Which method is best to mitigate risks related to emergency changes directly to production in a small organization?

Which method is best to mitigate risks related to emergency changes directly to production in a small organization?

• A. Approve and document the change the next business day
• B. Limit developer access to production
• C. Obtain secondary approval before release
• D. Disable the compiler option on production

Answer: (A)

Approving and documenting the change the next business day is an effective method to mitigate risks associated with emergency changes in a small organization. This approach allows for immediate action to address urgent issues while ensuring a structured follow-up process. By documenting the change after it has been made, the organization establishes a record of what was changed, why it was done, and the impact expected or observed from that change. This documentation is crucial for auditing purposes and helps maintain a history of changes that can inform future decision-making and risk assessments. In addition, by waiting until the next business day to approve the change, it creates an opportunity for a more deliberate review process. Team members can evaluate the change’s effectiveness, identify any unforeseen consequences, and ensure that the action taken was in line with the organization's overall strategy and safety protocols. This approach balances the need for responsiveness with the necessity of due diligence, ultimately contributing to more effective risk management in the context of emergency changes. Other methods of mitigating risks, while they provide specific controls—such as limiting developer access, obtaining secondary approval, or disabling certain options—do not address the immediate need for changes to be made rapidly in emergency situations. Instead, they focus on preventative measures or additional layers of control that may not be appropriate in

Approving and documenting the change the next business day is an effective method to mitigate risks associated with emergency changes in a small organization. This approach allows for immediate action to address urgent issues while ensuring a structured follow-up process. By documenting the change after it has been made, the organization establishes a record of what was changed, why it was done, and the impact expected or observed from that change. This documentation is crucial for auditing purposes and helps maintain a history of changes that can inform future decision-making and risk assessments.

In addition, by waiting until the next business day to approve the change, it creates an opportunity for a more deliberate review process. Team members can evaluate the change’s effectiveness, identify any unforeseen consequences, and ensure that the action taken was in line with the organization's overall strategy and safety protocols. This approach balances the need for responsiveness with the necessity of due diligence, ultimately contributing to more effective risk management in the context of emergency changes.

Other methods of mitigating risks, while they provide specific controls—such as limiting developer access, obtaining secondary approval, or disabling certain options—do not address the immediate need for changes to be made rapidly in emergency situations. Instead, they focus on preventative measures or additional layers of control that may not be appropriate in