Start a new topic and get direct answers from the Expert Advice Community.
CREATE NEW TOPIC +Guest
thanks a lot for your replay. that was helpful. Kind Regards, Elina
The personal data you are going to collect is considered as sensitive data and are ruled by Article 9 GDPR because they refer to individuals’ health. You need to ask the consent of the interviewed person for collecting and showing results to the moderator.
Pseudonymization can be a good solution to protect the identity avoiding to show their name and calling them as “case 1” and “case 2”. Moderators can have access to full documentation upon request. You must specify that in the privacy notice you are going to submit to your individuals before interviewing them. You can also establish a data retention period and inform the interviewed individuals about how long the project will last and you are going to keep their data.
Here you can find some articles about privacy policy and consent:
EU GDPR document template Privacy Notice: https://advisera.com/eugdpracademy/documentation/privacy-notice/
You may also consider enrolling in this online EU GDPR Foundations Course: https://advisera.com/training/eu-gdpr-foundations-course//
ISO 19011, the most used ISO audit standard uses the term "recommendation" to refer to results that are not a non-conformity but the organization must take a look at to see if they can lead or not to an opportunity for improvement.
This article will provide you a further explanation about the opportunity for improvement:
These materials will also help you regarding audits:
1. I have a question to ask. Do we do the gap analysis first or IT risk framework?
I'm assuming your questions are about ISO 22301 implementation and the management of IT-related risks.
Considering that, first is important to note that ISO 22031 does not require a gap analysis to be performed, while the risk assessment is mandatory. Second, gap analysis is not recommended for smaller companies, because in general, it is not worth the effort due to their size and complexity. So, for smaller companies, it is better to perform only the IT risk framework, because will give you more specifics about handling risks in your IT environment.
For bigger companies, the gap analysis will provide you a quick and comprehensive view of how much of the standard you already have implemented, and the results of gap analysis can be used as input for the IT risk framework.
2. Which is easier to do? Looking forward to your feedback.
Because gap analysis requires an overview of the situation, and the IT Risk Framework involves a deeper knowledge of risk management steps, the gap analysis would be easier to perform for a beginner.
This article will provide you a further explanation about the gap analysis and risk assessment (although the article is about ISO 27001 the concepts also apply to ISO 22301):
The approach for the surveillance audit is basically the same for a certification audit, the difference being in the fact that in the surveillance not all ISMS scope is audited. Considering that, for the surveillance audit you should check:
These articles will provide you a further explanation about preparing for an audit:
These materials will also help you regarding preparing for an audit:
As far as I understand your situation and questions:
Your company can calibrate monitoring resources internally and use those monitoring resources to make measurements and issue reports for customers. However, to perform that calibration your company must use measurement standards. Those measurement standards must be calibrated against measurement standards traceable to international or national measurement standards. Normally, that traceability requirement makes mandatory to calibrate measurements standards at a calibration lab.
You can find more information about calibration below:
I'd suggest you t take a look at ISO 27004 (https://www.iso.org/standard/64120.html), a supporting standard that provides guidelines to help organizations in evaluating the performance and the effectiveness of an ISMS.
These articles will provide you a further explanation about performance evaluation:
Yes, the procedure for determining the context of the organization is not mandatory. Please, check this article - List of mandatory documents required by ISO 9001:2015 - https://advisera.com/9001academy/knowledgebase/list-of-mandatory-documents-required-by-iso-90012015/
The following material will provide you information about the context of a quality management system:
We do not know your local regulations, but for example, as a customer, it would be unacceptable not being able to perform payments for more than 12 hours (and most probably there may be some sort of law or regulation for the banking industry defining fines for such a failure).
Previously, with ISO 27001: 2005, I used the general information security policy and right there I defined the scope and assembled it in a policy manual, separating the security policy, today I see that it is necessary to do an ISMS scope, which I have no doubt if it should be three documents, General Information Security Policy, Policy Manual (A whole set) and the scope of the ISMS separately.
ISO 27001 (even the previous 2005 version) does not prescribe how to document the Information Security Policy, the ISMS scope, and other developed policies, so organizations are free to document them in a single or separate document as best fit their needs.
Regarding policies, our recommendation is that these are documented as separate documents, because the information security policy is a high-level policy, while other policies are more specific, and developing them as a single document would only create a document too big and too complex to read and manage.
These articles will provide you a further explanation about developing policies:
These materials will also help you regarding developing policies: