PRM-03: Allocation of Resources
Mechanisms exist to identify and allocate resources for management, operational, technical and data protection requirements within business process planning for projects / initiatives.
Control Question: Does the organization identify and allocate resources for management, operational, technical and data protection requirements within business process planning for projects / initiatives?
General (38)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC1.4 CC3.1-POF4 CC4.1 |
| BSI Standard 200-1 | 8.2 |
| COBIT 2019 | EDM02.01 EDM02.02 EDM02.03 EDM02.04 EDM04.01 EDM04.02 EDM04.03 APO06.01 APO06.02 APO06.03 APO06.04 APO06.05 |
| COSO 2017 | Principle 4 Principle 16 |
| GovRAMP Low | SA-02 |
| GovRAMP Low+ | SA-02 |
| GovRAMP Moderate | SA-02 |
| GovRAMP High | SA-02 |
| ISO/SAE 21434 2021 | RQ-05-04 |
| ISO 22301 2019 | 7.1 8.3.4 |
| ISO 31010 2009 | 4.3.1 4.3.2 |
| ISO 42001 2023 | 5.1 7.1 A.4.2 |
| NIST AI 100-1 (AI RMF) 1.0 | MANAGE 2.1 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (low) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (moderate) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53 R4 (high) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53 R5 (source) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (privacy) (source) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (low) (source) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (moderate) (source) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-53B R5 (high) (source) | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 LOW OT Overlay | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 MODERATE OT Overlay | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-82 R3 HIGH OT Overlay | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-160 | 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 3.2.6 3.3 3.3.1 3.3.2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 C-SCRM Baseline | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 1 | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-161 R1 Level 2 | SA-2 |
| NIST 800-171 R2 (source) | NFO-SA-2 |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | GV.RR-03 |
| UL 2900-1 2017 | 11.1 |
| SCF CORE Mergers, Acquisitions & Divestitures (MA&D) | PRM-03 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 1 Foundational | PRM-03 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 2 Critical Infrastructure | PRM-03 |
| SCF CORE ESP Level 3 Advanced Threats | PRM-03 |
| SCF CORE AI Model Deployment | PRM-03 |
US (24)
| 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 | EXD:SG3.SP1 EXD:SG3.SP3 FRM:SG1.SP1 FRM:SG1.SP2 FRM:SG3.SP1 RRD:SG2.SP1 RRM:SG1.SP2 FRM:SG4.SP1 GG2.GP3 |
| US CMS MARS-E 2.0 | SA-2 |
| US DHS CISA TIC 3.0 | 3.PEP.EN.CMONI |
| US FCA CRM | 609.935(b) |
| US FedRAMP R4 | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (low) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (moderate) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (high) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R4 (LI-SaaS) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (source) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (low) (source) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (moderate) (source) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (high) (source) | SA-2 |
| US FedRAMP R5 (LI-SaaS) (source) | SA-2 |
| US FFIEC | D1.G.SP.E.2 D1.G.Ov.Int.5 D1.G.SP.Int.3 |
| US HIPAA Administrative Simplification 2013 (source) | 164.306(b)(2)(iii) |
| US HIPAA Security Rule / NIST SP 800-66 R2 (source) | 164.306(b)(2)(iii) |
| US IRS 1075 | SA-2 |
| US NISPOM 2020 | 8-100 8-200 |
| US - NY DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.4(d)(4) |
| US - TX DIR Control Standards 2.0 | SA-2 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 1 | SA-2 |
| US - TX TX-RAMP Level 2 | SA-2 |
EMEA (7)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| EMEA EU AI Act | 17.1(l) |
| EMEA EU EBA GL/2019/04 | 3.2.1(3) |
| EMEA EU DORA | 7(a) 7(b) 7(c) 7(d) |
| EMEA Germany Banking Supervisory Requirements for IT (BAIT) | 2.3 |
| EMEA Israel CDMO 1.0 | 17.5 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia CSCC-1 2019 | 1-1 |
| EMEA Saudi Arabia ECC-1 2018 | 1-6-4 |
APAC (6)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| APAC Australia ISM June 2024 | ISM-0732 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS230 | 25 |
| APAC Australia Prudential Standard CPS234 | 15 |
| APAC India SEBI CSCRF | GV.RR.S4 |
| APAC Japan ISMAP | 4.5.1 4.5.1.1 4.5.1.2 |
| APAC Singapore MAS TRM 2021 | 5.2.1 5.2.2 |
Americas (2)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada CSAG | 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 identify and allocate resources for management, operational, technical and data protection requirements within business process planning for projects / initiatives.
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 identify and allocate resources for management, operational, technical and data protection requirements within business process planning for projects / initiatives.
Assessment Objectives
- PRM-03_A01 the high-level cybersecurity / data privacy requirements for the system or system service are determined in mission and business process planning.
- PRM-03_A02 the resources required to protect the system or system service are determined and documented as part of the organizational capital planning and investment control process.
- PRM-03_A03 the resources required to protect the system or system service are allocated as part of the organizational capital planning and investment control process.
- PRM-03_A04 a discrete line item for is established in organizational programming and budgeting documentation.
Evidence Requirements
- E-PRM-01 Cybersecurity Business Plan (CBP)
-
Documented evidence of a cybersecurity-specific business plan that documents a strategic plan and discrete objectives.
Resource Management - E-PRM-02 Portfolio Roadmap
-
Documented evidence of the organization's roadmap for implementing cybersecurity-related initiatives and technologies.
Resource Management
Technology Recommendations
Medium
- Cybersecurity road map
- Prioritized list of cybersecurity expenses
Large
- Cybersecurity road map
- Prioritized list of cybersecurity expenses
Enterprise
- Cybersecurity road map
- Prioritized list of cybersecurity expenses