Framework overlap

Does ISO/IEC 27003:2017 cover ISO 19011?

You hold ISO/IEC 27003:2017 and have been told to do ISO 19011. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

44% of ISO 19011 you already have

ISO/IEC 27003:2017 already covers about 44% of ISO 19011, leaving 19 of 34 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 3 Likely covered 12 New work 19

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in ISO/IEC 27003:2017 reaches these. This is the list to scope.

4.a
Integrity Principle
4.b
Fair Presentation
4.c
Due Professional Care
4.d
Confidentiality
4.e
Independence
4.f
Evidence-Based Approach
5.4
Establishing Audit Programme
5.5
Implementing Audit Programme
5.6
Monitoring Audit Programme
5.7
Threat intelligence
7.5
Threat assessment
ISO19011-02
Leadership commitment to quality
ISO19011-04
Resource management for quality
ISO19011-07
Requirements for products and services
ISO19011-12
Internal audit program
ISO19011-13
Management review process
ISO19011-14
Customer satisfaction measurement
ISO19011-16
Continual improvement methodology
ISO19011-17
Corrective and preventive actions
Show the 15 you already have
6.5
Preparing and Distributing Audit Report
6.7
Conducting Audit Follow-up
ISO19011-15
Nonconformity and corrective action
4.g
Risk-Based Approach
6.4
Logging and Monitoring
6.6
Confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements
ISO19011-01
Quality policy and objectives
ISO19011-03
Risk-based thinking and planning
ISO19011-05
Organizational roles and responsibilities
ISO19011-06
Operational planning and control
ISO19011-08
Design and development controls
ISO19011-09
Control of externally provided processes
ISO19011-10
Production and service provision controls
ISO19011-11
Monitoring, measurement, and analysis
ISO19011-18
Innovation and change management

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in ISO/IEC 27003:2017 to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition