Stakeholders are engaged to set up and keep a monitoring approach that defines what is measured, how far and by what method, covering the delivery of business solutions and services and their contribution to enterprise objectives, and that approach is integrated with the enterprise performance management system: stakeholders (management, process owners, users) are identified and engaged, and the enterprise's requirements and objectives for monitoring, aggregation and reporting are communicated using shared definitions such as the business glossary, metadata and taxonomy; the monitoring and evaluation approach is kept aligned with the enterprise approach and with its tools for gathering data and reporting; the kinds of goals and metrics (conformance, performance, value, risk), their taxonomy and how long data are retained are agreed; resources for monitoring are requested, prioritised and allocated with regard to appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness and confidentiality; the approach is validated periodically and stakeholders, requirements and resources that are new or have changed are identified; and monitoring and reporting have a life cycle and a change control process that covers improving the reporting, metrics, approach, baselining and benchmarking.
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 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 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.