Identify the most significant risk introduced by this approach to incident management. 3 credits [K4]

Question

Options

• AExcel list may not be insynchronizationwith Word documents
• BLow level of usability
• CSpreadsheet/text files may not be complete
• DDoes not map to IEEE 1044

• A
  68% (34)
• B
  18% (9)
• C
  4% (2)
• D
  10% (5)

Explanation

Using separate Excel spreadsheets and Word documents to manage incidents creates a synchronization risk - when an incident is updated in one tool, the other may not reflect that change, leading to inconsistent, contradictory records that can cause missed escalations or incorrect status reporting. This is the most operationally dangerous failure mode because it directly compromises data integrity across the incident lifecycle.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• B (Low usability): While Excel/Word isn't ideal, usability is a quality-of-life issue, not a data integrity risk - people can work around poor UX, but they can't easily detect silent data divergence.
• C (Incomplete files): Completeness is a concern but is subordinate to synchronization - an incomplete record is visible and fixable; an out-of-sync record may appear valid while being wrong.
• D (Does not map to IEEE 1044): Non-compliance with a standard is a governance concern, not an operational incident management risk - and the question asks for the most significant risk.

Memory tip: Think of it as the "two-source problem" - any time the same data lives in two places, they will diverge. The Excel list tracks incidents; the Word docs describe them. If one updates and the other doesn't, you're flying blind. Synchronization failure = most significant risk.

No community discussion yet for this question.