What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 8.2.2 Business impact analysis?

Defined impact types and criteria approved for this organization; Activity inventory mapped to products and services; Impact over time analysis per activity; Maximum tolerable period of disruption and resumption time frames with minimum acceptable capacity, approved by management; Prioritized activity list with resource, dependency and interdependency mapping.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 8.2.2?

Recovery time frames set by aspiration and never reconciled to the impact analysis that should produce them

ISO 22301:2019 · Operation, ISO 22301:2019

`8.2.2` Business impact analysis

Use the impact analysis to set continuity priorities and requirements: settle which types of impact matter in the organization's context and the criteria for judging them; identify the activities that support delivery of products and services; assess how the impact of disrupting those activities grows over time; fix the point beyond which failing to resume would be unacceptable; within that point, set prioritized time frames for resuming the activities at a stated minimum capacity that is still acceptable; identify the prioritized activities; and establish the resources, dependencies and interdependencies they need, partners and suppliers included.

Source: ISO 22301:2019, 8.2.2. 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 ISO 22301:2019 in the compliance library.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Document repository

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

Impact over time analysis per activity · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Defined impact types and criteria approved for this organization · Document repository
Activity inventory mapped to products and services · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Maximum tolerable period of disruption and resumption time frames with minimum acceptable capacity, approved by management · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Prioritized activity list with resource, dependency and interdependency mapping · Document repository

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

Recovery time frames set by aspiration and never reconciled to the impact analysis that should produce them
Minimum acceptable capacity omitted, so a plan can claim recovery at any level of service
Dependencies mapped one level deep, missing the supplier behind the supplier
Impact criteria copied from a template rather than defined for this organization's context

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

8.2.1 General · 8.2.3 Risk assessment