Skip to main content

CAP-03: Capacity Planning

CAP 8 — High Protect

Mechanisms exist to conduct capacity planning so that necessary capacity for information processing, telecommunications and environmental support will exist during contingency operations.

Control Question: Does the organization conduct capacity planning so that necessary capacity for information processing, telecommunications and environmental support will exist during contingency operations?

General (29)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) A1.1 A1.1-POF2
GovRAMP Low SC-05
GovRAMP Low+ SC-05
GovRAMP Moderate CP-02(02) SC-05
GovRAMP High CP-02(02) SC-05
ISO 27002 2022 8.6
ISO 27017 2015 12.1.3
NIST Privacy Framework 1.0 PR.DS-P4
NIST 800-53 R4 SC-5 SC-5(2) CP-2(2)
NIST 800-53 R4 (low) SC-5
NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) SC-5
NIST 800-53 R4 (high) SC-5 CP-2(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) CP-2(2) SC-5 SC-5(2)
NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) SC-5
NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) SC-5
NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) SC-5 CP-2(2)
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) SC-5(2)
NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay SC-5
NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay SC-5
NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay SC-5 CP-2(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 CP-2(2) SC-5(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 SC-5(2) CP-2(2)
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 3 CP-2(2)
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) PR.IR-04
Shared Assessments SIG 2025 N.2
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) CAP-03
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational CAP-03
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure CAP-03
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats CAP-03
US (15)
EMEA (3)
APAC (3)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-1579 ISM-1580 ISM-1581
APAC Japan ISMAP 12.1.3 12.1.3.9.PB
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 8.1.3
Americas (1)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2.8.2

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to conduct capacity planning so that necessary capacity for information processing, telecommunications and environmental support will exist during contingency operations.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • IT personnel work with business stakeholders to identify business-critical systems and services.
  • IT personnel work with business stakeholders to identify growth requirements and add capacity accordingly.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) are requirements-driven and governed at a local/regional level, but are not consistent across the organization. CMM Level 2 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Business stakeholders to identify business-critical systems and services. o Business stakeholders to identify single points of failure from a system/applications/services perspective. o Create and maintain infrastructure performance metrics to understand current resource needs. o Deploy preventative technologies to minimize the effect of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks against business-critical services.

  • Capacity management is decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices.
  • IT/cybersecurity personnel identify cybersecurity and data protection controls that are appropriate to address applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements for capability management.
  • IT personnel work with:
  • IT infrastructure personnel:
Level 3 — Well Defined

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) efforts are standardized across the organization and centrally managed, where technically feasible, to ensure consistency. CMM Level 3 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist: o Create an annual infrastructure growth plan with input from both technology and business stakeholders. o Create and maintain infrastructure performance metrics to understand current resource needs. o Produce a capacity plan that covers current use, forecasted needs and support costs for new systems, applications and services.

  • The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), or similar function with technical competence to address cybersecurity concerns, analyzes the organization's business strategy to provide guidance for capacity and performance planning practices.
  • The CISO, or similar function, develops a security-focused Concept of Operations (CONOPS) that documents management, operational and technical measures to apply defense-in-depth techniques across the organization. This CONOPS for capacity and performance planning may be incorporated as part of a broader operational plan for the cybersecurity and data privacy program.
  • A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, provides governance oversight for the implementation of applicable statutory, regulatory and contractual cybersecurity and data protection controls to protect the confidentiality, integrity, availability and safety of the organization's applications, systems, services and data.
  • A steering committee is formally established to provide executive oversight of the cybersecurity and data privacy program and establishes a clear and authoritative accountability structure for capacity and performance planning operations.
  • IT personnel work with business stakeholders to identify business-critical systems and services, as part of the organization's IT Asset Management (ITAM) program.
  • Automated tools continuously monitor the operating state and health status of systems/applications/services.
  • Business stakeholders conduct a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) to determine acceptable downtime constraints and any dependencies between applications or systems, to objectively determine the criticality of systems, applications or services, as well as the order is which systems need to be restored.
  • Demand is managed for computing resources based on BIA-defined prioritization.
  • Based on BIA results, IT infrastructure personnel deploy preventative technologies to minimize the effect of Denial of Service (DoS) attacks.
  • IT architects identify appropriate solutions to make sure service levels can be met.
  • IT infrastructure personnel:
  • Automated tools continuously monitor the operating state and health status of systems, applications and services to expand the availability of resources, as demand conditions change.
  • IT personnel work with business stakeholders to identify single points of failure from a system/applications/services perspective.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Capability & Performance Planning (CAP) efforts are metrics driven and provide sufficient management insight (based on a quantitative understanding of process capabilities) to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and identify areas for improvement. In addition to CMM Level 3 criteria, CMM Level 4 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).
  • Metrics reporting includes quantitative analysis of Key Risk Indicators (KRIs).
  • Scope of metrics, KPIs and KRIs covers organization-wide cybersecurity and data protection controls, including functions performed by third-parties.
  • Organizational leadership maintains a formal process to objectively review and respond to metrics, KPIs and KRIs (e.g., monthly or quarterly review).
  • Based on metrics analysis, process improvement recommendations are submitted for review and are handled in accordance with change control processes.
  • Both business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving

See C|P-CMM4. There are no defined C|P-CMM5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to conduct capacity planning so that necessary capacity for information processing, telecommunications and environmental support will exist during contingency operations.

Assessment Objectives

  1. CAP-03_A01 capacity planning is conducted so that the necessary capacity exists during contingency operations for information processing.
  2. CAP-03_A02 capacity planning is conducted so that the necessary capacity exists during contingency operations for telecommunications.
  3. CAP-03_A03 capacity planning is conducted so that the necessary capacity exists during contingency operations for environmental support.

Evidence Requirements

E-CAP-01 Capacity Planning

Documented evidence of proactive capacity planning to meet expected and anticipated future technology-related capacity and/or performance requirements.

Capacity Management

Technology Recommendations

The Secure Controls Framework (SCF) is maintained by SCF Council. Use of SCF content is subject to the SCF Terms & Conditions.

Manage this control in SCF Connect

Track implementation status, collect evidence, and map controls to your compliance frameworks automatically.