CIPS L5M2 Exam - Topic 2 Question 40 Discussion

Actual exam question for CIPS's L5M2 exam

Question #: 40
Topic #: 2

[All L5M2 Questions]

Robot Ltd manufactures high end robots. A lot of value is tied up in the stock that it holds within its warehouse as each robot is worth several thousand pounds. The company has decided to enlist the services of a third party provider for disaster recovery, to help them shape a plan for if something were to happen to the stock, such as a flood. Is this the correct thing for Robot Ltd to do?

Ayes- a 3rd party can provide broader experience and expertise

Byes- a third party is a cheap option for disaster recovery planning

Cno- Robot Ltd should create a cross-functional team to draw up the plan as internal stakeholders will understand the risks better than a 3rd party

Dno - a 3rd party can only help in the solution stage of disaster recovery, not the planning stage

Show Suggested Answer

Suggested Answer: A

The correct answer is 1 - the 3rd party can provide broader experience and expertise. They can advise on best practice and will know how to advise Robot Ltd as they will have experience across a wide range of companies. This is explained on p.91 of the study guide

by Ronny at Aug 28, 2024, 06:35 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium L5M2 Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

Submit Cancel

Brynn

3 months ago

Not sure a 3rd party can really grasp all the nuances.

upvoted 0 times

...

Fernanda

3 months ago

A third party is usually more cost-effective for planning.

upvoted 0 times

...

Beula

3 months ago

Surprised they’re not handling this in-house!

upvoted 0 times

...

Marta

4 months ago

I disagree, internal teams know the risks better.

upvoted 0 times

...

Marget

4 months ago

A third party can definitely bring in fresh perspectives!

upvoted 0 times

...

Launa

4 months ago

I think option D might be correct because it seems like third parties are more focused on implementation rather than the planning phase itself.

upvoted 0 times

...

Catalina

4 months ago

I feel like there was a practice question similar to this, and it emphasized the value of having a mix of internal and external resources for disaster recovery planning.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rolland

4 months ago

I'm not entirely sure, but I think we also talked about the importance of internal teams knowing the specific risks better than outsiders.

upvoted 0 times

...

Gwenn

5 months ago

I remember we discussed how third-party providers can bring in specialized knowledge, which might be beneficial for Robot Ltd.

upvoted 0 times

...

Diane

5 months ago

This is a tricky one. On the surface, it seems like using a third-party provider could be beneficial, but the last option suggests that they may not be able to contribute much to the planning stage. I'll need to really think through the implications of each choice.

upvoted 0 times

...

Rosendo

5 months ago

Okay, I think I've got a handle on this. The key is to consider whether the third-party provider can bring valuable expertise and a broader perspective, or if the internal team would be better equipped to understand the specific risks. I'll need to analyze the options with that in mind.

upvoted 0 times

...

Anglea

5 months ago

Hmm, I'm a bit unsure about this one. The question is asking whether it's the correct thing for the company to do, but the options don't seem to give a clear-cut answer. I'll need to think through the reasoning behind each option.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lawrence

5 months ago

This seems like a straightforward question about the benefits of using a third-party provider for disaster recovery planning. I'll need to carefully weigh the pros and cons mentioned in the options.

upvoted 0 times

...

Verona

5 months ago

I feel pretty confident about this one. The first two options highlight the potential advantages of using a third-party provider, while the last two options raise valid concerns. I'll need to weigh those factors carefully to determine the best approach for Robot Ltd.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lezlie

5 months ago

This looks like a tricky one. I'll need to carefully review the XML schema and the requirements for Simple Validation Mode to determine which rule is being violated.

upvoted 0 times

...

Callie

1 year ago

This question is a piece of cake! I'd go with option A - it's a no-brainer. Though I'm still trying to figure out what a 'robot' is. Are those the things that make the coffee in the breakroom?

upvoted 0 times

Yuonne

1 year ago

A) yes- a 3rd party can provide broader experience and expertise

upvoted 0 times

...

Fannie

1 year ago

C) no- Robot Ltd should create a cross-functional team to draw up the plan as internal stakeholders will understand the risks better than a 3rd party

upvoted 0 times

...

Glendora

1 year ago

A) yes- a 3rd party can provide broader experience and expertise

upvoted 0 times

...

Christoper

1 year ago

Hmm, option D actually makes a lot of sense. A third-party can only help with the solution, not the all-important planning phase.

upvoted 0 times

Devora

1 year ago

That's a good point. Internal stakeholders would have a better understanding of the risks involved.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lashawnda

1 year ago

C) no- Robot Ltd should create a cross-functional team to draw up the plan as internal stakeholders will understand the risks better than a 3rd party

upvoted 0 times

...

Sylvie

1 year ago

A) yes- a 3rd party can provide broader experience and expertise

upvoted 0 times

...

Raymon

1 year ago

Nah, option C is the clear winner. No one knows the business better than the people who work there. A third-party just won't get it.

upvoted 0 times

Cammy

1 year ago

Exactly, they know the ins and outs better than anyone else.

upvoted 0 times

...

Brock

1 year ago

True, internal stakeholders have a deeper understanding of the business.

upvoted 0 times

...

Scot

1 year ago

C) no- Robot Ltd should create a cross-functional team to draw up the plan as internal stakeholders will understand the risks better than a 3rd party

upvoted 0 times

...

Hector

1 year ago

A) yes- a 3rd party can provide broader experience and expertise

upvoted 0 times

...

Eloisa

1 year ago

I think a third party can only help in the solution stage, not the planning stage.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lashawnda

1 year ago

I disagree, Robot Ltd should create a cross-functional team for disaster recovery planning.

upvoted 0 times

...

Silva

1 year ago

I agree with Werner, a third party can provide broader experience and expertise.

upvoted 0 times

...

Eladia

1 year ago

Option B seems like the most cost-effective choice. Who needs all that fancy internal planning when you can outsource it for cheap?

upvoted 0 times

Yolando

1 year ago

I disagree. We should have our own team handle it, they know our business best.

upvoted 0 times

...

Daren

1 year ago

I think option B is the way to go. Cheaper and easier.

upvoted 0 times

...

Huey

1 year ago

I think option A is the way to go. A third-party provider can bring a fresh perspective and industry-leading expertise to the table.

upvoted 0 times

Tamie

1 year ago

Definitely, having broader experience can help ensure a more comprehensive disaster recovery plan.

upvoted 0 times

...

Lindsey

1 year ago

I agree, a third party can provide valuable insights that internal stakeholders may not have.

upvoted 0 times

...

Werner

2 years ago

I think Robot Ltd should enlist the services of a third party for disaster recovery.

upvoted 0 times

...