GOV-12.1: Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
Mechanisms exist to develop, report and monitor Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to assist organizational management in performance monitoring, trend analysis, and possible control redesign or replacement for the Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP).
Renumbered: Formerly GOV-05.1 in SCF 2025.4.
Control Question: Does the organization develop, report and monitor Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to assist organizational management in performance monitoring and trend analysis of the Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP)?
General (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC1.2 CC1.5 CC2.2 CC4.1 |
| COBIT 2019 | APO02.02 |
| COSO 2013 | 2.0 5.0 14.0 16.0 |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.2 |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | MEASURE 4.1 MEASURE 4.3 |
| NIST AI 600-1 | GV-1.3-002 |
US (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal FFIEC ITEH 2016 | II.D.1 |
EMEA (5)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA Germany C5 2026 | COM-04.01AC |
| EMEA EU DORA 2023 | Article 6.8(c) |
| EMEA LUX CCSF 22/806 2022 | 108.b |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia IoT CGIoT-1 2024 | 1-1-3 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia SAMA CSF 1.0 2017 | 3.1.4.2.c.6 |
APAC (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC India RBI Digital Payments 2021 | 6.0 |
| APAC Malaysia RMiT 2025 | 8.6(c) |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI B-13 2022 | 2.8.1 |
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 develop, report and monitor Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to assist organizational management in performance monitoring and trend analysis of the Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP).
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ 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. ▪ Business and technical stakeholders are involved in reviewing and approving proposed changes to evolve capabilities.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities, in addition to being standardized across the entity and centrally managed to ensure consistency across Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD), efforts are metrics driven to provide sufficient insight for decision makers to predict optimal performance, ensure continued operations and/or identify areas for improvement. Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Applicable SCR-CMM Level 3 (Well Defined) capabilities are implemented and operational. ▪ Based on predictive analysis, process improvements are implemented according to “continuous improvement” practices that affect process changes. ▪ Stakeholders make time-sensitive decisions to support operational efficiency, which may include automated remediation actions via Artificial Intelligence (AI) or Machine Learning (ML) technologies.
Assessment Objectives
- GOV-12.1_A01 Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are developed to assist organizational management in performance monitoring, trend analysis and possible control redesign or replacement for the organization's Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP).
- GOV-12.1_A02 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) results are reported to organizational management per an organization-defined frequency.
- GOV-12.1_A03 Key Performance Indicator (KPI) results are used to identify Security, Compliance & Resilience Program (SCRP) controls that may require redesign or replacement.
Evidence Requirements
- E-GOV-14 Measures of Performance (Metrics)
-
Documented evidence of formal measure of performance that are used to track the health of the cybersecurity & data protection program (e.g., metrics, KPIs, KRIs).
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- Manually-generated metrics (spreadsheet)
- Key security KPIs: patch compliance %, training completion %, incident count, open vulnerability age
Small
- Manually-generated metrics with defined KPI thresholds
- GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
- Monthly/quarterly KPI reporting to leadership
Medium
- Defined security KPI library (CIS, CISA, or custom)
- Automated KPI collection via GRC or SIEM integration
- GRC solution (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, SureCloud, SimpleRisk, Ignyte, ZenGRC, Galvanize, MetricStream, Archer, etc.)
Large
- Formal KPI program with defined targets, thresholds, and owners
- GRC platform with automated KPI dashboards (e.g., SCFConnect, Cyturus, etc.)
- Board-level security KPI reporting cadence
Enterprise
- Enterprise KPI program aligned to NIST, CIS, or custom security frameworks
- Automated KPI collection and reporting via GRC/SIEM integration
- Board and audit committee KPI reporting with trend analysis
- KPIs mapped to business risk appetite and strategic objectives