4.2.1 General
When establishing the BCMS, name the interested parties that are relevant to it and record what each of those parties requires.
3
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
at each review
hard
to go live
Document repository
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review
system holds itEvidence a system already holds
none for this control
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
none for this control
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
- Interested party register, dated and owned · Policy repository / GRC workspace
- The specific requirement captured for each listed party · Document repository
- Method note showing how relevance to the BCMS was decided · Document repository
First move
This control is evidenced by people and documents, not systems. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date. Do not try to automate it.
Common gaps auditors find
- Relevance never argued, so the register is either everyone or only customers
- Requirements captured as categories rather than as something testable
- Register not revisited when new contracts or dependencies are taken on
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 sheet4.2 Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties · 4.2.2 Legal and regulatory requirements