Passionate dispassion


Someone who is actively involved in, or is managing, an activity is patently not independent of it. They may well make a conscious, rational and determined effort to be objective, dispassionately reviewing evidence etc., but their subconscious/emotional biases/prejudices and beliefs/value-systems will inevitably influence what they do. With the best will in the world, they will struggle to challenge and assess their past decisions and activities, especially if they were "certain" or "determined" or genuinely believed they were "doing the right thing". Furthermore, it is very hard for anyone to review the things they did not do, decisions they did not make or options they did not even consider. Mostly, they remain out of sight or out of the question.

In contrast, provided they are competent and diligent with sufficient support, access and time to engage, a truly independent person or team may spot issues or concerns that were previously unnoticed, disregarded or grudgingly accepted. Their knowledge, expertise and creative energy can lead to them framing and asking questions differently, perhaps making novel suggestions. They bring a fresh perspective, untainted by past involvement in the area. Aside from shining light on blind spots, independence can be particularly valuable where longstanding issues have become deeply ingrained into decision-making, working practices and culture, as in "We've always done it this way", "Change is pointless or impossible" or "That's just how it is". Challenging defaults, habits and no-brainers is all part of the fun.

However, there are costs and drawbacks to independence, and it's not always possible or as effective as I've indicated. We all have our off-days! Things don't always go to plan! Some longstanding issues really are intractable, even insoluble. Independents also have our blind spots, biases/prejudices, beliefs/value-systems, interests, concerns. Even objective fact-based 'hard evidence' needs to be gathered, tested/checked and interpreted/understood. Having not been there at the time, historical incidents and decisions can be tough to study and reassess, especially if the available records are lightweight, biased, untrustworthy or completely absent, and where the original context, business situation etc. was relevant (which it almost always is).

'Career auditors' and 'compliance auditors' without experience of working in the areas and situations they are auditing run a greater risk of asking truly dumb or irrelevant questions, misunderstanding or misinterpreting things, and making impactical suggestions. It's all very well pushing applicable laws, regs, standards, frameworks, models etc. in theory, but adapting and making them work in practice takes expertise, intuition and a health dose of pragmatism.

Popular posts from this blog

Pragmatic ISMS implementation guide (FREE!)

Image
Early this morning ( very  early!) I remotely attended an ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27/WG 1 editing meeting in London discussing the planned revision of ISO/IEC 27003:2017 . Overall, the meeting was very productive in that we got through a  long  list of expert comments on the preliminary draft standard, debated the objectives of the project and the standard and reached consensus on most points. In summary: 27003 is to be revised to align with the current 2022 releases of ISO/IEC 27001 , 27002 and 27005 : These changes are  mostly  minor aside from the new section 6.3 on ISMS changes.
Read more

Two dozen information risks that ISO forgot

Image
Selecting the wrong controls - controls that are inappropriate, ineffective, too costly, impracticable, fragile, unnecessary, counterproductive or whatever, often as a result of blind faith in fads and fashions of the day and FOMO e.g. MFA, AI, cyber Failing to select the right controls - controls that are ideal for the particular situation, both now and in perpetuity, for whatever reason - mostly ignorance and prejudice Selecting and implementing controls at the wrong time or in the wrong way (where 'wrong' includes ineffective, inappropriate, sub-optimal e.g. bolting on controls rather than designing and building them in) Inept and inaccurate identification, analysis and quantification of risk, including reliance on p oor quality (incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, misleading, unreliable ...) information about actual risks, particularly subtle and emerging risks plus those involving deliberate concealment and misdirection e.g. fraud, misinformation, disinformation, propagan
Read more

ISMS internal audit priorities

Image
A thread on the ISO27k Forum sparked my imagination over coffee this morning. Hope had previously asked for assistance with an ISO/IEC 27001:2022 audit plan.  Bhushan offered a lengthy and generally sound response explaining how to use a spreadsheet with tabs to plan and record the audit work performed on 100% of the main body clauses and 50% of the 93 Annex A controls, day-by-day. That's OK ... except it wasn't entirely clear that he was interpreting and elaborating on the standard's actual requirements. ISO/IEC 27001 does not explicitly require, for example, that (as Bhushan stated) "ALL the management system clauses from 4 to 10 AND their sub-clauses need to be listed and audited" in an ISMS internal audit, although evidently he interprets it in that way. In clause 9.2.1, the standard states a requirement for internal audits to provide information on whether the ISMS conforms to the organization’s own requirements for the ISMS plus the requirements of the stan
Read more