Skip to main content

PRM-02: Cybersecurity & Data Protection Resource Management

PRM 8 — High Identify

Mechanisms exist to address all capital planning and investment requests, including the resources needed to implement the cybersecurity and data protection programs and document all exceptions to this requirement.

Control Question: Does the organization address all capital planning and investment requests, including the resources needed to implement the cybersecurity and data protection programs and document all exceptions to this requirement?

General (24)
Framework Mapping Values
AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) CC1.4
BSI Standard 200-1 5
COBIT 2019 EDM02.01 EDM02.02 EDM02.03 EDM02.04 EDM04.01 EDM04.02 EDM04.03
COSO 2017 Principle 4
ISO 22301 2019 8.3.4
ISO 27001 2022 (source) 5.1(c) 7.1
ISO 27002 2022 5.4
ISO 27701 2025 7.1
ISO 31010 2009 4.3.1 4.3.2
ISO 42001 2023 5.1 7.1 A.6.2.2
NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) 4.D(2)(b)
NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 MANAGE 2.1
NIST 800-53 R4 PM-3
NIST 800-53 R5 (source) PM-3
NIST 800-53 R5 (NOC) (source) PM-3
NIST 800-160 3.3.2 3.3.3
NIST 800-161 R1 PM-3
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 PM-3
NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 PM-3
NIST CSF 2.0 (source) GV.RR-03
SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) PRM-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational PRM-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure PRM-02
SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats PRM-02
US (6)
Framework Mapping Values
US C2M2 2.1 ASSET-5.B.MIL2 THREAT-3.A.MIL2 RISK-5.B.MIL2 ACCESS-4.B.MIL2 SITUATION-4.B.MIL2 RESPONSE-5.B.MIL2 THIRD-PARTIES-3.B.MIL2 WORKFORCE-4.B.MIL2 ARCHITECTURE-5.B.MIL2 PROGRAM-3.B.MIL2
US CERT RMM 1.2 EF:SG3.SP1 FRM:SG1.SP2 FRM:SG2.SP2
US CMS MARS-E 2.0 PM-3
US IRS 1075 PM-3
US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 500.4(d)(4)
US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 PM-3
EMEA (7)
APAC (6)
Framework Mapping Values
APAC Australia ISM June 2024 ISM-0732
APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 25
APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 13 15
APAC Japan ISMAP 4.4.5 4.5.1 4.5.1.1 4.5.1.2
APAC New Zealand NZISM 3.6 3.2.15.C.01
APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.2.1 5.2.2 5.5.1 5.5.2
Americas (2)
Framework Mapping Values
Americas Canada CSAG 1.1 6.22
Americas Canada OSFI B-13 1.2.1

Capability Maturity Model

Level 0 — Not Performed

There is no evidence of a capability to address all capital planning and investment requests, including the resources needed to implement the cybersecurity and data protection programs and document all exceptions to this requirement.

Level 1 — Performed Informally

Project & Resource Management (PRM) efforts are ad hoc and inconsistent. CMM Level 1 control maturity would reasonably expect all, or at least most, the following criteria to exist:

  • Program/project management is decentralized.
  • IT personnel work with data/process owners to help ensure secure practices are implemented throughout the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all high-value projects.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked

Project & Resource Management (PRM) efforts 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:

  • Program/project 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 Project Management (PM).
  • The PM function facilitates the implementation of cybersecurity and data protection-related resource planning controls across the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all projects.
  • The responsibility for enforcing cybersecurity and data protection control implementation is assigned to business / process owners and asset custodians.
Level 3 — Well Defined

Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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:

  • The Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), or similar function with technical competence to address cybersecurity concerns, analyzes the organization's business strategy to determine prioritized and authoritative guidance for program/project management 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 enterprise with regards to program/project management.
  • The CISO, or similar function, leverages a capability maturity model to define and identify targeted capability maturity levels for each of the functions that make up the cybersecurity and data protection program.
  • A Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) function, 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 for program/project management.
  • A steering committee is formally established to provide executive oversight of the cybersecurity and data protection program, including program/project management.
  • A Project Management Office (PMO), or project management function, enables the centralized-implementation of cybersecurity and data protection-related resource planning controls across the System Development Lifecycle (SDLC) for all projects.
  • The PMO determines the identification and allocation of resources for cybersecurity and data protection requirements within business process planning for projects and other initiatives.
  • Project Management (PM) is centrally-managed across the enterprise to implement cybersecurity and data protection controls as part of the project management lifecycle, with the responsibility for enforcing cybersecurity and data protection control implementation assigned to business / process owners and asset custodians.
  • Subordinate staff and stakeholders are educated on the capability maturity expectations and those targets are used to task individual contributor work activities in an effort to achieve the targeted maturity levels.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 address all capital planning and investment requests, including the resources needed to implement the cybersecurity and data protection programs and document all exceptions to this requirement.

Assessment Objectives

  1. PRM-02_A01 the resources needed to implement the cybersecurity / data privacy program are included in capital planning and investment requests and all exceptions are documented.
  2. PRM-02_A02 the documentation required for addressing the cybersecurity / data privacy program in capital planning and investment requests is prepared in accordance with applicable laws, executive orders, directives, policies, regulations, standards.
  3. PRM-02_A03 cybersecurity / data privacy resources are made available for expenditure as planned.

Evidence Requirements

E-PRM-02 Portfolio Roadmap

Documented evidence of the organization's roadmap for implementing cybersecurity-related initiatives and technologies.

Resource Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Generic budget for IT products and services

Small

  • Generic budget for IT products and services

Medium

  • Dedicated cybersecurity budget
  • Dedicated data protection budget

Large

  • Dedicated cybersecurity budget
  • Dedicated data protection budget

Enterprise

  • Dedicated cybersecurity budget
  • Dedicated data protection budget

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.