GTAG IT Change Management PDF
GTAG IT Change Management PDF
IT Change Management
About the IPPF
The International Professional Practices Framework®
(IPPF®) is the conceptual framework that organizes
authoritative guidance promulgated by The IIA for internal
audit professionals worldwide.
Mandatory Guidance is developed following an
established due diligence process, which includes a
period of public exposure for stakeholder input. The
mandatory elements of the IPPF are:
Core Principles for the Professional
Practice of Internal Auditing.
Definition of Internal Auditing.
Code of Ethics.
International Standards for the
Professional Practice of Internal Auditing.
Practice Guides
Practice Guides, a type of Supplemental Guidance, provide detailed approaches, step-by-step
processes, and examples intended to support all internal auditors. Select Practice Guides focus on:
Financial Services.
Public Sector.
Information Technology (GTAG®).
For an overview of authoritative guidance materials provided by The IIA, please visit
www.globaliia.org/standards-guidance.
Throughout this guide, “change management” is defined broadly as “the technology changes that
affect an organization’s systems, programs, or applications.”
Change management controls are an integral part of an organization’s IT general controls (ITGCs),
and in most organizations, the question isn’t whether a change management process exists; it’s
whether the process is as effective and efficient as possible and is followed for all changes.
Generally, effective change management can assist an organization in addressing risk, reducing
unplanned work, limiting unintended results, and ultimately improving the quality of service for
internal and external customers.
The internal audit activity is in a unique position to help senior management and the board
recognize the importance of implementing or strengthening their change management program
and to help organizations assess and improve their governance, risk management, and control
processes related to change management.
This Global Audit Technology Guide (GTAG) will help readers understand the change management
process and know the right questions to ask to assess the organization’s change management
capability. It will help internal auditors assess the overall level of process risk and determine
whether a more robust process may be necessary. The guide will also provide an audit approach
to assess key areas related to change and patch management.
Due to their unique role in an organization, internal auditors have an advantage in evaluating
processes and controls and may provide assurance and advice that helps the organization enhance
its change management process.
This GTAG focuses on the various aspects of the change management process and addresses:
This GTAG also provides information to help internal auditors understand the growing complexities
and importance of change management, recognize best practices, and assess change management
controls. The appendices provide tools to help internal auditors obtain and evaluate evidence to
support assessments, such as the validation of control design and operational effectiveness,
performance, efficiency, and the accuracy of any applicable management’s assertions.
Foundational tools are also available for organizations that are new to the change management
environment or those that wish to revisit or refresh existing processes.
Specifically excluded from this GTAG are the changes that occur during software design and
development, including the concepts of the software development life cycle (SDLC), DevOps
(DevSecOps), Agile, and waterfall methods, as these are addressed in other IIA guidance. The guide
also excludes detailed discussion of the configuration management process.
This guide will briefly explain some of the types of system tools that can assist in the change
management process. However, due to the number of tools available and the diversity of their
functionality, this guide will not attempt to explore this area in great detail.
For more information on IT general controls, readers may refer to The IIA’s GTAG “Information
Technology Risks and Controls.”
Change management can be defined as the systematic set of processes that are executed within
an organization’s IT function to manage enhancements, updates, installations, implementations,
incremental fixes, and patches to production systems. The processes may include (but are not
limited to):
Change management can also be described as a consistent and understood process to minimize
disruption while modifying the IT environment.
Typical activities that can be managed through the change management process include:
The exact structure of the change management process may differ in every organization, but the
goal of change management in an IT environment is to ensure that change requests (including
emergency maintenance) are handled quickly, efficiently, and effectively. This goal is accomplished
by following consistent procedures and maintaining them in a controlled manner. This systematic
approach improves business operations by reducing the potential of issues related to confidentiality,
integrity, or availability.
Typically software vendors notify users of pending changes, and it is incumbent on those users to
incorporate patches into the change management process with as little organizational disruption
as possible. However, many vendors now “push” or automatically (and proactively) implement
patches without requiring or involving an organizational request, initiation, or other intervention.
In the context of this document, patches are treated as a category or class of change that is subject
to the company’s normal change management process.
Patch-related Risks
Patches tend to affect many critical systems libraries and other software used by application
programs. Patches can be large and/or complex changes, and often are intended to correct critical
vulnerabilities. In addition, documentation of the change may be limited. Even small configuration
variances may cause drastically different outcomes.
Further, as mentioned, patches are often pushed by vendors automatically and could potentially
occur outside of the change schedule. Although this can be a convenience, it can also introduce
additional risks. IT personnel should not only be aware of the timing for patches being pushed to
allow for appropriate preparation but should also understand the implications a patch may have
across the organization.
These factors can potentially affect the change success rate and may require more comprehensive
planning, execution, and testing.
Emerging Risks
As the global community embarks on what is referred to as the fourth industrial revolution (e.g.,
automation, artificial intelligence), potentially profound risks, which may be difficult or impossible
to foresee, are emerging.
Many organizations simply focus their change management process on managing changes within
their on-premise systems. The scope of the change management process should also consider
emerging risks of a more global and cyber nature. Specific considerations include:
Cloud applications and how changes are applied to those applications that support
infrastructure, which are sources of third-party risk.
Mobile device applications and how changes are applied to the hardware, operating
systems, and applications.
BYOD (“bring your own device”) and whether the changes are managed by an
organization or the individual device owners.
In addition, some of these projects, which may have previously been adopted as larger scale IT
change initiatives, may be overlooked or dismissed due to the smaller magnitude (e.g., less than a
certain number of hours) or when weighed against an arbitrary return-on-investment equation.
Management and internal auditors should understand these complex systems, including their
capacity, capability, and pervasiveness. Users should also be considered. Understanding these
factors will help management and internal auditors assess relevant risks and the applicability of the
change management controls around these critical processes and systems.
However, merely obtaining a vendor’s report over their controls does not guarantee those controls
are effective. Management should understand how to read the report and its scope. Management
should also evaluate whether the vendor’s controls are effective. Additionally, management should
understand which control responsibilities belong to the vendor and which belong to the
organization (the latter are known as Complementary User Entity Controls [CUEC] or User Control
Considerations [UCC]).
In addition, ensuring all contracts with management service and cloud providers include specific
language regarding patches and patch deployment notification helps ensure the organization is
properly managing change and ultimately managing their data and information assets, whether
internally or externally.
For example, for companies subject to compliance with regulations such as Japan’s Financial
Instruments and Exchange Act, India’s The Companies Act of 2013, or the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
care should be taken when implementing changes to technology supporting the financial reporting
process. Each of these regulations requires various levels of validation and assessment of controls
over the financial reporting process, including IT controls. Without effective change management,
it may be difficult for management to affirm the integrity of financial statements and meet
regulatory requirements.
In addition, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 107 countries
have enacted some form of legislation to ensure the security and protection of consumer data and
privacy.1 Companies subject to these regulations or overarching regulations, such as the European
Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should be cautious about changes that may
affect personally identifiable information within their systems. Violations of these acts can result
in severe and costly penalties.
1. United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, “Data Protection and Privacy Legislation Worldwide,”
March 27, 2019. https://unctad.org/en/Pages/DTL/STI_and_ICTs/ICT4D-Legislation/eCom-Data-Protection-Laws.aspx.
The specific movement of changes from environment to environment is called migration, and an
important control in migration is ensuring duties are appropriately segregated. Organizations
should apply a risk-based approach to segregating duties related to their change management
process, based on their risk appetite and risk profile. When segregation of duties is not feasible or
ideal, the organization should ensure appropriate detective or monitoring controls are in place.
Figure 1 depicts the migration of a change through different environments with duties segregated.
Note: The migration through each of these environments should be properly segregated.
Source: The Institute of Internal Auditors.
Standardized methods and procedures within a change management structure support effective
and efficient handling of changes through each environment and minimize the impact of change-
related incidents on service quality and availability. To protect the production environment,
changes should be managed in a repeatable, defined, and predictable manner. Care should be
taken to ensure changes made to correct one application, server, or network device do not have
unintended consequences on other devices or applications. This is especially important for IT assets
(e.g., software, hardware, and information) supporting the organization’s critical business
processes and data repositories.
Types of Change
Changes may be categorized in many ways, but generally should be grouped together by timing,
urgency, and/or levels of perceived risk. In addition to patches, other types of change that may
occur include:
Sources of Change
Virtually every business decision will initiate a change in the IT environment. Sources of change
that should be addressed and managed effectively include:
Scopes of Change
An effective change management process encompasses within its scope any alterations to IT-based
assets on which business services depend. Assets subject to change management include:
Hardware – workstations, laptops, tablets, phones, servers, routers, switches, and core
infrastructure components such as power generation or cooling, networked printers, and
mobile devices.
Software – operating systems, middleware, and applications (including in-house
developed applications and commercial off-the-shelf applications).
Information, data, and data structures – individual file updates, complete database
updates (e.g., restoration of a previous version), and data integration jobs.
Security controls – antivirus software, firewalls (both installation of new equipment and
of rules), and intrusion protection/detection systems.
3. Obtain business
9. Verify/validate change
justification
Scheduling
To assess and report the status of changes continually, management should publish a change
schedule that lists all approved changes as well as planned implementation dates. In alignment
with the organization’s change management process, proposed changes should go before a CAB
comprising business and IT leaders from the organization. Once the changes have been approved,
an implementation schedule should be created, published, and updated regularly. This process
helps provide the information and assurance required to track all changes in their various states of
completion.
Ticketing systems – often categorized as services management tools. Most have modules
for change, problem, release, knowledge, asset, and configuration management.
Organizations that implement all modules can use the tool to manage their assets from
beginning to end.
Code repositories – allows organizations to manage software updates. Code is stored in a
securely located repository that requires programmers to check out code they are tasked
with changing. Once changes are complete, the code is checked back in. This method
ensures documentation and version control.
Orchestration change tools – these perform functions including code promotion between
environments, server provisioning, and automated patch deployment.
When selecting and using a tool to assist in the change management process, management should
understand the capabilities, functionalities, and limitations of each tool. Risks are commonly
introduced when multiple tools are used with multiple interfaces, separate tools are used for
different types of changes, and tools are managed across diverse and/or multiple geographic
locations.
Care should be taken, however, when introducing a new change management program or updating
an existing one. Changes that are poorly designed and implemented may result in unnecessary
expenditures and unplanned/emergency work to minimize any negative impacts. Progressing to
another maturity level is less important than the quality and integrity of the process to get there.
Management’s Controls
Effective change management requires proper governance (including IT governance), which
includes developing, documenting, and enforcing change policies and ensuring employees are
continually trained. It also includes controls to ensure all changes are authorized and auditable and
that unauthorized changes are investigated.
What is being changed, why it is being changed, and when it is being changed.
Whether the change is properly authorized based on specific criteria.
Who requested the change.
Who is responsible for performing the change.
Who is responsible for validating the change.
How efficiently and effectively changes are implemented.
Potential unintended outcomes/problems that may be caused by change, the impact of
those outcomes/problems, and remediation plans.
The cost and benefits of the change.
This information should be reported to senior management regularly and objectively using metrics
and indicators, for example, in dashboard-type reports. Such reports allow senior management to
gauge IT’s progress toward:
In addition, more rigorous, formal measures and specific metrics should be reported to provide
maximum visibility into the impact of the strategy on the effectiveness of IT change management.
Indicators may include:
Analyzing the results may indicate whether the organization has an effective change management
process, whether the process benefits the business, and where to focus more resources.
Upgrade software and applications regularly, improving the overall security and
functionality of systems.
Update systems in compliance with regulatory standards.
Protect systems from cybersecurity incidents.
Operate in a continuous integration/continuous deployment environment.
Allocate more resources on initiatives that help achieve business goals and fewer on
unplanned work.
Reduce system vulnerability and experience less downtime.
Install patches with minimum disruption.
Be proactive and focus on improvements rather than “putting out fires.”
Ensure scripts/bots are operating effectively and monitored properly.
Quite simply, if the change management process is effective, the organization may realize
significant cost savings.
High-performing organizations generally have a positive outlook on controls. For example, effective
change management processes may result in fewer issues being highlighted by external auditors,
regulators, or equivalent authorities. As a result, the organization may have a more satisfied board,
resulting in less pressure on IT management and ultimately a more satisfied staff and lower turnover.
Change management hinges on processes with a managerial and human focus, supported by
technical and automated controls. Ultimately, organizations that treat change management
controls as enablers for effective business conduct are more successful. Employees have access
to better tools to boost productivity, and customers enjoy systems that meet their needs.
Patches
As previously described, patches are changes to a computer program designed to address a
security vulnerability or an operational deficency or to add new features between releases.
Typically, vendors of commercially available software announce patches on their websites.
Additionally, patches correcting security vulnerabilities can be found on both the United States
Department of Homeland Security website and on the National Vulnerabilities Database (NVD).2,3
An organization may deploy patches manually or through a patch deployment or orchestration tool
and/or by one or more third parties. Organizations should ensure contracts with third parties
adequately address patch management, including patch-related communication, and are tied to
service-level agreements (SLAs).
Despite the potential urgency attached to applying software patches, patch deployment ideally
belongs in preproduction processes where patches can be tested adequately in a staging or
“sandbox” environment. Ideally, patches are deployed as part of a scheduled patch management
cycle, but this is not always the case. When organizations work with vendors that automatically
push patches, IT management should take steps to be aware of the timing of the automatic
implementation.
Patch Schedule
Applying patches in a timely manner (once released by a vendor) is key to avoiding risks posed to
an organization’s system and its critical data. Organizations that have a well-defined and
understood patching process will be more efficient and timely in applying patches. An effective
patching process should include a patch release schedule of major vendors, a way to be aware of
Organizations should create a schedule that bundles patches and updates into releases rather than
applying individual patches to individual systems. The simultaneous use of patch management and
change deployment technologies make the process more efficient and effective.
The volume of urgent patches to be applied to the operational infrastructure and the absence of
management processes for handling these patches can be critical. To ensure the security of existing
systems, patches must be applied regularly in all critical applications and devices. Timeframes for
the application of patches are often based on the criticality of risk, which should be determined by
each organization.
Many IT professionals, especially those in North America, are familiar with “Patch Tuesday,” the
unofficial term referring to the pattern Microsoft has established of issuing patches. Typically, the
second and sometimes the fourth Tuesday of each month, Microsoft releases patches for its
software products. There may be in excess of one hundred patches in any given update. Microsoft’s
releases are not limited to these days, but it has been a relatively standard practice since 2003.
The National Vulnerability Database assigns a criticality score to each patch from zero to 10.
Patches rated 6 to 10 are critical, meaning they are more likely to expose data and information
assets and/or are more likely to allow a bad actor to take over an impacted device/system.
Management should understand how critical vulnerabilities are discovered and what process is
followed to assess, test, and address weaknesses.
Zero-day refers to a vulnerability or weakness in a system has been discovered but the vendor has
not yet provided a formal remediation. Organizations should have a plan to address Zero-day
vulnerabilities because they may not be able to wait for a patch or other instructions for mitigation.
Instead, the organization may need to immediately conduct a high-level threat analysis and
implement a compensating control.
4. U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, “The Equifax Data Breach,”
Majority Staff Report, 115th Congress, December 2018, 4, https://republicans-oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2018/12/Equifax-Report.pdf.
Organizations with effective patching functions will likely treat a new patch as a predictable and
planned change subject to the normal change management process. A new patch is added to the
queue to be evaluated, tested, and integrated into an already-scheduled release deployment.
Following a well-defined process for integrating patches leads to a much higher change success rate.
When performing an audit or review of the change management process, internal auditors must
“identify sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement’s
objectives,” according to Standard 2310 – Identifying Information. This could include gathering
material on underlying data (e.g., authorized change reports) and corroborating information (e.g.,
report of production changes from detective controls, reconciliations of production changes to
authorized changes, and information regarding system outages). By doing so, auditors will have
detailed support needed to express an opinion on the design and operating effectiveness and
efficiency of the change management process, the organization’s ability to mitigate risks in this
area, and on any related assertions made by IT management (e.g., performance, effectiveness,
and efficiency).
Internal auditors must develop and document a plan and establish objectives for each engagement.
In addition, the established scope must be sufficient to achieve the objectives of the engagement.
The requirements are described in Standards 2200 – Engagement Planning, 2210 – Engagement
Objectives, and 2220 – Engagement Scope.
To conform with the Competency principle of The IIA’s Code of Ethics and Standard 1210 –
Proficiency, the internal audit activity collectively must possess (or obtain) and apply the
knowledge, skills, experience, and other competencies needed to perform its responsibilities.
Further, internal auditors must have sufficient knowledge of key IT risks and controls and available
technology-based audit techniques to perform their assigned work.
Additionally, when assigning auditors to an engagement that may require specific skills and
abilities, Standard 2230 – Engagement Resource Allocation states, “Internal auditors must
determine appropriate and sufficient resources to achieve engagement objectives based on an
evaluation of the nature and complexity of each engagement, time constraints, and available
resources.” The interpretation of that standard indicates: “Appropriate refers to the mix of
knowledge, skills, and other competencies needed to perform the engagement. Sufficient refers to
the quantity of resources needed to accomplish the engagement with due professional care.”
Overarching areas in which internal auditors can provide organizational value include:
Regarding engagement scope, in part, Standard 2220 states that the established scope be sufficient
to achieve the objectives of the engagement and include consideration of relevant systems,
records, personnel, and physical properties, including those under the control of third parties. The
scope of the audit or review can be affected by factors such as but not limited to internal audit
staffing, time sensitivity, mitigating processes, prior deficiencies, and newly identified risks.
Planning Considerations
Planning considerations should include gathering relevant information and understanding the
organization’s governance structure and the specific strategies, objectives, and risks of the change
management process. Sufficient engagement planning will provide internal auditors with the
necessary information and background to develop relevant questions and steps to perform an
audit or review of the change management process and controls. Specifically, according to
Standard 2201, internal auditors must consider the following:
The strategies and objectives of the activity being reviewed and the means by which the
activity controls its performance.
The significant risks to the activity’s objectives, resources, and operations and the means
by which the potential impact of risk is kept to an acceptable level.
The adequacy and effectiveness of the activity’s governance, risk management, and
control processes compared to a relevant framework or model.
The opportunities for making significant improvements to the activity’s governance, risk
management, and control processes.
Although each audit program will differ, internal auditors should consider performing some of
these general steps when conducting an audit or review of an organization’s change management
and control processes.
Understand the basic components of change management and its implementation in the
organization.
Perform a walk-through of the change management process, seeking evidence of the key
elements outlined in this guide.
Understand how IT management is measuring the process and whether it meets the
needs of the business.
Determine if management has a method of reporting metrics for process results and
effectiveness.
Determine whether metrics are being used to monitor the process and drive continuous
improvement, and whether they are appropriate and effective.
Determine whether IT management has assigned responsibility for change management
to someone other than software developers or others who prepare changes in alignment
with appropriate segregation of duties.
Verify management has secured the production environment so only those responsible
for implementing changes can in fact implement changes.
Determine whether changes to the production environment are documented, auditable,
and retained in a way that cannot be manipulated or destroyed (i.e., audit trails).
Apply data analytics techniques and develop or use indicators of effective and ineffective
change management processes to assess the organization’s relative effectiveness.
Detective – controls that monitor completed changes to determine if any undesirable changes or
unintended outcomes have occurred. These controls could include:
Corrective – predetermined actions taken when certain post-change conditions or behaviors are
found. These controls could include:
Post-implementation reviews.
Change information fed into early problem diagnosis steps.
Internal audit should validate that only authorized personnel can migrate a change into the
production environment by checking the security access profiles of users. While conducting this
work, the auditor may review the profiles of developers to ensure their access is restricted to
development environments. When duties are not properly segregated, the auditor should then
attempt to validate mitigating detective or monitoring controls.
Appendices F and G provide a sample change management audit program and metrics.
Regarding an outsourced change management process, it is important for internal auditors to:
Determine whether the service provider uses specific privileged user accounts for change
purposes, and whether these accounts are tracked and changes recorded/maintained.
Determine parties responsible for managing day-to-day changes arising from requests to
make changes.
Identify how the organization can detect whether changes are made outside the agreed-
upon change management process.
Determine controls the organization uses to ensure it is not charged for unauthorized or
unreasonable changes.
Determine controls the organization uses to prevent vendors from implementing changes
outside the agreed-upon window or timeframe for changes.
Determine parties responsible for ensuring that major business changes affecting IT are
properly calculated, approved, planned, controlled, implemented, and periodically
reviewed.
Determine whether the service provider has considered the impacts on infrastructure
(system and network) and information security as part of evaluating each change.
Determine who monitors compliance with the SLAs.
Determine if SLAs incorporate required practices, validation procedures, timing of the
testing required, remediation work, retesting, and other considerations if the
organization is subject to Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404 (or similar regulations over internal
controls) and/or requirements of other regulations.
Audit Findings/Observations
When discussing and writing audit observations, internal auditors should present the business
value of effective change management processes as well as the risks of ineffective ones. Internal
auditors should clearly articulate the operational, financial, and regulatory risks that are not being
managed appropriately, and relate the findings to the risk tolerances management has established
in support of its business goals and objectives.
Additional requirements are described in Standards 2110 – Governance, 2120 – Risk Management,
2130 – Control, and 2330 – Documenting Information.
Code of Ethics
Principle 4 – Competency
Standards
Standard 1210 – Proficiency
Guidance
Practice Guide: Auditing Third-party Risk Management, 2018
board* – The highest level governing body (e.g., a board of directors, a supervisory board, or a
board of governors or trustees) charged with the responsibility to direct and/or oversee the
organization’s activities and hold senior management accountable. Although governance
arrangements vary among jurisdictions and sectors, typically the board includes members
who are not part of management. If a board does not exist, the word “board” in the Standards
refers to a group or person charged with governance of the organization. Furthermore,
“board” in the Standards may refer to a committee or another body to which the governing
body has delegated certain functions (e.g., an audit committee).
chief audit executive* – Describes the role of a person in a senior position responsible for effectively
managing the internal audit activity in accordance with the internal audit charter and the
mandatory elements of the International Professional Practices Framework. The chief audit
executive or others reporting to the chief audit executive will have appropriate professional
certifications and qualifications. The specific job title and/or responsibilities of the chief audit
executive may vary across organizations.
compliance* – Adherence to policies, plans, procedures, laws, regulations, contracts, or other
requirements.
control* – Any action taken by management, the board, and other parties to manage risk and
increase the likelihood that established objectives and goals will be achieved. Management
plans, organizes, and directs the performance of sufficient action to provide reasonable
assurance that objectives and goals will be achieved.
control environment* – The attitude and actions of the board and management regarding the
importance of control within the organization. The control environment provides the
discipline and structure for the achievement of the primary objectives of the system of
internal control. The control environment includes the following elements: integrity and
ethical values; management’s philosophy and operating style; organizational structure;
assignment of authority and responsibility; human resource policies and practices; and
competence of personnel.
control processes* – The policies, procedures (both manual and automated), and activities that are
part of a control framework, designed and operated to ensure that risks are contained within
the level that an organization is willing to accept.
engagement* – A specific internal audit assignment, task, or review activity, such as an internal
audit, control self-assessment review, fraud examination, or consultancy. An engagement may
include multiple tasks or activities designed to accomplish a specific set of related objectives.
engagement objectives* – Broad statements developed by internal auditors that define intended
engagement accomplishments.
5. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, Enterprise Risk Management – Integrating
with Strategy and Performance (Durham, NC: AICPA, June 2017), 109. https://bookstore.theiia.org/enterprise-risk-
management-integrating-with-strategy-and-performance.
Steps Status
1. Identify the need for the change.
4. Obtain approval.
Gain approval from requestor.
5. Authorize (via CAB).
Authorize, reject, or request additional information about the change request.
Prioritize the change request with respect to other pending changes.
6. Schedule and coordinate the change.
Schedule and assign a change implementer.
Schedule and assign a change tester.
7. Test in appropriate environment(s).
Test the change in a preproduction environment.
8. Implement change.
Communicate the change to stakeholders who may be affected.
Approve the change for implementation.
Implement the change as requested (for software, this may require a release ticket).
9. Verify/validate change.
Was the change successful?
Was the change process followed?
What was the variance between the planned and implemented change?
Were internal control, operations, and regulatory compliance requirements maintained?
What lessons were learned that may be used to improve the process?
9A. Back out of the change (if unsuccessful).
Execute back-out procedures.
This list is not exhaustive; it is intended as a base upon which organizations can build depending on
their unique situation.
Conversely, it is also important to recognize attributes and attitudes of management with generally
ineffective change management systems. These organizations may have or exhibit the following
characteristics:
Performing this indirect assessment can provide internal audit with insights to aid in the larger
evaluation of the change management process as a whole.
Market Level
Effective
Company is positioned to act on new business opportunities that require additional or upgraded IT capability.
Opportunities are sufficiently planned and managed in a predictable manner.
IT-supported products and services are released to the market as planned and expected.
Ineffective
Lost opportunities. The organization is unable to consistently deploy planned new products and services. This
may occur because unmanaged/mismanaged changes required the diversion of resources to unplanned work.
Development projects are late and over budget, resulting in late or costly products and services when
compared to competitors.
Client Level
Effective
Adequate resources to support the client.
Products and services perform as advertised and demonstrate a consistent, reliable level of product and service
quality.
Customer issues and complaints are resolved in a timely manner.
Decreasing demand for customer support center/help desk resources.
Appropriate stakeholders are involved in assessing risks associated with proposed IT changes and prioritizing
their implementation.
Participants in the IT change process understand the relevant categories and priorities of changes and the
levels of formality and rigor required to implement each change.
Because of the foundational nature of IT change management, ensuring compliance with new regulations
requires less effort.
Ineffective
Inadequate resources.
Products and services do not perform as advertised or as intended or operate with flaws, leading to unreliable
product and/or low service quality. If customers can switch easily to another provider, they will.
Ineffective
Unauthorized, untracked changes create potential exposure for fraud or other malicious actions.
Business requirements can be misinterpreted with respect to required IT changes and are implemented poorly
or inadequately.
There is little to no ability to forecast the impact of a change on existing business processes.
A lack of change prioritization, resulting in either working on the wrong things or working on something of less
importance. Work may be performed out of the intended or appropriate sequence, resulting in rework and
duplication of effort.
Unauthorized, failed, or emergency patch applications occur.
Disruptions, which not only cost time and money, but also may expose an organization to potential security
risks and undesired outcomes.
Patching systems causes disruptions due to failed changes that result in outages, service impairment, rework,
or unplanned work. This may exacerbate poor or adversarial working relationships between information
security and IT operations.
Large numbers of cycles (e.g., time, resources, and capital) are spent on correcting unauthorized project
activities or infrastructure, which takes cycles away from planned and authorized activities.
Unmanaged changes regularly lead to the diversion of resources to rework.
Employee turnover is high among technical staff and evidence of “burnout” exists among key staff.
Ineffective
Ad hoc, chaotic, urgent behavior requires regular intervention of technical experts.
A high percentage of time is spent in “firefighting” mode on reactive tasks.
Inability to track changes, report on change status and costs, and there are unauthorized changes.
Resources are spent on unplanned work at the expense of planned work.
Numerous undocumented changes.
Ineffective IT interfaces with peers (e.g., R&D, application developers, auditing, security, and operations) create
barriers and introduce unnecessary delays.
Segregation of Duties
Control Objective: To delegate responsibilities such that unintentional errors or intentional, inappropriate actions
will be detected.
Risk: Unexpected to adverse results.
Control: At a minimum, separate people/groups perform the responsibilities for change advisory/approval and
implementation. Ideally, a separate person or group performs design change and testing of the changes. When this
is not feasible or ideal, appropriate detective or monitoring controls are in place.
Work Steps:
Validate that changes are reviewed and approved by an appropriate level of management.
Validate that those who approve changes do not have access to implement them in the production
environment.
Determine how changes are tested to ensure they function as intended and do not impair the integrity,
availability, or confidentiality of data.
Validate appropriate detective or monitoring controls are in place to mitigate or enhance segregation of
duties controls.
Emergency Change 1
Control Objective: To ensure business needs are met.
Risk: Inability to respond effectively to emergency change needs.
Control: Procedures exist to identify, assess, and approve genuine emergency changes.
Work Steps: Select a sample of emergency changes and validate that they meet the definition/criteria of a genuine
emergency change and that proper controls were performed from initiation through implementation for each.
Emergency Change 2
Control Objective: To ensure a change will not negatively impact availability, integrity, and confidentiality of
systems and data.
Risk: Unexpected or adverse results.
Control: A post-implementation review is conducted to validate that emergency procedures were properly
followed and to determine the impact of the change.
Work Steps: Select a sample of emergency changes and validate that they meet the definition/criteria of a genuine
emergency change and that proper controls were performed from initiation through implementation for each.
Changes Implemented
Metric and Indicator: Change success rate, defined as the number of changes implemented (i.e., changes which did
not cause an outage or result in any service impairments) compared to the total number of changes approved
during the change window.
Guidelines: Higher is better. High-performing organizations have successful change rates at or near 100% with
deviations regularly investigated. Additionally, high-performing organizations that may experience a failed change
generally do not experience service impacts because a well-understood backup/rollback plan is in place.
Organizations that do not sufficiently test, approve, and manage changes may experience lower success rates.
Blanket changes are typically recurring changes that are low risk and well understood. Due to the low level of risk
posed by these types of changes, they may not require the same level of testing or approval prior to
implementation. An example of a blanket change could be a normal application update for a non-enterprise
application.
Guidelines: Higher is typically better as the majority of changes should be normal and therefore subject to the full
change management process. However, a moderate percentage of blanket changes is acceptable since the risk
posed by these types of changes are nominal.
Unplanned Work
Metric and Indicator: Percentage of time spent on unplanned work. Unplanned work is caused by addressing issues
resulting from unsuccessful changes, or break/fix items.
Guidelines: Lower is better (e.g., 5% or less).
Additional Reading
Bonney, Bill, Gary Hayslip, and Matt Stamper. CISO Desk Reference: A Practical Guide for CISOs.
San Diego: CISO DRG, 2019. https://bookstore.theiia.org/ciso-desk-reference-guide-a-
practical-guide-for-cisos.
Buckley, Shannon. “Auditing the Incident and Problem Management Process.” Internal Auditor,
January 1, 2012. https://iaonline.theiia.org/auditing-the-incident-and-problem-
management-process.
Gibbs, Nelson, Divakar Jain, Amitesh Joshi, Surekha Muddamsetti, and Sarabjot Singh. A New
Auditor's Guide to Planning, Performing, and Presenting IT Audits. Altamonte Springs, FL: The
IIA Research Foundation, 2010. https://bookstore.theiia.org/a-new-auditors-guide-to-
planning-performing-and-presenting-it-audits-8-3.
Mahfuz, Abu Sayed. Software Quality Assurance: Integrating Texting, Security, and Audit. UK: CRC
Press: An Auerbach Book, 2016. https://bookstore.theiia.org/software-quality-assurance-
integrating-testing-security-and-audit.
Whittaker, Zack. “Equifax breach was ‘entirely preventable’ had it used basic security measures,
says House report,” TechCrunch.com, December 18, 2018,
https://techcrunch.com/2018/12/10/equifax-breach-preventable-house-oversight-report/.
Content Contributors
Brad Ames, United States
Jim Enstrom, United States
Mueni Kioko, The Bahamas
Mike Lynn, CIA, CRMA, United States
Sajay Rai, CISM, CISSP, CISM, United States
Terence Washington, CIA, CRMA, United States
Shawna Flanders, Director of IT Curriculum, IIA Staff Contributor
The IIA thanks the following oversight bodies for their support: Information Technology Guidance
Committee, Professional Guidance Advisory Council, International Internal Audit Standards Board,
Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee, and the International Professional Practices
Framework Oversight Council.
DISCLAIMER
The IIA publishes this document for informational and educational purposes and, as such, is only intended to be used as a guide. This
guidance material is not intended to provide definitive answers to specific individual circumstances. The IIA recommends seeking
independent expert advice relating directly to any specific situation. The IIA accepts no responsibility for anyone placing sole reliance
on this guidance.
COPYRIGHT
Copyright© 2020 The Institute of Internal Auditors, Inc. All rights reserved. For permission to reproduce, please contact
[email protected].
February 2020
Global Headquarters
The Institute of Internal Auditors
1035 Greenwood Blvd., Suite 401
Lake Mary, FL 32746, USA
Phone: +1-407-937-1111
Fax: +1-407-937-1101
www.theiia.org