Skip to main content

GOV-11.3: Assess Controls

GOV 8 — High Govern

Mechanisms exist to compel data and/or process owners to assess if required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are: (1) Designed to meet control objectives; (2) Implemented correctly; and (3) Operating as intended.

Renumbered: Formerly GOV-15.3 in SCF 2025.4.

Control Question: Does the organization compel data and/or process owners to assess if required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are: (1) Implemented correctly; and (2) Operating as intended?

General (10)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC4.2-POF1
ISO 22301 2019 8.1
ISO 29100 2024 6.12
ISO 31000 2018 5.2
ISO 42001 2023 8.1
NIST 800-37 R2 TASK A-3 TASK M-2
NIST 800-171 R3 (source) 03.15.01.a 03.17.01.a
NIST 800-171A R3 (source) A.03.15.01.a[03] A.03.17.01.a[01]
SCF DPMP 2026 7.0 7.1
TISAX ISA 6.0.3 5.3.1
US (14)
EMEA (3)
Framework Mapping Values
EMEA EU DORA 2023 Article 7(a) Article 7(b) Article 7(c) Article 7(d)
EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 1-6-1
EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 1-1-1
APAC (1)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2026 ISM-1636
Americas (3)

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.

Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).

Level 3 — Well Defined

Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to compel data and/or process owners to assess if required security, compliance and resilience controls for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are: (1) Implemented correctly; and (2) Operating as intended.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Level 5 — Continuously Improving

Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.

Assessment Objectives

  1. GOV-11.3_A01 roles and responsibilities exist to compel data and/or process owners to assess if required security, compliance and resilience controls for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are designed to meet control objectives, implemented correctly and operating as intended.
  2. GOV-11.3_A02 Individual Contributor (IC) performance reviews cover how data and/or process owners assess if required security, compliance and resilience controls for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are designed to meet control objectives, implemented correctly and operating as intended.
  3. GOV-11.3_A03 data and/or process owners assess whether required security, compliance and resilience controls for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are designed to meet control objectives.
  4. GOV-11.3_A04 data and/or process owners assess whether required security, compliance and resilience controls for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are implemented correctly.
  5. GOV-11.3_A05 data and/or process owners assess whether required security, compliance and resilience controls for the Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD) under their control are operating as intended.

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Small

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Medium

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Large

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

Enterprise

  • SCF Security, Compliance & Resilience Management System (SCRMS)

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.