Innovation Governance: The Balance of Speed and Protection in Innovation

Organizations embrace innovation in order to outcompete others in their space. The mission in audit is to protect the business. This is done by ensuring controls are in place to minimize the impact of negligence, waste and malicious activity. When processes begin to accelerate, as they should with innovation, it is easy for people to focus on getting the pressing needs accomplished. This may mean that they do not think about the types of controls that are in place.

Also, organizations embracing innovation efforts will try to bring together experts across knowledge areas. This collaboration often allows individuals to understand challenges and opportunities in ways they would not on their own. This can lead to that competitive edge. However, it also means there will be people who may not be familiar with important controls in a specific area because they may not be controls with which all stakeholders are used to dealing. This is to be expected with innovation.

Auditors have to balance ensuring proper controls and maintaining an effort’s momentum. These types of trade-offs are common in audit and security. One good example is the confidentiality, integrity and availability (CIA) triad, where confidentiality and integrity are often at odds with availability.¹ Innovation is no different.

Emerging Technologies and the Accelerated Cycle

Part of what poses such a great challenge is that a large part of innovation is looking at emerging technologies. These differ in key ways from traditional IT systems, and controls and processes have to change accordingly. Emerging technologies are a great enough concern, even outside of innovation, that ISACA® has a dedicated community forum for the topic on its Engage Online Forums portal.² It is worthwhile to look at two specific areas that are causing this type of disruption: virtualization and the cloud. There is quite a bit that is not covered herein. For instance, auditors are discussing blockchain and the impact of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). There is also potential risk in implementing the Internet of Things (IoT) that normally would not be considered.³ Whatever the emerging technology, the foundational questions need to be asked for each.

Virtualization
When organizations had physical servers and components, they could maintain “physical” security in a real sense. One had to get access to the data center and then to the specific rack where the asset was located. Stakeholders had to be able to touch the hardware. With virtualization, this is no longer the case. Physical hosts are still used, but, depending on if it is an on-premises solution or a cloud solution, the actual hardware may or may not be in close proximity. However, one can be certain that even if one cannot reach the real box, one can touch the virtual machines that are on it.

Why does this matter for innovation? In an innovation effort, teams are likely trying to do rapid prototyping. They are looking to accelerate builds. Virtualized hardware allows them to quickly stand up and tear down computing environments. Those computing environments have just as much risk as normal, non-innovation effort-led environments. If organizations are using production data sets, then they must apply the same rules of protection. And they must do so at the accelerated build-and-destroy pace that innovation is likely to foster.

Cloud
Just about every major chief information officer (CIO) publication touts the cloud as where innovative organizations should be. As a result, there is a huge push to explore cloud technologies. This is reasonable. If someone else foots the bill for maintaining the physical environment for computing resources, and that someone can gain economy of scale for having a large number of customers, it should be cheaper. Also, most cloud providers have a pay-as-you-go model, meaning users only pay for the resources they actually use. Therefore, enterprises are not overbuying hardware to ensure that their systems will perform well, even under unexpectedly heavy loads.

However, the cloud model changes controls in fundamental ways. It goes beyond the fact that organizational processes and data are running on “someone else’s computer.” How to get audit information back, what kind of assets can be brought to bear, how to correlate between on-premises and cloud information in the event of an attack are all new challenges.

Then there is the financial side of things, which does impact IS audit. After all, part of what makes the cloud so attractive is the ability to spin up new resources on demand. The traditional model says one has to wait for a hardware vendor to have the physical device ready. With the cloud, a request is made through a portal or a programming interface and, within minutes, the needed resource is available. That also means the cloud provider begins billing on that resource. Just as the efficiency on projects is tracked, this should now be looked at in cloud provisioning, especially given that innovation efforts will most likely take advantage of the ease and speed of cloud deployments.

High-Speed Risk Analysis

Because innovation efforts are moving more quickly, everything has to speed up, including risk analysis. When risk analysis is sped up, the likelihood of making mistakes or missing something increases as well. However, organizations should already have the capability to make these kinds of decisions quickly. For instance, incidence response has to do this type of consideration during an actual security incident. The reality is that one can move quickly when one needs to do so. With innovation, that need is real.

If risk analysis lags behind, it will either get skipped altogether or the findings will be looked at and someone will likely say, “We will get to this when we can.” Too often, “when we can” is a euphemism for never or until an external auditor or regulator forces the issue. Therefore, analysis must be streamlined and the results must be put in a communicable format when they are most usable to the people doing the work.

Concise Communications

Conciseness is also critical. If things are moving at a higher rate of speed, there is less time available to digest documents. Typical audit findings and risk analyses have much in the way of explanations, methodology, and the like because it is important to show how the findings have been proven. However, with an innovation effort, too much of this additional documentation impairs the effort. Here is where one can take a cue from Agile, which states as one of its four values, “working software over comprehensive documentation.”⁴ Here one would say, “solid understanding of risk over lengthy analysis documents.”

Prototyping Controls

Everything talked about so far leads to this: ensuring that proper controls are baked into whatever product, offering or process an innovation effort is developing. Most of the team is going to be focused on what the business wants to accomplish. Here is where an auditor has to manage the team to ensure that, as the team does work, the controls get included. They need to be included as the team builds prototypes or attempts quick builds or tests. Managing the team requires an auditor to do the following:

• Provide documentation on the controls in a timely manner
• Be available to discuss the “how” and “why” of each control
• Have testing, preferably, automated testing, ready to go as controls are built in to the product or offering
• Give specific feedback to fix an issue if a control is not being properly met

If one fails to do any of these things, one may hear the same thing as if risk analysis is too slow, “We will get to it when we can.” The same rules tend to apply. The earlier one is able to communicate the controls and show the need, the more likely it is that they will get implemented properly.

Remembering the Bottom Line

The bottom line is that an organization wants its innovation efforts to better identify real needs and products of its market space or for those efforts to forecast new needs and opportunities. Activity that slows down the achievement of these goals could result in the organization losing its momentum and not achieving its goals ahead of its competitors. Auditors must be mindful of this as they ensure that the organization is protected. That means considering the implications of new technologies and processes, being able to identify and communicate risk quickly to a wider audience than they are used to, and being active participants in ensuring that controls get implemented as testing and experimentation happens. This is how speed is balanced with protection.

Endnotes

¹ Infosec, CIA Triad, http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/cia-triad/
² ISACA, Engage Online Forums, http://engage.v6pu.com/communities/onlineforums
³ Larson, S.; “A Smart Fish Tank Left a Casino Vulnerable to Hackers,” CNN.com, 19 July 2017, http://money.cnn.com/2017/07/19/technology/fish-tank-hack-darktrace/index.html
⁴ Beedle, M. et al.; “Manifesto for Agile Software Development,” Agile Manifesto, 2001, http://agilemanifesto.org/