Security is frequently seen as a cost center instead of as a value driver is the correct option.

This choice is correct because executives and board members often evaluate functions by their direct contribution to revenue and by obvious cost impacts. When security is framed primarily as an expense and not as an enabler of business outcomes such as trust, customer retention, regulatory continuity, or risk reduction, it is harder to secure sustained leadership support for governance programs.

To make governance programs successful leaders need to understand how controls reduce business risk and enable safe innovation. Framing investments in terms of measurable business benefits and accepted risk thresholds helps convert the perception of Security is frequently seen as a cost center instead of as a value driver into a discussion about value and risk management.

Relying only on Security Command Center to provide governance assurance is incorrect because a single technical tool cannot substitute for organizational governance. Governance requires policies, roles, risk acceptance, and decision making across the business and technology stacks in addition to any monitoring platform.

Executives focus on short term revenue targets and view security as slowing innovation is incorrect as a standalone reason because this is a symptom rather than the underlying barrier. The core issue is the perception of value, and changing that perception improves how executives balance short term targets with long term risk and innovation needs.

Stakeholders assume established compliance frameworks automatically ensure governance is incorrect because compliance frameworks provide baseline requirements but do not guarantee effective governance. Governance also needs contextual risk assessment, accountability, and ongoing management that go beyond simply meeting checklist controls.

Full AWS Practitioner Certification Question