Scenario 8: SunDee is an American biopharmaceutical company, headquartered in California, the US. It specializes in developing novel human therapeutics, with a focus on cardiovascular diseases, oncology, bone health, and inflammation. The company has had an information security management system (ISMS) based on SO/IEC 27001 in place for the past two years. However, it has not monitored or measured the performance and effectiveness of its ISMS and conducted management reviews regularly Just before the recertification audit, the company decided to conduct an internal audit. It also asked most of their staff to compile the written individual reports of the past two years for their departments. This left the Production Department with less than the optimum workforce, which decreased the company's stock.
Tessa was SunDee's internal auditor. With multiple reports written by 50 different employees, the internal audit process took much longer than planned, was very inconsistent, and had no qualitative measures whatsoever Tessa concluded that SunDee must evaluate the performance of the ISMS adequately. She defined SunDee's negligence of ISMS performance evaluation as a major nonconformity, so she wrote a nonconformity report including the description of the nonconformity, the audit findings, and recommendations. Additionally, Tessa created a new plan which would enable SunDee to resolve these issues and presented it to the top management According to scenario 8, Tessa created a plan for ISMS monitoring and measurement and presented it to the top management Is this acceptable?