Clarify the real driver
Identify the customer, contractual, regulatory, risk, or market decision behind the named framework.
Framework pathways
Turn the standard into a program that works
Frameworks define criteria. Open helps teams assign ownership, implement controls, improve evidence, and prepare for the correct validation path.
Decision lensesChoose the useful starting point.
Map before multiplying
Use one control model to expose overlap and differences before creating separate programs for every standard.
Confirm the validation path
Know early whether the next step requires internal review, independent assessment, attestation, or certification.
01 · Explore
Start with the standard, then define the operating path.
Each framework path shows what applies, who owns the work, and what evidence comes next.
01 · Attestation readiness
SOC 2
Prepare systems, controls, evidence, and management responsibilities for a CPA firm examination.
See the path →02 · ISMS readiness
ISO 27001
Build and operate an information security management system before certification body assessment.
See the path →03 · AIMS readiness
ISO 42001
Establish AI management governance, lifecycle control, evidence, and continual improvement.
See the path →04 · Defense supply chain
CMMC
Prepare the environment, practices, evidence, and assessment coordination for the applicable level.
See the path →05 · Payment security
PCI DSS
Clarify cardholder data scope and strengthen the controls and evidence required by the validation path.
See the path →06 · EU data protection
GDPR
Connect data protection obligations to accountable privacy and security operations with legal counsel involved.
See the path →07 · Brazil data protection
LGPD
Translate Brazilian data protection obligations into visible governance, security, and evidence routines.
See the path →Framework families
Find the program closest to your next requirement.
Explore common standards, regulations, and control families, then connect the right one to the Open capability that can move the work forward.
Security maturityNIST CSF
Current and target profiles connected to a governed improvement path.
Health informationHIPAA safeguardsRisk, privacy, security, vendors, and operating evidence around protected information.
AI governanceNIST AI RMFAI risk decisions organized around governance, mapping, measurement, and management.
Privacy managementISO 27701Privacy accountability connected to an operating information management system.
Cloud assuranceCSA CCMCloud controls mapped across customer, provider, and shared responsibility.
Security maturityCIS ControlsPrioritized safeguards sequenced to the organization and its implementation group.
Supply chainNIST SP 800-171CUI boundaries, supplier dependencies, safeguards, and evidence prepared together.
Health assuranceHITRUST CSFHealth information controls brought into a traceable multi-source assurance model.
Cloud securityISO 27017Cloud-specific control responsibility made explicit across service relationships.
Cloud privacyISO 27018Personal data protection practices connected to cloud processor operations.
Privacy maturityNIST Privacy FrameworkPrivacy risk outcomes connected to systems, processing, owners, and decisions.
Product securityOWASP SAMMSoftware assurance maturity tied to the way product teams actually build and ship.
Enterprise governanceCOBITGovernance objectives cascaded into accountable management and operating outcomes.
Operational resilienceISO 22301Continuity decisions, dependencies, response capability, and recovery evidence.
Public cloudFedRAMPAuthorization readiness connected to cloud controls and continuous monitoring.
AI regulationEU AI ActRisk tier, lifecycle obligations, human oversight, and evidence kept visible.
Financial resilienceDORAICT risk, incident response, resilience testing, and supplier dependencies connected.
Cyber regulationNIS2Governance, essential services, supplier risk, and incident duties operationalized.
02 · The Open method
Move from pressure to a result the team can keep using.
Four stages keep the goal, owner, evidence, and next action clear from the first conversation through handoff.
Frame
Name the decision, the people involved, the systems that matter, and the cost of getting it wrong.
Design
Set clear ownership, evidence needs, priorities, dependencies, and the sequence of work.
Deliver
Build or examine the work while decisions, exceptions, owners, and source evidence stay visible.
Carry forward
Keep what was learned ready for the next customer, framework, product, or governance decision.
03 · How responsibilities stay clear
Connect the work without confusing the roles.
Open coordinates related work while your leaders, delivery teams, independent reviewers, and qualified specialists keep the responsibilities only they can hold.
Preparation is not the certificate
Program design and preparation do not themselves produce an audit report, certification, legal opinion, or regulatory decision.
Know what the standard expects
Keep the current version, what applies, relevant systems, timing, and intended use clear.
Qualified specialists keep their role
Legal counsel, CPA firms, certification bodies, assessors, and other qualified parties remain responsible for their formal work.
04 · Common questions
Know what the first engagement should solve.
Clear answers on what Open can lead, what your team owns, and when another qualified party is needed.
Which framework should we choose first?
Start with the requirement most directly tied to your market, customers, contracts, risk profile, and jurisdiction. When several apply, map their overlap before committing to parallel programs.
Can one control model support several frameworks?
Often, yes. A shared model can reduce duplicate ownership and evidence while preserving framework-specific criteria. Mapping is not proof of compliance, so differences, testing needs, and issuer requirements still need explicit treatment.
Does Open issue certifications or regulated reports?
That depends on the engagement, jurisdiction, standard, and eligible delivery entity. These pages position Open for preparation, program work, evidence operations, and assessment support. Required issuer roles are confirmed before any formal outcome is represented.
Can we use our existing GRC platform?
Yes. The control and evidence model should work with authoritative systems already in place. Tool changes are recommended only when an actual operating gap justifies them.
