National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$49.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment (2008)
Committee on Law and Justice (CLAJ)
Committee on National Statistics (CNSTAT)
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB)

Citation Manager

. "Appendix C: Information and Information Technology." Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2008.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
132
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Protecting Individual Privacy in the Struggle Against Terrorists: A Framework for Program Assessment

17799.14 In comparison with COBIT, which has 34 high-level objectives that cover 215 control objectives, the committee’s framework has two high-level objectives (i.e., effectiveness, and consistency with U.S. laws and values) that cover 30 control objectives. Although no one framework has the same high-level and control objectives as the committee’s framework, they nevertheless provide guidance for achieving all of the committee’s information and communications technologies criteria. Analysts advise that organizations judiciously select specific frameworks or criteria based on their relevance to well-defined objectives and the readiness of the organization to apply them.15 This method applies also to implementing the committee’s framework.

Most IT organizations surveyed worldwide16 and in the United States17 have adopted a framework. While many have developed their own, there is increasing adoption of formal frameworks based on reports of their efficacy, such as a 30 percent increase in productivity over 2 years through a consistent application of formal frameworks.18 Failures with framework implementation are often related to inappropriate selection of criteria, as well as to formulaic implementations that emphasize process and checklists by those who do not understand the objectives or how to evaluate whether they have been achieved.

14

The IT Governance Institute (ITGI), IT Governance Global Status Report—2006, ITGI, Rolling Meadows, Ill., 2006.

15

D. Aron and A. Rowsell-Jones, Success with Standards, Gartner EXP, Stamford, Conn., May 2006.

16

The IT Governance Institute (ITGI), IT Governance Global Status Report—2006, ITGI, Rolling Meadows, Ill., 2006.

17

C. Symons, IT Governance Survey Results: More Work to Be Done, Forrester Research, Cambridge, Mass., April 14, 2005.

18

D. Aron and A. Rowsell-Jones, Success with Standards, Gartner EXP, Stamford, Conn., May 2006.

Page
132