To limit the chance and impact of system failure the organization should run a PPS maintenance, evaluation and replacement process and should: assign accountability and responsibility for maintenance, evaluation and replacement; apply both corrective and preventive maintenance to every PPS component; require that all tests, maintenance, calibration and repairs are done by people with demonstrated competence; draw up a maintenance agreement stating each stakeholder's accountabilities, a central point of contact and arrangements between the parties; review agreements regularly, measure performance and revisit scope; set maintenance service levels that can be measured, are objective and realistic, and that it can actually support; keep documented maintenance testing programmes with a set schedule and a way to measure performance and resolve non-compliance; keep access to a spare parts stock that limits downtime and a process for buying parts; set out who handles fault identification, diagnosis and verification, correction, repair testing, repair logging and tracking of maintenance coordination; log every maintenance task and keep cumulative records for each major component; and keep records showing the PAP systems conform.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.