Skip to main content

PRM-08.1: Project Management Stage Gates

PRM 7 — High Identify

Mechanisms exist to embed formal checkpoints placed between project management stages to ensure security, compliance and resilience controls are integrated early into the development lifecycle.

Control Question: Does the organization embed formal checkpoints placed between project management stages to ensure security, compliance and resilience controls are integrated early into the development lifecycle?

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

Project & Resource Management (PRM) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include: ▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with PRM domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ Project management-related activities are decentralized (e.g., a localized/regionalized function) and uses non-standardized methods to implement secure, resilient and compliant practices. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity 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) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with PRM domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with PRM domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRM domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Project & Resource Management -related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Project & Resource Management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel.

Level 3 — Well Defined

Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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 PRM 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 PRM domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ A Project Management Office (PMO), or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain PRM domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of project and resource management operations (e.g., project management solution). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with PRM 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). ▪ The Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, analyzes the organization's business strategy and prioritizes the objectives and resourcing of the security function, based on broader business requirements.

Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled

Project & Resource Management (PRM) 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

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. PRM-08.1_A01 formal checkpoints between project management stages (e.g., initiation, planning, design, build, test, deployment) are defined in the project management methodology.
  2. PRM-08.1_A02 the security, compliance and resilience criteria that must be satisfied at each checkpoint are defined, including the earliest stage at which security, compliance and resilience requirements are identified.
  3. PRM-08.1_A03 in-scope projects are evaluated against the defined security, compliance and resilience criteria at each checkpoint before proceeding to the next stage.
  4. PRM-08.1_A04 checkpoint decisions, including the approver, date and any conditions or accepted risks, are recorded for each in-scope project.
  5. PRM-08.1_A05 projects that do not satisfy a checkpoint's security, compliance and resilience criteria do not proceed to the next stage without a documented and approved exception.

Evidence Requirements

E-PRM-03 Secure Development Lifecycle (SDLC)

Documented evidence of a secure development lifecycle that the organization utilizes for new initiatives or significant changes to existing initiatives to ensure cybersecurity & data privacy principles are identified and implemented by default.

Resource Management

Technology Recommendations

Micro/Small

  • Security checklist reviewed at project start and before go-live

Small

  • Project template with security review checkpoints
  • Go-live approval requires security sign-off

Medium

  • Project Management Office (PMO) methodology with defined security gates
  • Security architecture review before build
  • Pre-production CVT gate

Large

  • PMO / Program Portfolio Management with enforced stage gates
  • Security, compliance and resilience representation at gate reviews
  • Gate criteria tracked in project management tooling (e.g., Jira, ServiceNow SPM)

Enterprise

  • Enterprise portfolio governance with mandatory security, compliance and resilience gates
  • Automated gate enforcement in delivery tooling
  • Executive oversight of gate exceptions

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.