often due to strategic or financial considerations.
Option D, Risk Acceptance, acknowledges risks without actively seeking to modify or transfer them, typically when the cost of mitigation outweighs the potential impact of the risk.

In ISO 31000, effective risk treatment involves selecting and implementing measures to modify risks. Option B is correct because implementing automated testing tools and procedures helps mitigate the identified risk of software bugs impacting project timelines and deliverables. Automated testing enhances the detection of bugs early in the development process, improves software quality, and reduces the likelihood of delays or defects that could affect project outcomes. This proactive approach aligns with ISO 31000 principles of risk management by addressing specific risks with appropriate controls and measures.

Option A, conducting weekly progress meetings, promotes communication but does not directly mitigate the risk of software bugs. Option C, ignoring the risk, contradicts the proactive risk management approach advocated by ISO 31000. Option D, reducing the scope of project features, may impact project objectives and quality but does not address the root cause of software bugs or enhance testing procedures.

Integrating risk management with quality management systems, as per ISO 31000, enhances efficiency in risk assessment processes by leveraging existing frameworks and processes to identify, assess, and manage risks comprehensively. Option B is correct because integration ensures consistency in risk evaluation criteria, streamlines data collection and analysis, and promotes a unified approach to managing risks across organizational functions. This synergy improves resource allocation, reduces duplication of efforts, and enhances the effectiveness of risk management strategies.

Options A, C, and D are incorrect:

Option A, ensuring compliance with legal requirements, is important but does not specifically relate to the efficiency benefits of integrating risk and quality management systems.
Option C, avoiding financial investments in risk mitigation, overlooks the potential cost-saving benefits and improved outcomes associated with integrated risk management practices.
Option D, limiting stakeholder involvement, undermines the collaborative and inclusive approach encouraged by ISO 31000 to enhance decision-making and risk management effectiveness.

ISO 31000 emphasizes proactive risk management to improve project outcomes by identifying and addressing potential risks early in the project lifecycle. Option C is correct because early risk identification allows project teams to develop appropriate mitigation strategies, allocate resources effectively, and minimize disruptions that could impact project timelines or deliverables. By conducting thorough risk assessments and implementing timely risk treatment plans, organizations can enhance project resilience, maintain stakeholder confidence, and achieve successful outcomes aligned with project objectives.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, focusing solely on achieving project milestones, overlooks the importance of managing risks that could affect milestone attainment and overall project success.
Option B, conducting periodic project status updates, is essential for communication but does not specifically relate to the proactive risk management approach advocated by ISO 31000.
Option D, limiting project team collaboration, hinders the collaborative effort needed to identify, assess, and mitigate risks effectively throughout the project lifecycle.

In ISO 31000, effective risk mitigation involves implementing strategies to modify risks to reduce their likelihood or impact. Option B is correct because diversifying suppliers helps mitigate supply chain risks by reducing dependency on a single source and enhancing resilience against disruptions. This approach aligns with ISO 31000 principles of proactive risk management, ensuring continuity in product delivery and minimizing the impact of unforeseen events like supplier failures or logistics issues.

Option B, reducing the product’s quality, compromises customer satisfaction and does not address the root cause of supply chain disruptions. Option C, ignoring the risk, contradicts the proactive risk management approach advocated by ISO 31000. Option D, increasing the product’s price, may impact market competitiveness and customer demand but does not directly mitigate supply chain risks.

According to ISO 31000, the primary responsibility of a risk manager is to implement risk treatment plans aimed at modifying risks to reduce their likelihood or impact. Option A is correct because risk managers play a pivotal role in identifying suitable risk treatment options, coordinating their implementation, and ensuring alignment with organizational objectives. This involves evaluating risk mitigation measures, allocating resources effectively, and monitoring the effectiveness of controls to manage risks within acceptable levels.

Options A, B, and C are incorrect:

Option A, hiring new employees, involves human resources functions rather than risk management duties specified by ISO 31000.
Option B, conducting financial audits, focuses on financial management rather than risk management responsibilities.
Option C, drafting marketing strategies, pertains to marketing roles and responsibilities unrelated to risk management.

Fostering a risk-aware culture within an organization, as advocated by ISO 31000, benefits decision-making processes by promoting a proactive approach to identifying, assessing, and managing risks. Option C is correct because a risk-aware culture encourages employees at all levels to consider potential risks in their decision-making, leading to informed choices that align with organizational goals and enhance resilience. This cultural mindset supports transparency, accountability, and collaboration in managing risks effectively across departments and projects.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, decreasing employee engagement, contradicts the goal of fostering active participation and responsibility in risk management among employees.
Option B, limiting innovation opportunities, overlooks the potential for risk-aware cultures to encourage responsible innovation while managing associated risks.
Option D, reducing stakeholder involvement, undermines the collaborative and inclusive approach recommended by ISO 31000 for effective risk management and decision-making.

Brainstorming is a collaborative technique used in ISO 31000 for identifying potential risks by gathering insights and perspectives from cross-functional teams. Option C is correct because brainstorming sessions encourage open communication, creativity, and diverse viewpoints to uncover risks that may not be apparent initially. This approach supports proactive risk management by capturing a wide range of scenarios and concerns, facilitating comprehensive risk identification to inform subsequent risk assessment and mitigation efforts.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, Root Cause Analysis (RCA), focuses on identifying the underlying causes of specific issues or incidents rather than general risk identification.
Option B, Delphi Technique, involves gathering expert opinions through iterative rounds of questionnaires to achieve consensus on future events or risks, not specifically focused on brainstorming for risk identification.
Option D, Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA), evaluates potential failures in a system or process to prevent adverse outcomes, not primarily used for broad risk identification across organizational contexts.

In ISO 31000, effective risk monitoring involves regularly updating risk registers and documenting changes to ensure ongoing assessment and management of risks. Option D is correct because maintaining up-to-date risk registers enables organizations to track changes in risk profiles, assess the effectiveness of implemented controls, and identify emerging risks or trends that require attention. This proactive approach supports continuous improvement in risk management processes, enhances organizational resilience, and ensures alignment with strategic objectives.

Options A, B, and C are incorrect:

Option A, conducting daily audits of financial records, pertains to financial management practices rather than risk monitoring responsibilities.
Option B, quarterly assessment of operational performance, focuses on general operational reviews and does not specifically address the ongoing monitoring of risk management activities.
Option C, ignoring risks that have been mitigated, contradicts the need for continuous monitoring and review to maintain effective risk management practices over time.

Integrating risk management with environmental management systems, as per ISO 31000, facilitates sustainable practices and reduces environmental impacts by identifying and managing risks associated with environmental aspects and impacts. Option C is correct because this integration ensures that environmental risks are systematically assessed, addressed, and mitigated, leading to improved environmental performance, compliance with regulations, and enhanced reputation among stakeholders. By aligning risk management practices with environmental objectives, organizations can achieve long-term sustainability goals and minimize adverse environmental effects.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, ensuring compliance with health and safety regulations, relates to regulatory compliance rather than the environmental benefits of integrating risk management systems.
Option B, enhancing transparency in financial reporting, focuses on financial management practices unrelated to environmental risk management.
Option D, limiting stakeholder involvement, undermines the collaborative and inclusive approach advocated by ISO 31000 for effective decision-making and risk management across organizational functions.

In ISO 31000, effective risk communication and consultation involve documenting stakeholder feedback and incorporating diverse perspectives into risk assessments to enhance decision-making processes. Option B is correct because documenting stakeholder concerns promotes transparency, fosters stakeholder engagement, and ensures that risk management strategies align with organizational goals and stakeholder expectations. This approach facilitates informed risk decisions, mitigates potential conflicts, and improves risk management effectiveness throughout the project lifecycle.

Options A, C, and D are incorrect:

Option A, ignoring stakeholder feedback, undermines the collaborative approach advocated by ISO 31000 and may lead to stakeholder dissatisfaction and project risks being overlooked.
Option C, avoiding risk discussions, hinders open communication and the identification of valuable insights that could contribute to effective risk management.
Option D, restricting stakeholder access, limits transparency and inhibits stakeholders from contributing to risk assessments and decision-making processes, which are crucial for comprehensive risk management.

According to ISO 31000, organizations may choose to retain risks when accepting them aligns with achieving strategic objectives and goals. Option C is correct because risk retention involves consciously accepting certain risks rather than transferring or mitigating them, based on the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance levels. This approach supports informed decision-making, maintains organizational agility, and allows for flexibility in adapting to changing risk landscapes while pursuing business opportunities.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, avoiding legal liabilities, focuses on risk avoidance strategies rather than the rationale behind risk retention as a strategic choice.
Option B, transferring financial burdens to insurance companies, relates to risk transfer mechanisms rather than the underlying rationale for retaining risks within the organization.
Option D, limiting employee responsibilities, is unrelated to the concept of risk retention in ISO 31000, which emphasizes managing risks within acceptable levels while achieving organizational objectives.

The context establishment component of the risk management framework in ISO 31000 focuses on defining the scope, boundaries, and criteria for risk management activities within an organization. Option D is correct because establishing the context ensures that risk management processes are aligned with organizational objectives, stakeholder expectations, legal and regulatory requirements, and other relevant factors that influence risk decisions. This foundational step facilitates consistent and systematic risk management practices, enhances risk identification and assessment accuracy, and supports effective risk treatment and mitigation strategies.

Options A, B, and C are incorrect:

Option A, risk identification, pertains to the process of identifying risks rather than establishing the context for risk management.
Option B, risk assessment, involves evaluating the likelihood and consequences of identified risks rather than defining the context for risk management activities.
Option C, risk treatment, focuses on selecting and implementing measures to modify risks rather than establishing the initial context within which risk management activities will be conducted.

Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) involves assigning numerical values to the likelihood and consequences of identified risks to calculate risk exposure or risk scores. Option D is correct because QRA provides a quantitative basis for prioritizing risks based on their potential impact and likelihood, allowing organizations to allocate resources efficiently and implement targeted risk mitigation strategies. This approach supports informed decision-making and enhances the accuracy of risk management efforts by quantifying risks in measurable terms.

Options A, B, and C are incorrect:

Option A, Delphi Technique, involves gathering expert opinions through iterative rounds of questionnaires to achieve consensus on future events or risks, not specifically focused on quantitative assessment.
Option B, Scenario Analysis, explores plausible future scenarios to assess their potential impacts on organizational objectives, which may include both quantitative and qualitative elements.
Option C, Qualitative Risk Assessment, evaluates risks based on subjective criteria such as likelihood and consequences without assigning numerical values, emphasizing qualitative characteristics rather than quantitative measures.

In ISO 31000, developing contingency plans is a recommended risk treatment option to prepare for potential schedule slippage due to software development delays. Option D is correct because contingency planning involves anticipating risks and developing response strategies to mitigate their impact on project timelines. This proactive approach aligns with ISO 31000 principles by enhancing organizational resilience, ensuring continuity in project delivery, and minimizing disruptions caused by unforeseen events or delays.

Options A, B, and C are incorrect:

Option A, expediting the project timeline, may increase risks of quality compromise and resource constraints without addressing the root cause of software development delays.
Option B, hiring additional software developers, addresses capacity but does not inherently mitigate schedule risks without considering other factors influencing project delays.
Option C, implementing quality assurance measures, is important but focuses on quality management rather than directly addressing schedule slippage risks in the context of software development delays.

Implementing ISO 31000 enhances stakeholder trust and confidence by demonstrating commitment to systematic and effective risk management practices. Option B is correct because ISO 31000 promotes transparency, accountability, and proactive risk management, which are critical for building credibility with stakeholders, including customers, investors, regulators, and the broader community. This approach not only mitigates risks but also strengthens organizational resilience, improves decision-making processes, and enhances long-term sustainability by fostering a risk-aware culture and aligning risk management practices with strategic objectives.

Options A, C, and D are incorrect:

Option A, reducing operational costs, may result from effective risk management but is not a direct benefit specifically attributable to ISO 31000 implementation.
Option C, eliminating all business risks, is unrealistic as ISO 31000 aims to manage risks within acceptable levels rather than eliminating them entirely.
Option D, decreasing employee turnover rates, may indirectly benefit from improved organizational stability due to effective risk management practices but is not a primary benefit emphasized by ISO 31000 implementation.

In ISO 31000, risk evaluation involves assessing risks based on their probability of occurrence, potential consequences, and the organization’s risk tolerance levels. Option B is correct because these criteria provide a structured framework for prioritizing risks according to their likelihood and impact on organizational objectives. Probability refers to the likelihood of a risk event occurring, consequences refer to the potential impact if the risk event materializes, and risk tolerance defines the organization’s readiness to accept or mitigate risks within specified thresholds. This systematic approach supports informed decision-making and enables organizations to allocate resources effectively to manage risks in alignment with strategic priorities.

Options A, C, and D are incorrect:

Option A, financial impact and organizational hierarchy, may be factors considered in specific risk assessments but do not encompass the comprehensive criteria outlined in ISO 31000 for risk evaluation.
Option C, project deadlines and stakeholder expectations, are important considerations in project management but are not primary criteria used for evaluating risks as per ISO 31000 guidelines.
Option D, market share and competitor analysis, are relevant in competitive analysis but are not standard criteria specified in ISO 31000 for assessing risks within organizational contexts.

To achieve effective integration of risk management, aligning risk management practices with strategic objectives is crucial as per ISO 31000 guidelines. Option B is correct because integration ensures that risk management processes are embedded within organizational culture, strategic planning, and operational decision-making. This approach facilitates proactive identification, assessment, and mitigation of risks across all business functions, enhancing organizational resilience and supporting sustainable growth. By aligning risk management with strategic objectives, organizations can optimize resource allocation, improve performance, and mitigate risks that may impact achieving business goals.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, conducting risk assessments annually, limits the timeliness and responsiveness of risk management practices, which should be ongoing and integrated into daily operations.
Option B, limiting risk communication to senior management, hinders transparency and collaboration necessary for effective risk management across organizational levels.
Option D, assigning risk management responsibilities to one department, overlooks the need for cross-functional involvement and ownership of risks throughout the organization, which is essential for comprehensive risk management integration.

Risk sharing involves transferring or sharing the financial consequences of risks with other parties, such as insurance providers, partners, or contractors, according to ISO 31000 principles. Option C is correct because this strategy allows organizations to distribute risks across multiple entities to reduce the financial impact of adverse events. By sharing risks, organizations can leverage external expertise and resources, enhance resilience against unexpected losses, and maintain operational continuity. This approach supports strategic risk management by diversifying risk exposure and optimizing risk allocation based on shared responsibilities and mutual agreements.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, risk avoidance, focuses on eliminating or withdrawing from activities that pose risks rather than sharing financial consequences with other parties.
Option B, risk acceptance, involves acknowledging and tolerating risks without active mitigation or transfer strategies.
Option D, risk mitigation, aims to reduce the likelihood or impact of risks through preventive measures or controls within the organization rather than transferring financial consequences to external parties.

Brainstorming sessions are a widely recognized technique in ISO 31000 for systematically identifying risks by gathering insights and perspectives from diverse stakeholders within an organization. Option A is correct because brainstorming fosters creativity, encourages open discussion, and facilitates the identification of potential risks across various operational areas. This collaborative approach supports comprehensive risk identification by capturing a wide range of perspectives, enhancing the organization’s ability to anticipate and address risks proactively. Brainstorming sessions align with ISO 31000 principles by promoting stakeholder engagement, transparency, and collective problem-solving in risk management processes.

Options B, C, and D are incorrect:

Option B, project timeline analysis, focuses on assessing project schedules rather than systematically identifying risks throughout the organization.
Option C, stakeholder surveys, gather feedback but are not a dedicated technique specified in ISO 31000 for systematic risk identification.
Option D, financial audit reports, provide financial insights but do not inherently support the systematic identification of operational risks across organizational functions as recommended by ISO 31000.

In ISO 31000, prioritizing risk treatment involves assessing risks based on their potential consequences and likelihood to determine which risks pose the greatest threat to project objectives or organizational goals. Option D is correct because this approach allows Ms. Garcia to focus resources on mitigating risks that have the highest potential impact on project success or operational continuity. By prioritizing risk treatment based on consequences and likelihood, organizations can allocate resources effectively, implement targeted mitigation strategies, and optimize risk management efforts to achieve desired outcomes while maintaining alignment with risk appetite and tolerance levels.

Options A, B, and C are incorrect:

Option A, addressing risks based on the highest financial impact, overlooks the importance of considering both consequences and likelihood in risk prioritization as recommended by ISO 31000.
Option B, mitigating risks that are easiest to resolve first, may not address risks with the highest potential impact if they are more complex or have broader implications for project success.
Option C, consulting with senior management, is important for decision-making but does not replace the systematic evaluation of risks based on their potential consequences and likelihood, which informs effective risk treatment prioritization.

Monitoring and Review is a key component of the risk management framework in ISO 31000, focusing on ongoing evaluation of the effectiveness of risk management processes and strategies. Option C is correct because this component ensures that risk management activities are continuously assessed, adjusted, and improved to address changing risk profiles and organizational dynamics. Monitoring and Review involve reviewing risk mitigation measures, evaluating their impact, and identifying opportunities for enhancement to strengthen resilience and optimize risk management outcomes. This iterative process supports organizational learning, adapts to emerging risks, and enhances the overall effectiveness of risk management efforts in achieving strategic objectives.

Options A, B, and D are incorrect:

Option A, risk identification, focuses on identifying risks rather than evaluating the effectiveness of risk management processes.
Option B, risk assessment, involves evaluating the likelihood and consequences of identified risks rather than monitoring the ongoing effectiveness of risk management.
Option D, risk treatment, addresses implementing strategies to modify risks rather than specifically monitoring and reviewing the outcomes of risk management efforts as part of ongoing evaluation.