6 standards bodies wrote this down separately. None of them consulted the others. That is not a preference you can argue with, it is what happens.From 12 controls across our corpus
ISO 50001:2018 Energy Management System Evidence & Implementation Kit
This is the complete documentation set: an adopt-ready artifact for every control in policy and procedure text you edit rather than draft, and the evidence checklist an auditor asks for against each.
See what is in it, $249
The same set every buyer of this kit receives. Nothing here is produced on request.
Who warns about it
Every framework below independently names this failure. They were written by different
bodies, in different jurisdictions, for different industries, and they agree.
What an auditor asks for
The artefacts named on the controls that warn about this failure. This is what closes
it, and what you will be asked to produce when somebody checks.
- Board minutes referencing innovation strategy
- Innovation vision and strategy document
- Strategic alignment matrix linking innovation to business goals
- Innovation council terms of reference
- RACI for innovation roles
- Approved innovation policy
What closing it also buys you
The 12 controls that warn about this failure map onto controls in other
frameworks. Close them here and this much of each of those is closed too. It is the same work
counted once, which is usually the difference between a programme that finishes and one that
does not.
ISO/IEC 23894:20234
Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)6
ISO/IEC 27031:201111
ISO/TS 22318:20213
ISO 223165
NFPA 16001
ISO/TS 22317:20214
ISO 45001:20183
ISO/IEC 42001:20232
ISO 22301:20193
ISO 22000:20182
ISO 55001:20146
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| ISO/IEC 23894:2023 International | 4.1% | 5 of 121 |
| Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8) Singapore (GovTech) | 6.8% | 3 of 44 |
| ISO/IEC 27031:2011 International | 11.1% | 3 of 27 |
| ISO/TS 22318:2021 International (ISO/TC 292); adopted as PD ISO/TS 22318 (UK) and by other national bodies | 3.9% | 3 of 76 |
| ISO 22316 International (ISO/TC 292); adopted as BS ISO 22316:2017 (UK), UNE-ISO 22316:2020 (Spain) and by other national bodies | 5.2% | 3 of 58 |
| NFPA 1600 United States (ANSI-accredited; used internationally) | 1.4% | 3 of 220 |
| ISO/TS 22317:2021 International (ISO/TC 292); adopted as PD ISO/TS 22317 (UK) and by other national bodies | 4.2% | 3 of 72 |
| ISO 45001:2018 International | 3.6% | 2 of 55 |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 International | 2.4% | 2 of 83 |
| ISO 22301:2019 International | 3.5% | 2 of 57 |
| ISO 22000:2018 International | 2.9% | 2 of 70 |
| ISO 55001:2014 International | 6.9% | 2 of 29 |
Read as: closing this failure reaches that share of the named
framework's control library through cross-framework mappings held in our corpus. It is not a
claim of compliance with that framework, it is a measure of how much of it you have already
touched.
Where this comes from
Harvested from the control library itself. Every control in our corpus carries the evidence an
auditor expects and the ways implementations commonly fail, recorded when that control was
verified against its source document. This page is those two fields, for one failure, across
every framework that names it.
The overlap is computed by traversing
332,959 cross-framework control mappings out from the specific controls that
warn about this failure, not from the frameworks they sit in. Those mappings were built control
by control against source documents.
Nothing here is inferred, predicted or scored. The number at the top
is a count of frameworks.
All failure modes ยท
The index