Which of the following is the MOST significant benefit to implementing a third-party federated identity architecture?

Question

Options

• AAttribute assertions as agencies can request a larger set of attributes to fulfill service delivery
• BData decrease related to storing personal information
• CReduction in operational costs to the agency
• DEnable business objectives so departments can focus on mission rather than the business of

• A
  13% (3)
• B
  4% (1)
• C
  78% (18)
• D
  4% (1)

Explanation

Implementing a third-party federated identity architecture offloads the heavy lifting of identity management - infrastructure, maintenance, compliance, and support - to a specialized provider, directly reducing operational costs to the agency (C). Agencies no longer need to build and maintain their own identity systems, freeing budget and staff.

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A is a real capability of federated identity (attribute assertions exist), but it's a feature detail, not the most significant benefit - and agencies don't inherently get a "larger" attribute set just from federation.
• B is actually the opposite of what typically happens; federated identity often means the identity provider holds user data, which may redistribute data storage but doesn't inherently decrease it agency-wide.
• D (incomplete as written, likely "...business of identity management") is partially true - departments can focus on mission - but this is a consequence of cost reduction, not a standalone benefit. Option C is the root cause that enables D.

Memory tip: Think of federation like outsourcing your IT helpdesk. The core reason you outsource is cost - everything else (better focus, fewer headaches) flows from that financial decision. On exams, when "cost reduction" is an option for an outsourcing/third-party question, it's usually the primary driver.

No community discussion yet for this question.