Markdown Editor

ISMS Performance Report Template (ISO/IEC 27001 9.1, 9.3)

Periodic ISMS report to management: KPI table with trend, objectives, risk by band, incidents, audits, actions, decisions, one-page dashboard

SMKI & ISO/IEC 27001LengkapISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 clauses 9.1, 9.3 (cited only); ISO/IEC 27004:2016performancereport

Cara menggunakan: Use it each reporting period and as the main pack for the management review. Fill the KPI table from the measurement programme and the decisions requested first, the executive summary last. The main pitfall is listing numbers without conclusions or decisions for top management.

Pratinjau

ISMS Performance Report: [Organization name], [Period]

Periodic report to top management on the performance and effectiveness of the information security management system (ISMS) of [Organization name]. It presents the results of monitoring and measurement required by ISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 clause 9.1 and supplies inputs to the management review in clause 9.3: KPI trends, objectives status, risks, incidents, audit results and actions, with a one-page dashboard. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example.

Document control

FieldValue
Document ID[DOC-ISMS-081]
Version[2027-Q3 v1.0]
Status[Draft / In review / Issued]
Owner[@isms-manager]
Approvers/reviewers[@ciso], [@coo]
Last updatedYYYY-MM-DD
Classification[Confidential]
Standard and editionISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 (clauses 9.1, 9.3.2)
Reporting period[YYYY-MM-DD to YYYY-MM-DD]
Method reference[DOC-ISMS-080, measurement programme version x.y]
Audience[Security steering committee (DOC-ISMS-007), executive team, management review]
Data cut-off dateYYYY-MM-DD
Next scheduled review[Next report due YYYY-MM-DD]

Approvals

RoleNameDecisionDate
ISMS owner[@isms-manager][Prepared]YYYY-MM-DD
Chief information security officer[@ciso][Reviewed]YYYY-MM-DD
Executive sponsor[@coo][Accepted for steering committee]YYYY-MM-DD

Revision history

VersionDateAuthorChange
2027-Q3 v0.9 (Example)YYYY-MM-DD[@isms-manager]Draft for metric owner commentary
2027-Q3 v1.0 (Example)YYYY-MM-DD[@isms-manager]Issued after CISO review; MET-012 commentary added
[version]YYYY-MM-DD[@author][Change summary]

Contents

  1. Executive summary
  2. Key performance indicators
  3. Information security objectives
  4. Risk position
  5. Security incidents
  6. Audits and compliance
  7. Actions and improvement
  8. Changes, resources and interested parties
  9. Decisions requested
  10. One-page dashboard
  11. Size tiers
  12. Records and evidence
  13. References

1. Executive summary

Overall ISMS status (Example): Amber. 16 of 20 KPIs are green, 3 amber and 1 red. Critical vulnerability remediation reached target for a second quarter. Phishing click rate (MET-012) is red at 9.4% after a harder simulation, and corrective actions closed on time (MET-018) are amber at 85%. One Critical risk remains open (RISK-031, colocation power redundancy) with treatment due next quarter. No severity 1 incident occurred. The first internal audit cycle is complete with 3 minor nonconformities and no major ones.

Decisions requested: approve targeted phishing training for two teams, approve funding for the colocation power upgrade, and confirm the date of the management review (section 9).

2. Key performance indicators

Status: G green (at or better than target), A amber (within tolerance), R red. Trend compares the current quarter with the previous one: up means better, down means worse, flat means no material change.

IDKPITarget2026-Q42027-Q12027-Q22027-Q3StatusTrend
MET-001 (Example)Leaver access removed within 1 working day98%93.8%96.2%98.4%98.6%Gflat
MET-002 (Example)Quarterly access reviews on time100%80%90%100%100%Gflat
MET-003 (Example)Privileged accounts with phishing-resistant MFA100%88%96%100%100%Gflat
MET-004 (Example)Endpoints compliant with baseline97%91.0%94.5%96.1%97.3%Gup
MET-005 (Example)Critical vulnerabilities remediated within SLA95%82.0%91.7%95.3%96.0%Gflat
MET-006 (Example)Mean days to remediate high and critical14 days23181312Gup
MET-008 (Example)Backup jobs successful99%99.2%99.5%99.4%99.6%Gflat
MET-009 (Example)Restore tests meeting RTO100%75%100%100%100%Gflat
MET-011 (Example)Awareness training completion95%88%93%96%97%Gflat
MET-012 (Example)Phishing simulation click rate5% or lower11.2%7.5%4.8%9.4%Rdown
MET-013 (Example)Phishing simulation report rate60% or higher31%44%58%61%Gup
MET-015 (Example)Severity 1 incidents00100Gflat
MET-016 (Example)Mean hours to contain severity 1 and 28 hours14.09.57.06.5Gflat
MET-017 (Example)Internal audits delivered as planned100%not started100%100%100%Gflat
MET-018 (Example)Corrective actions closed by due date90%70%82%91%85%Adown
MET-019 (Example)Policies reviewed in date95%72%90%96%96%Gflat
MET-020 (Example)Risk treatment actions on schedule85%65%74%81%82%Aflat
MET-021 (Example)Risks outside appetite without approved treatment04200Gflat
MET-022 (Example)Objectives on track80%50%67%67%83%Gup
MET-023 (Example)Critical suppliers with current security review100%64%82%91%95%Aup
[MET-NNN][KPI][target][value][value][value][value][G/A/R][trend]

Status count for 2027-Q3 (Example): 16 green, 3 amber (MET-018, MET-020, MET-023), 1 red (MET-012), total 20.

2.1 Commentary on amber and red KPIs

IDOwnerCauseRecovery actionExpected recovery
MET-012 (Example)[@awareness-lead]Simulation difficulty raised from level 2 to level 3 (spoofed internal supplier invoice); 30 of 320 recipients clicked (9.4%); two teams accounted for 19 clicksTargeted 30-minute session for the two teams, repeat simulation at the same difficulty2027-Q4
MET-018 (Example)[@isms-manager]20 actions from all sources in section 7 fell due, 17 closed on time; the 3 late actions (overdue at end, section 7) depend on the colocation providerEscalated to supplier management; due dates re-baselined with approval2027-Q4
MET-020 (Example)[@isms-manager]41 of 50 open treatment actions on schedule (82%); delays in network segmentation workAdditional contractor capacity requested (section 9)2028-Q1
MET-023 (Example)[@procurement-lead]21 of 22 critical suppliers reviewed (95%); one review awaiting the supplier's assurance reportReview scheduled once the report arrives2027-Q4

3. Information security objectives

ObjectiveMeasureTarget and dateCurrentStatusComment
OBJ-01 (Example) Achieve ISO/IEC 27001 certification for the managed scheduling serviceStage 2 completed with no open major nonconformityBy 2027-10-31Stage 1 done, Stage 2 bookedGReadiness pack issued (DOC-ISMS-091)
OBJ-02 (Example) Keep critical vulnerability exposure within appetiteMET-00595% each quarter from 2027-Q296.0%GSecond quarter on target
OBJ-03 (Example) Reduce phishing susceptibilityMET-012 and MET-013Click 5% or lower and report 60% or higher by 2027-Q49.4% and 61%AClick rate red after harder simulation
OBJ-04 (Example) Timely access removalMET-00198% monthly by 2027-Q298.6%GSustained
OBJ-05 (Example) Restore critical services within RTOMET-009100% of quarterly tests100%GColocation test passed
OBJ-06 (Example) Prepare ISO/IEC 27701:2025 certification (privacy, planned for next year)Gap assessment completedBy 2027-12-31Planning startedGOn plan for next year
[OBJ-NN][measure][target][value][G/A/R][comment]

Objectives on track (Example): 5 of 6 green, which is 83% and matches MET-022.

4. Risk position

Bands (DOC-ISMS-010): Low 1 to 4, Medium 5 to 9, High 10 to 16, Critical 17 to 25 (in practice 20 and 25).

BandPrevious reportNewMoved inMoved outClosedThis report
Critical (Example)200101
High (Example)911317
Medium (Example)20232122
Low (Example)17020118
Total48366348

How the movements add up (Example): for each band, previous + new + moved in - moved out - closed = this report (for High: 9 + 1 + 1 - 3 - 1 = 7). Moves are re-scorings after treatment: one Critical risk fell to High, three High risks fell to Medium and two Medium risks fell to Low, so moves in and moves out both total 6. Three new risks entered and three were closed, so the total stays at 48.

4.1 Top risks

Risk IDRiskScore (L x I)BandOwnerTreatment status
RISK-031 (Example)Single power feed in the colocation suite stops the managed service4 x 5 = 20Critical[@coo]Upgrade quoted; funding requested (section 9)
RISK-011 (Example)Cloud misconfiguration exposes hospital scheduling data3 x 5 = 15High[@cloud-lead]Configuration baseline at 97%, posture tool live
RISK-002 (Example)Credential phishing leads to account takeover3 x 4 = 12High[@ciso]MFA complete, awareness action under MET-012
RISK-019 (Example)Key supplier unable to support recovery3 x 4 = 12High[@procurement-lead]Contract addendum in negotiation
[RISK-NNN][risk][L x I][band][@owner][status]

4.2 Risk acceptances

Acceptance IDRiskBandAccepted byExpiresAction
ACC-007 (Example)RISK-024 legacy reporting server without vendor supportHigh[@ceo]YYYY-MM-DDDecommission planned; renew or close at next steering committee
[ACC-NNN][RISK-NNN][band][@approver]YYYY-MM-DD[action]

Record new acceptances in the risk acceptance record (isms/isms-risk-acceptance-record, DOC-ISMS-019).

5. Security incidents

Severity2027-Q22027-Q3Notes
1 Critical (Example)00None
2 High (Example)12One business e-mail compromise attempt contained in 5 hours; one malware infection on a contractor laptop contained in 8 hours
3 Medium (Example)911Mostly misdirected e-mails and lost devices (encrypted)
4 Low (Example)3034Blocked phishing and policy reminders
Total4047

Mean time to contain severity 1 and 2 in 2027-Q3 (Example): (5 + 8) / 2 = 6.5 hours, as reported in MET-016.

ItemThis period (Example)
Personal data breaches assessed3 (all severity 3 misdirected e-mails)
Notified to supervisory authority0 (as processor, notifying the authority is the customer's decision; no breach of own controller data was likely to result in a risk, assessment documented)
Notified to customers as processor1 (hospital informed within the contractual 48 hours)
Post-incident reviews completed2 of 2 severity 2 incidents (DOC-ISMS-022)
Lessons learned turned into actions4 actions raised, 2 closed

6. Audits and compliance

AuditDateScopeMajor NCMinor NCObservations and opportunitiesStatus
Internal audit IA-2027-03 (Example)YYYY-MM-DDClauses 7 and 8, A.5.19 to A.5.23023Actions open, due 2027-Q4
Internal audit IA-2027-04 (Example)YYYY-MM-DDA.8 technological controls sample013Actions open
Certification Stage 1 (Example)YYYY-MM-DDFull ISMS documentation and readinessnot gradednot graded5 areas of concern4 resolved, 1 in progress
Customer audit (hospital group) (Example)YYYY-MM-DDService security schedule002Closed
Total internal NCs this period036

Compliance status (Example): no new legal or regulatory requirement entered the legal register (DOC-ISMS-014) this period; one customer contract added a 24-hour incident notice, now reflected in the incident response plan (DOC-ISMS-020).

7. Actions and improvement

Action sourceOpen at startRaisedClosedOpen at endOverdue at end
Corrective actions (nonconformities) (Example)96872
Audit observations and opportunities (Example)56470
Incident lessons learned (Example)34251
Improvement register items (Example)1256110
Total292120303

Check: open at end = open at start + raised - closed (29 + 21 - 20 = 30). Overdue items: [list IDs and owners].

8. Changes, resources and interested parties

TopicThis period (Example)Effect on the ISMS
Internal issuesNew patient messaging feature planned for 2028Risk assessment and DPIA required before design freeze
External issuesRise in invoice fraud targeting healthcare suppliersPhishing simulation theme updated; RISK-002 reassessed
Interested partiesTwo hospital customers asked for evidence of 27001 progressTrust page update and certification timeline shared
Climate-related issues (clause 4.1, Amd 1:2024)Heat event affected colocation cooling for 2 hoursRecorded in context review DOC-ISMS-003; linked to RISK-031
ResourcesSecurity team of 3 at capacity during audit preparationContractor support requested (section 9)
Planned changes to the ISMSScope to add the second office's support deskChange plan DOC-ISMS-025 item raised

9. Decisions requested

Decision IDRequestOptionsCost (Example, USD)RecommendedConsequence if deferred
DEC-2027-Q3-01 (Example)Fund colocation power redundancyA: second feed and UPS upgrade; B: move to provider's resilient hallA 48,000; B 62,000 per yearARISK-031 stays Critical beyond the Stage 2 audit
DEC-2027-Q3-02 (Example)Targeted phishing training for two teamsA: live session; B: e-learning onlyA 3,500; B 0AMET-012 likely to stay red
DEC-2027-Q3-03 (Example)Contractor support for segmentation work0.5 FTE for 6 months39,000ApproveMET-020 stays amber; RISK-011 treatment slips
DEC-2027-Q3-04 (Example)Confirm management review dateYYYY-MM-DDnoneConfirmReview falls after Stage 2

Total funding requested (Example): 48,000 + 3,500 + 39,000 = 90,500 USD. Use your local currency.

10. One-page dashboard

The layout below fits one printed page or one slide. Every figure on it comes from sections 2 to 9; update the dashboard last, after the detailed sections are final.

+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ISMS PERFORMANCE  2027-Q3   Quillmere Health Systems (Example)   |
| Overall status: AMBER    KPIs: 16 G / 3 A / 1 R (20)             |
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| HEADLINE KPIs        Q3  Trend| RISK POSITION   prev -> now      |
| Leaver access      98.6%  =   | Critical          2 -> 1         |
| Critical vulns SLA 96.0%  =   | High              9 -> 7         |
| Endpoint baseline  97.3%  ^   | Medium           20 -> 22        |
| Phishing click      9.4%  v R | Low              17 -> 18        |
| Phishing report      61%  ^   | Total            48 -> 48        |
| CAPA on time         85%  v A |                                  |
+-------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| INCIDENTS  S1 0  S2 2  S3 11  S4 34  (total 47)                  |
| AUDITS     Internal: 0 major, 3 minor, 6 obs.  Stage 1 done      |
| OBJECTIVES 5 of 6 on track (83%)                                 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| DECISIONS: 1 Colocation power (48k)  2 Phishing training (3.5k)  |
|            3 Segmentation contractor (39k)  4 Review date        |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+

11. Size tiers

AspectSmall: Quillmere Analytics Ltd (Example)Medium: Quillmere Health Systems (Example)Large: Quillmere Group (Example)
Profile46 staff, SaaS on one public cloud in two regions, part-time ISMS manager (0.5 FTE)320 staff, two offices, one colocation suite, ISMS manager plus 3-person security team2,400 staff, 6 sites in 4 countries, CISO with a 14-person security office, integrated management system
FrequencyQuarterly, as a standing item in the leadership meetingQuarterly to the security steering committee, annual pack for management reviewMonthly site dashboards, quarterly group report, annual integrated management review with ISO 9001 and ISO 22301
LengthTwo to three pages: dashboard plus sections 2, 4 and 9Full report as in this templateGroup summary plus one appendix per site and one for OT
KPIs10 to 122030 to 40 group KPIs with site comparison
AudienceChief executive, chief technology officer, head of customer successExecutive team and steering committeeGroup executive board, site managing directors, audit committee
Specific contentCustomer security questionnaire volume and outcomesHospital customer commitments, colocation statusSite-by-site certification phasing progress, OT exposure, integrated audit results

12. Records and evidence

RecordProvesKept byLocationRetention (Example)
Issued performance report per periodResults of monitoring and measurement (9.1)ISMS managerDocument management system, ISMS reports folder3 years (one certification cycle)
Metrics workbook snapshot at the cut-off dateFigures in the report are traceableISMS managerMetrics folder, read-only3 years
Owner commentary on amber and red KPIsAnalysis of resultsMetric ownersWorkbook or report section 2.13 years
Steering committee minutes with decisionsEvaluation by managementCommittee secretaryMinutes repository3 years
Management review minutes (DOC-ISMS-085)Review inputs considered and outputs decided (9.3)ISMS managerDocument management system3 years or as set in DOC-ISMS-028
Distribution recordReport reached its audienceISMS managerE-mail or portal log1 year

Link these records in the control evidence matrix (isms/control-evidence-matrix, DOC-ISMS-033) under clauses 9.1 and 9.3.

13. References

ReferenceEditionUse
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024https://www.iso.org/standard/82875.html ; https://www.iso.org/standard/88435.htmlClauses 6.2, 9.1, 9.3 and the climate change issue in 4.1
ISO/IEC 27004:2016https://www.iso.org/standard/64120.htmlMeasurement and reporting guidance; a revision is in progress
ISO/IEC 27002:2022https://www.iso.org/standard/75652.htmlControl context for KPI interpretation

Related templates: isms/isms-measurement-programme (DOC-ISMS-080), compliance/management-review (DOC-ISMS-085), compliance/objectives-register (DOC-ISMS-024), compliance/risk-register (DOC-ISMS-016), isms/isms-risk-acceptance-record (DOC-ISMS-019), isms/incident-register (DOC-ISMS-021), isms/audit-findings-register (DOC-ISMS-086), isms/isms-steering-committee-charter (DOC-ISMS-007), security/security-metrics-report.

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with ISO/IEC 27001:2022 + Amd 1:2024 clauses 9.1 and 9.3, with reporting ideas informed by ISO/IEC 27004:2016. The text, dashboard layout, KPIs and all figures are original and illustrative; no ISO or IEC text, tables or definitions are reproduced, and you need the official standards to apply the requirements. ISO and IEC standards are copyrighted and sold by ISO, IEC and national standards bodies. Check the current edition and amendments before use. Template licence: MIT.

Templat terkait