Navigating Hock’s CIA Exam Prep: A Critical Path Conundrum
Hello fellow CIA aspirants,
As I dive into preparations for Part 3 of the CIA exam, I’ve been diligently utilizing Hock’s study materials. However, I’ve encountered a perplexing question concerning project management techniques, and I could use your insights to unravel this mystery.
The conundrum involves identifying the critical path within a project schedule. According to the activity table, it appears that EF’s predecessor is CE, not BE as suggested. Curiously, Hock’s solution indicates that the critical path is AB → BE → EF. This seems inconsistent with the activity dependencies provided.
Given that EF is contingent upon CE, incorporating BE in the critical path seems unlikely. My analysis suggests that the critical path should actually be AC → CD → DF, as this sequence spans the longest duration, totaling 13 days.
Is there an aspect I’m overlooking, or could this indeed be an oversight? I’d love to hear your thoughts and experiences with similar materials or concepts.
Thanks so much for your assistance and insights!
One response
Hello,
Thank you for reaching out and sharing your insights regarding the preparation for the CIA Exam using Hock materials. It’s great to see your engagement and analytical approach to deciphering complex concepts like project management techniques and critical path analysis, which are indeed pivotal for Part 3 of the CIA exam.
Your thought process highlights a common challenge students face when navigating intricate projects and their dependencies. Determining the critical path involves identifying the sequence of activities that adds up to the longest overall duration, i.e., the shortest time needed to complete the project. Each activity preceding the other in this path should logically align with its predecessors.
From your description, it seems that there might indeed be an inconsistency in the solution you’ve encountered. If EF indeed has CE as its predecessor, then logically, including BE in the critical path seems to be an error. Your alternative path, AC → CD → DF, having a consistent series of dependencies and the longest duration, seems more plausible and aligns with critical path methodologies.
Here are a few steps and practical advice that might aid in further clarifying and confirming your findings:
Re-evaluate Dependencies: Double-check the dependency relations in the activity table to ensure they are correctly noted in your calculations. This will help confirm that EF should indeed follow CE.
Network Diagram: Try sketching a network diagram. Visual representation can often clarify the relationships and dependencies better than textual data.
Refer to Hock’s Support: If you believe there’s a mistake, reaching out to Hock directly for confirmation could be beneficial. They might have errata or updates that clarify this particular issue.
Community and Forums: Engaging with fellow CIA candidates in forums or study groups can provide additional insights or confirm similar discrepancies they’ve encountered.
Alternative Resources: Consult other study materials or resources on critical path analysis to cross-verify the logic you’ve applied.
Investing time in understanding the nuances of these techniques, even when errors occur, enhances your problem-solving skills—an essential asset for internal auditors. Keep up your diligent work, and I hope you find the clarification you need.
Best regards and good luck with your preparations!