A gap assessment is the most critical process tool to performing Implementation Phase 3, as it helps to identify the current and desired states of the selected processes, and the gaps and potential solutions to bridge them. A gap assessment also helps to create a detailed business case and a high-level program plan for the implementation12.

References7 Phases in COBIT Implementation | COBIT Certification - SimplilearnCOBIT 2019 Design and Implementation COBIT Implementation, page 31.

An important consideration when defining the roadmap in COBIT Implementation Phase 3 is the change-enablement implications, which refer to the potential impact of the proposed solutions on the people, culture, and behavior of the organization. This involves assessing the readiness and willingness of the stakeholders to adopt the changes, identifying the risks and barriers to change, and developing strategies to address them12.

References7 Phases in COBIT Implementation | COBIT Certification - SimplilearnCOBIT 2019 Design and Implementation COBIT Implementation, page 31.

According to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, gaps identified between the current and target profiles should be addressed through a risk-based approach, which enables an organization to gauge the resources needed and prioritize the mitigation of gaps in a cost-effective manner. This approach also aligns the cybersecurity program with the business objectives and risk appetite of the organization12.

ReferencesExamples of Framework Profiles | NISTWhat is the NIST Cybersecurity Framework? | IBM

This principle corresponds to the CSF application stating that CSF profiles support flexibility in content and structure, because both emphasize the need for tailoring the governance system to the specific context and requirements of the enterprise12. The CSF profiles are based on the enterprise’s business drivers, risk appetite, and current and target cybersecurity posture3. The COBIT 2019 design factors are a set of parameters that influence the design and operation of the governance system, such as enterprise strategy, size, culture, and regulatory environment4.

References: 1: COBIT | Control Objectives for Information Technologies | ISACA 2: COBIT 2019 Framework – ITSM Docs - ITSM Documents & Templates 3: Framework Documents | NIST 4: Introduction to COBIT Principles - Testprep Training Tutorials

The objective of COBIT Implementation Phase 2 is to define the scope of the implementation using COBIT’s mapping of enterprise goals to IT-related goals and the associated IT processes, and to consider how risk scenarios could also highlight key processes on which to focus. This phase also involves documenting the current capability and performance of the selected processes and identifying opportunities for improvement12.

References7 Phases in COBIT Implementation | COBIT Certification - SimplilearnCOBIT 2019 Design and Implementation COBIT Implementation, page 31.

Identifying quick wins for implementation first is the best approach to gain support for the process, as it can demonstrate the value and feasibility of the project, and motivate the stakeholders to overcome the resistance and embrace the change12. Quick wins are those actions that can be implemented rapidly and easily, and that can produce visible and measurable results3.

References7 Phases in COBIT Implementation | COBIT Certification - SimplilearnImplementing the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Using COBIT 2019, page 17.What is a Quick Win? - Definition from Techopedia

Executives are the role that will benefit most from a better understanding of the current cybersecurity posture by applying the CSF. This is because executives are responsible for setting the strategic direction, objectives, and priorities for the organization, as well as overseeing the allocation of resources and the management of risks1. By applying the CSF, executives can gain a comprehensive and consistent view of the cybersecurity risks and capabilities of the organization, and align them with the business goals and requirements2. The CSF can also help executives communicate and collaborate with other stakeholders, such as regulators, customers, suppliers, and partners, on cybersecurity issues3.

References: 1: Implementing the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Using COBIT 2019 | ISACA 2: Cybersecurity Framework | NIST 3: Framework Documents | NIST

Combining CSF principles with COBIT 2019 practices helps to ensure value, manage risk, and support mission drivers through support and direction of the board of directors and executive management, as they are responsible for setting the vision, strategy, and objectives of the organization, and for overseeing the governance and management of IT-related operations12.

ReferencesConnecting COBIT 2019 to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework - ISACACOBIT 2019 (With Principles, Components, Users and Benefits)

According to the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, after determining the tier levels and framework core outcomes, the next step is to compare the current and target profiles, which describe the organization’s current and desired cybersecurity posture based on the framework core functions, categories, and subcategories1. This comparison helps to identify the gaps and prioritize the actions for improvement2.

ReferencesCybersecurity Framework Components | NISTWhat is the NIST Cybersecurity Framework? | IBM

The CSF Implementation Tiers distinguish three fundamental dimensions of risk management to help enterprises evaluate their cybersecurity posture, which is the alignment of their cybersecurity activities and outcomes with their business objectives and risk appetite12. The Tiers range from Partial (Tier 1) to Adaptive (Tier 4) and describe the degree of rigor, integration, and collaboration of the organization’s cybersecurity risk management practices12.

References: 1: Cybersecurity Framework Components | NIST 2: Cybersecurity Framework FAQs Framework Components | NIST

One of the most likely causes of an organization’s NIST CSF implementation failure is that the potential benefits of proposed improvements are not considered, which means that the organization does not conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the solutions to address the gaps between the current and target profiles. This can result in a lack of justification, prioritization, and alignment of the implementation plan with the organization’s mission drivers, risk appetite, and resource constraints12.

References7 Steps to Implement & Improve Cybersecurity with NIST3 Security Issues Overlooked By the NIST Framework

According to the ISACA guide, engaging business and IT process owners for internal expertise is most important for successful execution of CSF implementation Step 6, as they can provide valuable insights into the current and desired states of the processes, the gaps and potential solutions, and the costs and benefits of the implementation1. They can also help to align the cybersecurity program with the business objectives and risk appetite of the organization.

ReferencesImplementing the NIST Cybersecurity Framework Using COBIT 2019, page 17.