What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on OPS-01 Capacity Management - Planning?

Capacity forecast model with historical growth curves per resource pool; Planning procedure naming the forecast horizon and its review cycle; Minutes of the capacity review board approving hardware order lead times; Staffing plan for operations and on call roles against projected workload.

What is the most common gap auditors find on OPS-01?

Forecasting covers compute only while storage, network and licences are ignored

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Operations

`OPS-01` Capacity Management - Planning

Follow an established procedure for planning personnel and IT capacity that forecasts future demand, identifies usage trends and prevents overload, with measures that keep agreed customer commitments intact when resources or staff fall short.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), OPS-01. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) in the compliance library.

The edition of the catalogue is not stamped here; check the edition your attestation is issued against.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Minutes of the capacity review board approving hardware order lead times · Cloud console / configuration management

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Capacity forecast model with historical growth curves per resource pool · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Planning procedure naming the forecast horizon and its review cycle · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Staffing plan for operations and on call roles against projected workload · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

Forecasting covers compute only while storage, network and licences are ignored
Planning addresses IT resources and never personnel availability
Procurement lead times excluded, so a forecast cannot prevent an actual shortfall
Dedicated single tenant components left outside the planning scope

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

OIS-07 Application of the Risk Management Policy · OPS-02 Capacity Management - Monitoring