/

  / ISO 27001 Business Continuity Requirements Guide

ISO 27001 Business Continuity Requirements Guide

Two controls decide whether your ISO 27001 business continuity plan survives an audit: Annex A 5.29 and Annex A 5.30. One keeps your security controls working while everything else is failing. The other gets your systems back online before the damage becomes permanent.

Plenty of teams write a continuity policy that satisfies neither in the way a certification auditor expects, and they discover the gap during the Stage 2 audit, when it is expensive to fix.

This article covers what ISO 27001:2022 actually requires for business continuity, the components an auditor will ask to see, the step-by-step build, and the mistakes that turn a continuity plan into a non-conformity.

ISO 27001 Business Continuity Plan

What Is an ISO 27001 Business Continuity Plan?

An ISO 27001 business continuity plan is the documented set of procedures that keeps information security effective and critical ICT services available during a disruption. It is not a generic “keep the lights on” binder. Under ISO 27001, the plan protects the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of information when normal operations break down: a ransomware event, a cloud outage, a data center failure, or a supplier collapse.

The plan lives inside your Information Security Management System (ISMS). It draws on your risk assessment, your asset register, and your Business Impact Analysis (BIA), and it feeds your disaster recovery procedures. Scope is the part people get wrong. ISO 27001 cares about the information security aspects of continuity, not every operational hiccup a full business continuity program might cover.

 

Why You Need a Business Continuity Plan for ISO 27001 Compliance

Downtime is expensive, and the bill arrives fast. For most organizations, the question is not whether a disruption will happen, but how quickly they recover when it does.

There is also a hard compliance reason. You cannot certify to ISO 27001 while ignoring continuity. The standard requires you to maintain information security during disruption and to keep ICT able to support recovery, and an auditor will ask for the evidence. A continuity plan is where availability stops being a promise and becomes a tested capability.

Let Axipro help you build a business continuity plan that's practical, compliant, and audit-ready.

Strengthen Your Business Continuity Strategy

ISO 27001 Requirements Related to Business Continuity Planning

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 carries 93 Annex A controls across four categories: organizational, people, physical, and technological. Continuity sits in the organizational set, and two controls do the heavy lifting, supported by two more on the technical side.

Annex A 5.29 – Information Security During Disruption

A.5.29 requires you to maintain information security at an appropriate level when a disruption hits. The point is that security controls have a habit of degrading under pressure. People disable multi-factor authentication to “speed things up,” logging stops on a failover system, or access controls loosen while everyone scrambles. A.5.29 says the confidentiality and integrity of your information must be maintained even while availability is under threat. It is classed as both a preventive and a corrective control, meaning it should reduce the chance of an incident and also help resolve one already underway.

Annex A 5.30 – ICT Readiness for Business Continuity

A.5.30 is the technical engine. It requires that your ICT readiness is planned, implemented, maintained, and tested against business continuity objectives and ICT continuity requirements. In plain terms, your servers, networks, applications, and cloud services need a defined recovery path, each with a Recovery Time Objective (RTO) and Recovery Point Objective (RPO), and you need to prove the path works. This control is entirely new in the 2022 revision. It has no precedent in ISO 27001:2013, which is exactly why teams migrating from the older version so often have a gap here.

Important: A.5.30 did not exist in ISO 27001:2013. If your continuity documentation was written against the old Annex A 17 cluster and never updated, you are missing a control the auditor will specifically test. Treat ICT readiness as a fresh requirement, not a relabel.

Two technological controls back these up.

  • Annex A 8.13 (Information Backup) requires backups to be taken and tested in line with an agreed policy, and
  • Annex A 8.14 (Redundancy of Information Processing Facilities) covers the failover and redundancy that let critical systems keep running when a component dies.

Relationship Between ISO 27001 and ISO 22301

This is where confusion is common. ISO 27001 requires the information security aspects of continuity. ISO 22301 is the dedicated standard for a full Business Continuity Management System (BCMS), covering people, facilities, supply chain, and operations far beyond information security. An ISO 27001 certificate does not certify your wider continuity program.

The good news: both standards share the Annex SL high-level structure, so risk assessment, internal audit, management review, and document control carry across. Teams that already run ISO 27001 can layer ISO 22301 on top with far less effort than starting from scratch.

ISO 27001 Business Continuity Plan

Key Components of an ISO 27001 Business Continuity Plan

Business Impact Analysis (BIA)

The BIA is the foundation. It identifies your critical business processes, the ICT systems they depend on, and the cost of losing each one over time. It is where your recovery objectives come from, not from a vendor datasheet. A BIA also sets the Maximum Tolerable Period of Disruption (MTPD): the point beyond which an activity’s failure causes unacceptable damage.

Risk and Disruption Scenario Assessment

Your risk assessment identifies what could cause a disruption and how likely it is, feeding the Risk Treatment Plan and the Statement of Applicability (SoA) that records which controls apply. Continuity planning then runs concrete scenarios: ransomware, a regional outage, a key supplier failure, the loss of a data center.

Response and Recovery Strategies

For each critical system, you define how you will respond and recover: failover to a secondary site, restore from backup, or switch to a manual workaround. This links incident response to crisis management, the executive-level decision-making that kicks in when an incident escalates beyond a routine fix.

Roles and Responsibilities

Name real people, not departments. “IT will handle it” is the single most common reason a plan fails under pressure. Every critical system and recovery step needs a named owner and a named deputy, with current contact details and the authority to act.

Pro Tip: Replace every instance of "IT" or "the business" in your plan

Replace every instance of "IT" or "the business" in your plan with a person's name and a backup name. Auditors increasingly check whether the primary responder for a critical system can actually describe their role. A swim-lane diagram showing who does what, in order, is worth more than ten pages of policy prose.

Communication Plan

Decide in advance who tells customers, regulators, staff, and partners, through which channels, and on what timeline. Many disruptions become reputational events not because recovery was slow but because the silence was loud.

Backup and Redundancy Measures

This is Annex A 8.13 and 8.14 in practice. The widely used benchmark is the 3-2-1 rule: three copies of data, on two media types, with one off-site and ideally immutable. The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency still recommends this baseline, with an additional offline or immutable copy as ransomware defense. Redundancy means no single point of failure can take down a critical service on its own.

Testing, Maintenance, and Continual Improvement

A plan that has never been tested is a hypothesis. ISO 27001 expects testing at planned intervals, typically at least annually and after any significant change. This is the Continual Improvement half of the PDCA cycle: test, capture what failed, fix it, retest. Our guide to Testing Maintenance and Continual Improvement covers the cadence in detail.

How to Create an ISO 27001 Business Continuity Plan: Step-by-Step

Step 1: Secure Management Support

Continuity planning needs budget and authority. Get senior management to own the objectives, because A.5.30 plans must be approved at that level and the BIA needs sign-off to carry weight in an audit.

Step 2: Conduct a Business Impact Analysis

Map every critical process to its supporting systems, suppliers, and data. Quantify the impact of losing each one at intervals such as 1 hour, 24 hours, and one week, and use that to rank what gets recovered first.

Step 3: Perform a Risk Assessment

Identify the threats that could cause those impacts, assess likelihood, and record your treatment decisions in the Risk Treatment Plan and the SoA. The risk assessment and the BIA together justify where you spend on resilience.

Step 4: Define Recovery Objectives (RTO and RPO)

Set an RTO and RPO for every critical system, derived from the BIA. RTO is the maximum time to restore a service. RPO is the maximum data loss you can absorb, measured in time. Both must fit inside the MTPD.

Insider Note: The most common RTO mistake is setting it based on what your technology can deliver, then calling that the target. Auditors and regulators expect the opposite: business tolerance sets the number, and the architecture is built to meet it. The NIST guidance in SP 800-34 is explicit that RTO must sit below the maximum tolerable downtime, with a safety margin. A stale or wishful RTO is worse than none, because it creates false confidence.

Step 5: Develop the Business Continuity Plan Document

Write the plan: scope, roles, scenarios, recovery procedures, a Disaster Recovery Plan (DRP) for ICT, communication protocols, and the testing schedule. Keep procedures specific enough to follow at 2 a.m. with half the team unreachable.

Step 6: Train Personnel and Assign Responsibilities

Brief the recovery team on their roles and give general staff awareness of the temporary procedures that apply during a disruption. Training records are audit evidence, so keep them.

Step 7: Test, Review, and Update the Plan

Run a tabletop exercise or a live failover test, document the results, log every gap in a corrective action tracker, and feed the fixes back into the plan. Then schedule the next test. A test that produces no findings usually means the test was too easy.

ISO 27001 Business Continuity Plan Template (What to Include)

A workable plan template covers, at minimum: scope and objectives; a register of critical processes and their ICT dependencies; the BIA results with MTPD, RTO, and RPO per system; named roles and deputies; disruption scenarios and recovery strategies; the DRP and backup arrangements; the communication plan; and the test schedule with a log of past exercises and their outcomes. The NIST contingency planning guide and ISO/TS 22317 both offer BIA templates worth borrowing from if you are starting cold rather than reinventing the structure.

We’ve created an editable template for your use, click the link below to view it.

How to Evaluate Information Security Continuity

Evaluation is not a one-off. ISO 27001 expects you to verify, through testing and review, that information security controls and ICT recovery still work as intended. That means checking after each test that recovery met the documented RTO and RPO, that security controls such as logging, encryption, and multi-factor authentication stayed active during failover, and that the lessons from the last exercise were actually implemented. Internal audit and management review are the formal mechanisms that close this loop and give the auditor a paper trail to follow.

 

Common Mistakes to Avoid When Building Your Plan

The recurring failures are predictable. Writing the plan in IT isolation with no buy-in from the rest of the business. Setting RTO and RPO from technology capability rather than business need. Leaving ownership as a job title instead of a person. Never testing, or testing once and filing the report. Disabling security controls during recovery to move faster, which directly breaches A.5.29. And treating A.5.30 as a relabel of the old Annex A 17, when it is a genuinely new requirement with its own evidence demands.

Worth Knowing: Don't Sacrifice Security During Recovery

Worth Knowing: Auditors treat the suppression of a security control during recovery as a non-conformity, not a pragmatic shortcut. If you turn off MFA or firewall inspection to speed a restore, that decision has to be a documented, risk-assessed waiver, not an undocumented field call. A failover that quietly drops your logging is a finding waiting to happen.

What Auditors Look for in an ISO 27001 Business Continuity Plan

A certification auditor wants living proof, not shelf-ware. Expect them to ask for a BIA reviewed and signed off by management within the last 12 months, a register of critical ICT assets with RTO and RPO attached, the DRP and its technical recovery procedures, evidence of backup integrity, and a schedule of tests with results from previous exercises. They will look for after-action reports and a tracked corrective action plan showing that failures from the last test were remediated. They will check training records for the recovery team. And they will probe whether a named responder can actually describe their role. The theme throughout: evidence that continuity is operationally real, not a policy PDF filed away after last year’s audit.

If you want help building or auditing this against ISO 27001:2022, Axipro’s ISO 27001 implementation support covers the BIA, control mapping, and evidence preparation end to end.

Let Axipro help you build a business continuity plan that's practical, compliant, and audit-ready.

Strengthen Your Business Continuity Strategy

Conclusion

An ISO 27001 business continuity plan succeeds or fails on two things: whether your information security holds during a disruption, and whether your ICT can recover within the targets the business actually needs. A.5.29 and A.5.30 make both measurable and auditable. Build the plan from a real BIA, set recovery objectives from business tolerance, name owners, test the plan, and fix what breaks. Do that, and certification becomes the byproduct of genuine resilience rather than a paperwork exercise.

ISO 27001 BCP Frequently Asked Questions

Is a business continuity plan mandatory for ISO 27001 certification?

You cannot ignore continuity. ISO 27001:2022 includes A.5.29 and A.5.30 as Annex A controls, and unless you can justify their exclusion in the Statement of Applicability, you must implement them. In practice this means documented, tested continuity arrangements for information security and ICT, even if you do not pursue a full ISO 22301 BCMS.

ISO 27001 covers the information security aspects of continuity: keeping data confidential, intact, and available during disruption. ISO 22301 is a standalone Business Continuity Management System standard covering the whole organization, including people, facilities, and supply chain. An ISO 27001 certificate does not prove you have a complete BCMS; ISO 22301 does.

At planned intervals, which in practice means at least once a year and after any significant change, such as a major system migration, an acquisition, or a real incident that exposed a gap. The BIA should be reviewed on the same cadence so the recovery objectives stay accurate.

Senior management owns the objectives and approves the plan, but day-to-day responsibility is distributed across process owners, an ICT recovery team, and named individuals for each critical system and recovery step. The plan should name people and deputies, not departments.

The business continuity plan is the umbrella, covering how the organization keeps critical functions running during disruption. The Disaster Recovery Plan is a subset focused specifically on restoring IT and technology infrastructure. Under ISO 27001, the DRP supports A.5.30, while the broader continuity plan supports A.5.29 and ties the technical recovery to business priorities.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

Compliance software collects the evidence. A consultant builds the system that evidence is meant to prove. That’s the real difference in the ISO 27001 consultant vs software decision, and most teams only figure it out after they’ve bought one and realized they still need the other. Below, we compare what each route covers, where it breaks down, and what it costs you in time, money, and your team’s hours. Short version: software on its own works for a small group of companies. For most SaaS and tech scale-ups trying to get an enterprise deal over the line, consultant-led implementation on a compliance platform is the faster and safer path to a certificate. Quick Answer: Consultant, Software, or Both? Software-only works if you already have an in-house security lead who’s taken a company through ISO/IEC 27001 before and has the time to own the project. Consultant-only still makes sense if you run mostly on-premise or legacy systems that platforms barely integrate with. For everyone else, which means most cloud-native companies under a few hundred people, a hybrid works best: a platform to handle evidence and monitoring, and a consultant to build the management system and stand behind it in front of an auditor. Here’s why. What an ISO 27001 Consultant Handles ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is a management system standard. Clauses 4 to 10 cover how you run information security, and Annex A lists 93 controls you pick from based on risk. Almost none of it is box-ticking. Most of it comes down to judgment calls about your business, and that’s what you’re paying a consultant for. Scoping, Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Scope is the first decision you make, and the most expensive one to get wrong. Go too wide and you’ll spend months on controls for systems no customer asks about. Go too narrow and the certificate won’t get through the procurement review it was supposed to pass. A consultant scopes around the deals you’re trying to close, runs a gap analysis, and builds a risk assessment based on your real assets and threats. That’s the document auditors dig into hardest. ISMS Documentation and Policy Writing The standard asks for a specific set of documents: the ISMS scope, information security policy, risk assessment and treatment methodology, Statement of Applicability, risk treatment plan, and evidence of competence, monitoring, internal audit, and management review. A consultant writes these around how your company works day to day, instead of how a template imagines it works. Auditors check whether you follow your own procedures, so a mismatch shows up fast. Internal Audit and Certification Audit Support You need an internal audit before certification, and Clause 9.2 says the auditor has to be objective and impartial. In a small company, the people who built the ISMS can’t credibly audit it, so most teams outsource it through ISO 27001 internal audit services. A good consultant also gets your team ready for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits, joins the conversations that matter, and handles corrective actions if the auditor raises nonconformities.  What ISO 27001 Compliance Software Handles Compliance automation platforms, often called GRC platforms, have changed how cloud-native companies get certified. They’re very good at the repetitive, evidence-heavy side of the work. Automated Evidence Collection and Continuous Control Monitoring The platform plugs into your cloud provider, identity provider, code repos, HR system, and device management tools, then pulls evidence on its own. It’ll flag an unencrypted storage bucket, an ex-employee who still has access, or a laptop without disk encryption. For technical controls, that saves weeks of screenshots and spreadsheet tracking. Policy Templates and Annex A Control Mapping Most platforms come with a policy library and map each control to the ISO 27001 clauses and Annex A. You get a starting point and a clear view of which controls have evidence and which don’t. Auditor Access and Ongoing Compliance Tracking Auditors can log in and review evidence themselves, which cuts down fieldwork. After you’re certified, dashboards show when controls slip between surveillance audits, so you aren’t rebuilding evidence from scratch every year. Where Each Approach Falls Short Neither route covers everything by itself. The good news is that the ways each one fails are predictable, so you can plan around them. Limits of Compliance Automation Platforms A platform can tell you a control is failing. It can’t decide your scope, run your risk assessment, write a policy that matches your operations, convince your CTO to change the offboarding process, or explain to an auditor why you excluded a control from your Statement of Applicability. Templates can also make you feel further along than you are. A dashboard at 90% can hide an ISMS that won’t survive Stage 1, because the missing 10% is the management system itself. Insider Note: The Stage 1 problem we see most on software-only projects is a risk assessment copied straight from the platform’s default risk library. The risks are generic, the scores are almost identical, and nothing ties back to the company’s own assets. Auditors notice within minutes, and it weakens the Statement of Applicability that’s built on it. The other problem is ownership. Software assumes someone inside the company will drive the project. At most startups that’s a CTO or ops lead who already has a full-time job, and the subscription renews whether the work gets done or not. Limits of a Consultant-Only Approach A consultant working without automation spends billable days on things a platform does for free, like chasing screenshots, updating evidence trackers, and collecting the same proof again before every surveillance audit. You pay more and wait longer. You also end up with a program that’s only accurate on the day it’s handed over. Once the engagement ends, the evidence goes stale and year-two surveillance turns into a scramble. ISO 27001 Consultant vs Software: Side-by-Side Comparison Factor Consultant only Software only Hybrid (consultant + platform) Time to audit readiness 3 to 6+ months Highly variable; depends on internal expertise As little as 6 weeks for well-scoped

Uzbekistan regulates artificial intelligence through two documents. The first is Law ZRU-1115, signed on 21 January 2026. It amends existing legislation to define AI, stops anyone from basing decisions about people’s rights on AI output alone, and fines companies that process personal data unlawfully with AI. The second is the set of Ethical Rules approved by Order No. 3787, in force since 17 June 2026, which spell out what developers, implementers, and users actually have to do. Uzbekistan hasn’t passed a standalone AI act, and its rules don’t sort systems into risk tiers or require conformity assessments. The framework is short and blunt, and it’s already enforceable. Below we walk through what each document requires, who it applies to, how it stacks up against the EU AI Act, and what a company using AI in Uzbekistan should do next. Uzbekistan AI Regulation at a Glance (TL;DR) Instrument Date What it does Who it binds Law ZRU-1115 Signed 21 January 2026 Defines AI in law, sets general rules for AI-built information resources and systems, bans legally significant decisions based only on AI, adds fines for unlawful AI processing of personal data State bodies, organizations, website owners, anyone processing personal data with AI Order No. 3787 (Ethical Rules) Registered 14 March 2026, in force 17 June 2026 Sets eight mandatory ethical principles and lists rights and obligations for developers, implementers, and users Individuals and companies developing, implementing, or using AI in Uzbekistan Law No. 1125 (Personal Data amendments) Adopted 26 March 2026 Limits data localization to biometric, genetic, and local telecom user data, and allows cross-border transfers under conditions Personal data operators, including AI providers AI Strategy until 2030 (RP-358) 14 October 2024 Sets national targets for AI adoption, infrastructure, and skills Government bodies What Is Law ZRU-1115? The law’s official title is a mouthful: “On making additions and changes to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the regulation of relations arising from the use of artificial intelligence.” Put simply, it’s an amending law. Instead of creating a new AI code, it writes AI into laws that were already on the books. When It Was Signed and When It Took Effect The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis adopted the bill on 12 August 2025, and the Senate approved it on 1 November 2025. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed it on 21 January 2026. You can read the official text in Lex.uz, Uzbekistan’s national legislation database. The law set out the principles and the penalties. The day-to-day detail arrived later with the Ethical Rules, which came into force on 17 June 2026. For compliance planning, treat mid-June 2026 as the point when the whole framework started applying. Why Uzbekistan Amended Existing Laws Instead of Passing a Standalone AI Act Uzbekistan wants more AI, not less. Its national strategy sets numeric targets for adoption, investment, and local computing capacity, and a heavy EU-style act would have worked against them. So lawmakers kept it light. They defined AI, drew two hard lines (human control over decisions that affect people’s rights, and protection of personal data), and left the Ministry of Digital Technologies to fill in the rest through secondary rules. Businesses get less legal certainty, and the government gets to move faster. Which Laws ZRU-1115 Changes For businesses, two amendments matter most. The Law “On Informatization” (ZRU-560-II, 2003) now contains a legal definition of AI, a new article on using AI in information resources and systems, duties for website owners, and updated powers for the ministry in charge. The Code on Administrative Liability now includes an offense for processing and spreading personal data unlawfully using AI. The Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence in Uzbekistan Under the amended Law “On Informatization,” AI is a set of technological solutions that imitate human cognitive functions, including learning on their own and solving problems, and that produce results on specific tasks comparable to what a person could do. That’s deliberately broad. It covers generative AI, machine learning classifiers, recommendation engines, and most agentic systems. The Ethical Rules add a narrower term, the AI system: software built on AI that can find, collect, store, analyze, process, evaluate, and use data, and make decisions on its own based on that data. If your product makes a decision from data, or shapes one, assume it counts. Key Rules Introduced by Law ZRU-1115 General Principles for Using AI in Information Systems and Resources The new article in the Law “On Informatization” starts from harm. Information resources created with AI, and information systems running on AI, must not harm people’s life, health, freedom, honor, or dignity, or violate their other inalienable rights. The standard is short and open-ended. It gives regulators something to enforce against without saying in advance what counts as harm. Principle-based rules like this deserve to be taken seriously precisely because the edges are undefined. Human Oversight: No Decisions on Rights and Freedoms Based Solely on AI Most coverage leads with this provision, and it’s easy to see why. When someone makes a legally significant decision that affects human rights and freedoms, they can’t rely only on conclusions produced by AI systems or AI-built information resources. AI can feed into the decision, but a person has to make it. That applies to loan denials, benefit eligibility, hiring rejections, licensing outcomes, and disciplinary action. In each case, someone needs to look at the AI output and own the final call. Insider Note: In AI governance engagements, teams rarely struggle to show that a review step exists. What they struggle to show is that the reviewer could disagree, and sometimes did. If a human clicks “approve” on every AI recommendation and nobody ever records an override, auditors will see automation with a signature on top. Build the override path and log when people use it, starting on day one. Powers of the Authorized State Body (Ministry of Digital Technologies) ZRU-1115 makes the Ministry of Digital Technologies the authorized state body for AI. Among its new jobs, it’s

You can get a SaaS company ready for a SOC 2 audit in six weeks, but you’ll feel every one of them. Most published timelines say three to six months. For a company with no project owner, no identity provider, and nothing written down, that’s about right. A cloud-native startup that already has the basics in place and can protect some time is a different story, and it can fit the work into six hard weeks. This plan walks through that route one week at a time. Each week has an owner, an hour estimate, and a clear test for when it’s finished. The free Google Sheet version turns the plan into a tracker you can hand out to owners and update in your weekly standup. Before you start, know what you’re signing up for. At the end of week 6 you’ll be audit-ready, which isn’t the same as holding a Type II report. Nobody can get you a Type II in six weeks. This is also the do-it-yourself route, and it takes a lot of hours. We’ll show you where those hours go and what the faster option looks like. Is Six Weeks Realistic for Your Company? Six weeks works when most of the plumbing already exists and your job is to formalize it, fill the gaps, and prove it all works. It falls apart when you’re building the foundations and documenting them at the same time. Go through this table honestly before you promise a customer a date. Six weeks is realistic if… Plan for 10 to 16 weeks if… Your product runs on a major cloud provider You host on-premise or across several data centers You already use an identity provider with SSO Every tool has its own login and password You have fewer than about 50 employees You have multiple offices, subsidiaries, or products in scope One named person owns the project with 10 to 15 hours a week Compliance is “everyone’s job,” so in practice nobody owns it An engineer can give you 15 to 20 hours in weeks 3 and 4 Engineering is fully committed to a launch You only need the Security criteria You need Availability, Confidentiality, or Privacy on day one Landing mostly in the right-hand column doesn’t mean you should throw the plan out. Give each week two weeks instead of one and follow the same order. What “SOC 2 Ready” Means at the End of Week 6 SOC 2 doesn’t give you a certificate. An independent CPA firm examines your controls against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and writes a report, and which of the two report types you go for decides what you can show a buyer after week 6. A Type I report checks whether your controls are designed properly on a single date. Once you’re ready, a Type I audit can start almost right away. A Type II report checks whether those controls kept working over an observation period of at least three months, and usually six to twelve. Most enterprise procurement teams want Type II in the end. Being “ready” at the end of this plan means your in-scope controls are in place, you can pull evidence for any of them on request, and your auditor is booked. From there you either start a Type I audit or open your Type II observation window. Plenty of buyers will sign with a Type I report plus a letter from your auditor saying the Type II period is underway. Important: The Type II clock doesn’t start until your controls are running. If readiness slips by a week, your Type II report slips by a week too. Founders who tell a prospect “we’ll have SOC 2 in Q3” often forget this and end up renegotiating the deal. Before Week 1: Four Decisions to Make First Settle these before the clock starts. If you change any of them halfway through, you’ll redo work. Scope. Decide which systems, teams, and data the report covers. For most SaaS companies that’s the production environment, the code repository, the identity provider, customer data stores, and any support tools that touch customer data. Corporate systems that never see customer data can usually stay out. Trust Services Criteria. Security (also called the Common Criteria) is mandatory. Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, and Privacy are optional. Report type. Pick Type I if a deal is blocked right now and the buyer will accept it. If there’s no deadline, go straight to Type II. You’ll need it eventually, and skipping Type I saves you an audit fee. Owner and tooling. Name one person who’s accountable for the plan, and decide where your controls and evidence will live. The tooling choice gets its own section below. Pro Tip: Adding Criteria Only add optional criteria when a customer contract or security questionnaire asks for them. Each one brings more controls to set up and more evidence to collect, and you can widen the scope in next year’s audit. Spreadsheet or Compliance Software: Choosing Your Tracking Tool Every SOC 2 program needs a system of record, meaning one place where each control, its owner, its status, and its evidence live. You can run it yourself in a spreadsheet or a GRC platform, or have a consultant implement it for you. The right choice depends mostly on which report you’re after and how much of your team’s time you can spare. A spreadsheet is free and familiar. It also makes you understand your own environment before you automate any of it. For a Type I, or for a small team with a tight scope, a well-built spreadsheet can take you all the way to the audit. Axipro’s free GRC workbook for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 covers all 33 SOC 2 Common Criteria plus the optional criteria, with evidence, risk, policy, and gap trackers built in. It has no macros and opens straight in Google Sheets or Excel. A GRC platform connects to your cloud, identity provider, code repository, and HR system.