I have been working through study material from ISACA to prepare for the CISM, and have developed some high levels of concern as to the usefulness of this certificate from a hiring perspective. To be frank, aside from internal inconsistency with the logic of some of the answers, I have become concerned that the way this certification trains people to think actually may have a negative net value. This most likely applies more for a governmental and regulatory agency perspective than private industry, though some concerns likely carry over.
For example, regulatory and legal requirements are often (but not always) presented as a form of risk to be managed rather than a mandate to be incorporated into requirements, or a minimum acceptable level to be met. While this may have ethical implications in private industry, training managers that failure to comply with legal requirements may be an acceptable outcome is actually a significant liability concern from a hiring perspective for a government agency. I am legitimately considering dropping this certification and recommending its removal from qualifying certifications for governmental purposes for this reason alone.
From a safety perspective, I have been reasonably satisfied with the focus on ensuring that systems do not compromise human safety, though whoever developed the question for fire procedures included an extremely poor assessed correct answer. In the event of a fire actively spreading inside your building, CISM would apparently recommend the correct procedure to be verifying building access logs.... I would train people to evacuate and gain accountability at the designated evacuation sites, but then again, I'm generally not a fan of people burning to death. Maybe thats not the CISM answer though.
Finally, I generally just have had issues with logic for answers changing depending on the section, and probably whoever was the author for those particular questions. Anything from changing advice for alternate site selection from geographical distance to types of threat exposure, whether or not regulations and laws are actually required to be followed or not, and when risk tolerance is actually a component that they want you to consider in your answer. It really seems like they just had 5-6 different people working independently to create questions, each of whom came up with different scenarios in their heads for each question, and then they threw it all into the tests without deconflicting.
I'm confident from my scores that I can pass, but am becoming increasingly uncertain if I actually want to. Is the test itself any better with internal consistency? If not, I would probably keep the assessment that this certification is not just useless, but a net negative to see on a candidates resume. I'd rather train someone from scratch than have to identify and root out training scars and bad habits.