ISMS Measurement Programme Template (ISO/IEC 27001 9.1, 27004)

Clause 9.1 measurement method: information needs, roles, 25 example metrics, definition cards, collection cycle, thresholds, data quality, size tiers

ISMS और ISO/IEC 27001पूर्णISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 clauses 6.2, 9.1 (cited only); ISO/IEC 27004:2016measurement programmeअपडेट किया गया 1 नव॰ 2026

एडिटर में खोलें.md डाउनलोड करें

उपयोग कैसे करें: Use it when the objectives register and risk treatment plan exist and you need trend data before the first internal audit. Fill the information needs and one metric per objective first, with definition cards. The main pitfall is measuring what tools report instead of what management decides on.

प्रीव्यू

ISMS Measurement Programme: [Organization name]

Defines what the information security management system (ISMS) of [Organization name] monitors and measures, how, when, who collects the data and who analyses and evaluates the results. It supports ISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 clause 9.1 (monitoring, measurement, analysis and evaluation) and the objectives in clause 6.2, with guidance from ISO/IEC 27004:2016 (a revision is in progress; check for a newer edition). It contains metric definition cards and more than twenty Example metrics covering ISMS processes and control effectiveness. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

Field	Value
Document ID	[DOC-ISMS-080]
Version	[1.0]
Status	[Draft / In review / Approved / Superseded]
Owner	[@isms-manager]
Approvers/reviewers	[@ciso], [@coo], [@internal-audit]
Last updated	YYYY-MM-DD
Classification	[Internal]
Standard and edition	ISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 (clauses 6.2, 9.1); guidance ISO/IEC 27004:2016
ISMS scope reference	[DOC-ISMS-002]
Objectives reference	[DOC-ISMS-024, objectives register version x.y]
Results reported in	[DOC-ISMS-081, ISMS performance report]
Measurement period	[Monthly collection, quarterly reporting]
Next scheduled review	YYYY-MM-DD

Approvals

Role	Name	Decision	Date
ISMS owner	[@isms-manager]	[Prepared]	YYYY-MM-DD
Chief information security officer	[@ciso]	[Reviewed]	YYYY-MM-DD
Top management	[@coo]	[Approved / Approved with changes]	YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

Version	Date	Author	Change
1.0 (Example)	YYYY-MM-DD	[@isms-manager]	First programme with 22 metrics (MET-001 to MET-022), approved before the first internal audit
1.1 (Example)	YYYY-MM-DD	[@isms-manager]	MET-019 target raised from 90% to 95% after four quarters on target; MET-023 to MET-025 added (supplier reviews, repeat findings, certificate expiry)
[x.y]	YYYY-MM-DD	[@author]	[Change summary]

Purpose and scope
Information needs
Measurement principles and method
Roles and responsibilities
Metric catalogue
Metric definition cards
Collection, analysis and evaluation cycle
Thresholds, targets and escalation
Data quality and validity
Size tiers
Records and evidence
Review of the programme
References

1. Purpose and scope

This programme sets out how [Organization name] determines whether its ISMS achieves its intended outcomes. It covers all processes and controls inside the ISMS scope defined in [DOC-ISMS-002] and produces the data used in the performance report (DOC-ISMS-081), the internal audit programme (DOC-ISMS-082) and the management review (DOC-ISMS-085).

The programme answers two questions that clause 9.1 asks every ISMS to answer:

Performance: are the controls and processes doing what they were designed to do, at the level the organization decided?
Effectiveness: is the ISMS as a whole achieving its objectives, treating risk to an acceptable level and improving over time?

Out of scope: [operational IT service metrics not related to security, such as ticket volumes, unless they feed a security metric].

2. Information needs

Need ID	Information need	Source of the need	Decision it informs	Metrics
NEED-01 (Example)	Are critical vulnerabilities closed fast enough to stay within risk appetite?	Objective OBJ-02, RISK-011	Add patching capacity or accept risk	MET-005, MET-006
NEED-02 (Example)	Do people recognise and report phishing?	Objective OBJ-03, RISK-002	Change awareness content or frequency	MET-012, MET-013, MET-014
NEED-03 (Example)	Is access granted and removed on time?	Customer contracts, RISK-006	Fix joiner and leaver workflow	MET-001, MET-002, MET-003
NEED-04 (Example)	Can we restore critical services within the agreed recovery time?	Customer SLA, BIA (DOC-ISMS-120)	Invest in recovery or change commitments	MET-009, MET-010
NEED-05 (Example)	Is the ISMS itself running to plan?	Clause 9.1, management review input	Reprioritise ISMS work or resources	MET-017 to MET-022
[NEED-NN]	[need]	[source]	[decision]	[MET-NNN]

3. Measurement principles and method

3.1 Principles

Decision first. A metric exists only if someone will act on it.
Defined once. Every metric has a definition card (section 6); the card, not the spreadsheet, is the authority.
Comparable over time. Do not change a formula silently. A change is a new version of the card, and the trend line is annotated.
Automated where possible. Prefer counts exported from systems of record (identity provider, ticketing, vulnerability scanner, learning platform) over manual estimates.
Balanced. Combine process metrics (are we doing the work?) with outcome metrics (is the risk lower?).
Proportionate. Start with fewer metrics that are reliable rather than many that are not.

3.2 Types of metric

Type	Question	Example
Implementation	Is the control in place?	Percentage of endpoints enrolled in device management
Performance (process)	Is the activity done on time and to standard?	Access reviews completed by the due date
Effectiveness (outcome)	Does the control reduce risk?	Phishing report rate, repeat audit findings
ISMS management	Is the management system working?	Corrective actions closed on time, objectives on track

3.3 How a metric is built

Each metric combines one or more raw counts (for example "leavers in the month" and "leavers whose access was removed within one working day") into a calculated value (a percentage, a mean or a duration), which is compared with a target and thresholds to produce a status (green, amber, red). The definition card records each step.

4. Roles and responsibilities

Role	Responsibility
Metric owner	Accountable for the metric: data quality, explanation of variances, actions when off target
Data collector	Extracts the raw counts on the collection date and stores the extract
ISMS manager	Maintains this programme, consolidates results, checks calculations, prepares the performance report
CISO or security lead	Analyses trends across metrics and proposes conclusions for management
Top management	Evaluates the results in management review and decides on actions and resources
Internal audit	Tests a sample of metrics for accuracy and reproducibility

5. Metric catalogue

Status thresholds use three bands: Green at or better than target, Amber within the tolerance stated, Red worse than tolerance.

ID	Metric	Type	Link (objective, risk, control)	Formula	Frequency	Target	Tolerance (amber)	Owner
MET-001 (Example)	Leaver access removed within 1 working day	Performance	OBJ-04, A.5.18	removed on time / leavers x 100	Monthly	98%	95% to 97.9%	[@it-ops-lead]
MET-002 (Example)	Quarterly access reviews completed on time	Performance	A.5.18, A.8.2	reviews done by due date / reviews scheduled x 100	Quarterly	100%	90% to 99.9%	[@it-ops-lead]
MET-003 (Example)	Privileged accounts with phishing-resistant MFA	Implementation	A.8.2, A.8.5	privileged accounts with such MFA / privileged accounts x 100	Monthly	100%	97% to 99.9%	[@iam-lead]
MET-004 (Example)	Endpoints compliant with baseline	Implementation	A.8.1, A.8.9	compliant endpoints / managed endpoints x 100	Monthly	97%	93% to 96.9%	[@endpoint-lead]
MET-005 (Example)	Critical vulnerabilities remediated within SLA	Performance	OBJ-02, A.8.8, RISK-011	closed within SLA / critical due in period x 100	Monthly	95%	90% to 94.9%	[@vuln-lead]
MET-006 (Example)	Mean days to remediate high and critical vulnerabilities	Effectiveness	A.8.8	sum of days open / number closed	Monthly	14 days or fewer	15 to 21 days	[@vuln-lead]
MET-007 (Example)	Cloud configuration findings open beyond 30 days	Effectiveness	A.5.23, A.8.9	count	Monthly	0 high, 5 or fewer medium	1 to 2 high	[@cloud-lead]
MET-008 (Example)	Backup jobs successful	Performance	A.8.13	successful jobs / scheduled jobs x 100	Weekly	99%	97% to 98.9%	[@it-ops-lead]
MET-009 (Example)	Restore tests meeting recovery time objective	Effectiveness	A.8.13, A.5.30	tests within RTO / tests performed x 100	Quarterly	100%	75% to 99.9%	[@it-ops-lead]
MET-010 (Example)	Disaster recovery or continuity exercises held as planned	Performance	A.5.29, A.5.30	exercises held / exercises planned x 100	Half-yearly	100%	none	[@bc-lead]
MET-011 (Example)	Security awareness training completion	Performance	OBJ-03, A.6.3	staff completed / staff required x 100	Monthly	95%	90% to 94.9%	[@hr-lead]
MET-012 (Example)	Phishing simulation click rate	Effectiveness	OBJ-03, A.6.3, RISK-002	users who clicked / users who received x 100	Quarterly	5% or lower	5.1% to 8%	[@awareness-lead]
MET-013 (Example)	Phishing simulation report rate	Effectiveness	A.6.8	users who reported / users who received x 100	Quarterly	60% or higher	45% to 59.9%	[@awareness-lead]
MET-014 (Example)	Real suspicious e-mails reported by staff	Effectiveness	A.6.8	count per month	Monthly	Trend up	none (trend only)	[@soc-lead]
MET-015 (Example)	Security incidents by severity	Effectiveness	A.5.24 to A.5.27	count by severity	Monthly	0 severity 1	1 severity 1 with review done	[@incident-manager]
MET-016 (Example)	Mean time to contain severity 1 and 2 incidents	Effectiveness	A.5.26	sum of hours to contain / incidents	Quarterly	8 hours or less	8.1 to 24 hours	[@incident-manager]
MET-017 (Example)	Internal audit programme delivered as planned	ISMS management	Clause 9.2	audits completed / audits planned to date x 100	Quarterly	100%	80% to 99.9%	[@internal-audit]
MET-018 (Example)	Corrective actions closed by due date	ISMS management	Clause 10.2	actions closed on time / actions due x 100	Monthly	90%	80% to 89.9%	[@isms-manager]
MET-019 (Example)	Policies reviewed within their review date	ISMS management	A.5.1, clause 7.5	policies in date / policies in register x 100	Quarterly	95%	85% to 94.9%	[@isms-manager]
MET-020 (Example)	Risk treatment actions on schedule	ISMS management	Clause 6.1.3, 8.3	actions on schedule / open actions x 100	Monthly	85%	70% to 84.9%	[@isms-manager]
MET-021 (Example)	Risks outside appetite without approved treatment	Effectiveness	Clause 6.1.2, 8.2	count	Monthly	0	none	[@isms-manager]
MET-022 (Example)	Information security objectives on track	ISMS management	Clause 6.2	objectives green / objectives x 100	Quarterly	80%	60% to 79.9%	[@ciso]
MET-023 (Example)	Critical suppliers with current security review	Performance	A.5.19, A.5.22	suppliers reviewed in 12 months / critical suppliers x 100	Quarterly	100%	90% to 99.9%	[@procurement-lead]
MET-024 (Example)	Repeat findings at internal or external audit	Effectiveness	Clause 10.1	count of findings raised again within 12 months	Per audit	0	1	[@isms-manager]
MET-025 (Example)	Certificates and keys expiring within 30 days without a renewal ticket	Performance	A.8.24	count	Weekly	0	none	[@platform-lead]
[MET-NNN]	[metric]	[type]	[link]	[formula]	[frequency]	[target]	[tolerance]	[@owner]

6. Metric definition cards

6.1 Card format

Field	Content
Metric ID and name	[MET-NNN, name]
Information need and objective link	[NEED-NN, OBJ-NN, RISK-NNN, control]
Definition	[what is counted, in one sentence]
Formula	[calculation, units]
Counting rules	[inclusions, exclusions, edge cases]
Data source	[system of record and report name]
Collection method	[automated export / manual count / sample]
Collection frequency and date	[e.g. first working day of the month]
Reporting frequency and forum	[e.g. quarterly, performance report and steering committee]
Target and tolerance	[green, amber, red]
Owner and collector	[@owner], [@collector]
Analysis and evaluation	[who analyses, who evaluates, where]
Action when red	[escalation and expected response]
Card version	[x.y, date]

6.2 Worked card: MET-001 (Example)

Field	Content
Metric ID and name	MET-001, leaver access removed within 1 working day
Information need and objective link	NEED-03, OBJ-04, RISK-006, A.5.18
Definition	Share of leavers whose identity provider account and all privileged accounts were disabled no later than the end of the next working day after their last day
Formula	leavers removed on time / all leavers in the month x 100, rounded to one decimal place
Counting rules	Includes employees and contractors. Excludes internal transfers (mover access is checked through the access reviews in MET-002). A leaver counts in the month of the last working day
Data source	HR system leaver report joined with the identity provider audit log
Collection method	Automated export, reconciled by the collector
Collection frequency and date	Monthly, third working day
Reporting frequency and forum	Quarterly in DOC-ISMS-081
Target and tolerance	Green 98% or higher, amber 95% to 97.9%, red below 95%
Owner and collector	[@it-ops-lead], [@service-desk-analyst]
Analysis and evaluation	ISMS manager analyses the trend; steering committee evaluates quarterly
Action when red	Root cause per late case, corrective action in DOC-ISMS-087 if two consecutive months are red
Card version	1.0, YYYY-MM-DD

Worked result (Example): over one quarter (three monthly counts combined) 27 people left and 26 were removed on time, so MET-001 = 26 / 27 x 100 = 96.3%, which is amber. The late case was a contractor whose end date was not recorded in the HR system; the action was to add contractor end dates to the HR workflow.

6.3 Worked card: MET-005 (Example)

Field	Content
Metric ID and name	MET-005, critical vulnerabilities remediated within SLA
Information need and objective link	NEED-01, OBJ-02, RISK-011, A.8.8
Definition	Share of critical vulnerabilities whose remediation due date fell in the period and which were fixed or formally excepted by that date
Formula	closed or excepted by due date / critical due in period x 100
Counting rules	SLA as set in the vulnerability management policy (Example: 14 days for critical). One finding per asset and vulnerability. An approved exception (DOC-ISMS-122) counts as on time only if approved before the due date
Data source	Vulnerability remediation tracker (DOC-ISMS-072)
Collection method	Automated export from the scanner and tracker
Collection frequency and date	Monthly, second working day
Reporting frequency and forum	Quarterly in DOC-ISMS-081
Target and tolerance	Green 95% or higher, amber 90% to 94.9%, red below 90%
Owner and collector	[@vuln-lead], [@security-analyst]
Analysis and evaluation	Security lead analyses ageing and blockers; steering committee evaluates quarterly
Action when red	Review capacity and blockers with system owners; report to steering committee
Card version	1.0, YYYY-MM-DD

Worked result (Example): in a quarter 64 critical findings fell due and 61 were closed or excepted on time, so MET-005 = 61 / 64 x 100 = 95.3%, which is green.

7. Collection, analysis and evaluation cycle

Step	When	Who	Output
1. Collect raw counts	[Monthly, by working day 3]	Data collectors	Stored extracts in the metrics folder
2. Calculate and validate	[Monthly, by working day 5]	ISMS manager	Metrics workbook updated, anomalies queried
3. Owner commentary	[Monthly, by working day 8]	Metric owners	Explanation for every amber or red value
4. Analyse trends	[Quarterly]	CISO or security lead	Trend analysis, links between metrics, conclusions
5. Report	[Quarterly]	ISMS manager	Performance report (DOC-ISMS-081)
6. Evaluate and decide	[Quarterly steering committee, annual management review]	Top management	Decisions and actions recorded in minutes
7. Act	[As decided]	Action owners	Corrective actions (DOC-ISMS-087), improvements (DOC-ISMS-088)

8. Thresholds, targets and escalation

Status	Meaning	Required response	Time limit (Example)
Green	At or better than target	Report; no action required	Not applicable
Amber	Within tolerance but below target	Owner explains cause and planned recovery in the commentary	Next monthly cycle
Red	Worse than tolerance	Owner raises an action; ISMS manager informs the CISO; steering committee reviews	Action raised within 10 working days
Red for 2 consecutive periods	Persistent failure	Nonconformity or risk review, as appropriate; top management informed	Next steering committee

Targets are reviewed once a year. Raise a target that has been green for four consecutive quarters if the risk still justifies effort; lower one only with a written reason and the objective owner's approval.

9. Data quality and validity

Completeness: confirm the data source covers the full population in scope (for example all endpoints, not only those reporting to the console). Record coverage as a percentage when it is below 100%.
Accuracy: reconcile automated counts with a manual sample of at least [5] items per metric each quarter.
Timeliness: use the collection dates in section 7 so periods are comparable.
Integrity: store each extract read-only with its collection date; calculations must be traceable from the extract to the reported value.
Changes: when a data source or formula changes, keep the old series, mark the break in the trend and state the impact.

Known limitation	Metric	Effect	Mitigation
Scanner does not cover the colocation network segment (Example)	MET-005, MET-006	Coverage 92%	Agent rollout due YYYY-MM-DD, coverage reported with value
[limitation]	[MET-NNN]	[effect]	[mitigation]

10. Size tiers

Aspect	Small: Quillmere Analytics Ltd (Example)	Medium: Quillmere Health Systems (Example)	Large: Quillmere Group (Example)
Profile	46 staff (38 employees, 8 contractors), SaaS on one public cloud in two regions	320 staff, two offices and one colocation suite	2,400 staff, 6 sites in 4 countries, IT and OT
Number of metrics	10 to 12, one per objective plus core controls	20 to 25, as in section 5	30 to 40 at group level plus site metrics
Who collects	Part-time ISMS manager (0.5 FTE, Head of Engineering Operations) with exports from the identity provider and cloud tooling	Security team of 3 with named collectors in IT and HR	Site security coordinators feed the 14-person security office
Tooling	Shared spreadsheet with extracts stored in the document system	Spreadsheet or GRC tool with automated exports	GRC platform and dashboards integrated with the existing ISO 9001 and ISO 22301 performance reporting
Reporting rhythm	Quarterly to the leadership team	Monthly to the security steering group, quarterly to the executive	Monthly per site, quarterly group roll-up to the integrated management system review
Specific metrics	Leaver access, MFA, cloud configuration, backups, training	Adds supplier reviews, colocation access, privacy requests	Adds OT patch exposure per plant, site audit coverage, multi-site comparison
Independent check	Internal auditor from outside engineering samples 3 metrics a year	Internal audit samples 6 metrics a year	Group internal audit samples per site in the audit programme

11. Records and evidence

Record	Proves	Kept by	Location	Retention (Example)
Approved measurement programme (this document)	Method defined and approved	ISMS manager	Document management system	Current plus superseded versions for 3 years
Metric definition cards	Reproducible methods	ISMS manager	Metrics folder	Life of the metric plus 3 years
Raw data extracts with collection dates	Results are traceable	Data collectors	Metrics folder, read-only	3 years (one certification cycle)
Metrics workbook or dashboard snapshots	Calculated values and status	ISMS manager	Metrics folder or GRC tool	3 years
Owner commentary on amber and red values	Analysis performed	Metric owners	Workbook comments	3 years
Performance reports (DOC-ISMS-081)	Results reported and evaluated	ISMS manager	Document management system	3 years
Steering committee and management review minutes	Evaluation and decisions by top management	Committee secretary	Minutes repository	3 years or as set in DOC-ISMS-028
Internal audit re-performance results	Data quality tested	Internal audit	Audit files	3 years

Map each record to clause 9.1 in the control evidence matrix (isms/control-evidence-matrix, DOC-ISMS-033) and to the documented information register (DOC-ISMS-028).

12. Review of the programme

Review this programme at least once a year before the management review and also when:

objectives in DOC-ISMS-024 are added, changed or closed;
the risk assessment identifies a new High or Critical risk;
the ISMS scope changes (new site, service or legal entity);
a data source is replaced or a tool is retired;
an audit finds that a metric cannot be reproduced.

Record the review outcome (metrics added, retired or changed) in the revision history and present it as an input to the management review.

13. References

Reference	Edition	Use
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024	https://www.iso.org/standard/82875.html ; https://www.iso.org/standard/88435.html	Clauses 6.2 and 9.1
ISO/IEC 27004:2016	https://www.iso.org/standard/64120.html	Measurement guidance; a revision is in progress
ISO/IEC 27002:2022	https://www.iso.org/standard/75652.html	Control guidance used to choose control metrics
NIST SP 800-55 Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, Measurement Guide for Information Security	December 2024	Optional public guidance on selecting measures and running a measurement programme
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 (CSWP 29)	February 2024	Optional mapping of metrics to framework outcomes

Related templates: isms/isms-performance-report (DOC-ISMS-081), compliance/objectives-register (DOC-ISMS-024), isms/isms-annual-calendar (DOC-ISMS-032), isms/control-evidence-matrix (DOC-ISMS-033), compliance/internal-audit-program (DOC-ISMS-082), compliance/management-review (DOC-ISMS-085), isms/isms-risk-appetite-criteria (DOC-ISMS-015), security/security-metrics-report.

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 clauses 6.2 and 9.1, with guidance concepts from ISO/IEC 27004:2016. The text, metric examples, targets and worked results are original and illustrative; no ISO or IEC text, tables or definitions are reproduced, and you need the official standards to apply them. ISO and IEC standards are copyrighted and sold by ISO, IEC and national standards bodies. Check the current edition and amendments before use: ISO/IEC 27004 is under revision. Template licence: MIT.