|
+Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Autonomous Technologies Governance |
Artificial Intelligence (AI) & Autonomous Technologies GovernanceDescriptionMechanisms exist to ensure policies, processes, procedures and practices related to the mapping, measuring and managing of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Autonomous Technologies (AAT)-related risks are in place, transparent and implemented effectively.Possible Solutions & ConsiderationsMicro-Small Business (<10 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 1-2∙ AI/ML usage policy (approved use cases and prohibited uses)∙ NIST AI RMF alignment (https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence) ∙ Designated AI point of contact or responsible party Small Business (10-49 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 3-4∙ AI/ML usage policy with employee guidelines∙ NIST AI RMF alignment (https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence) ∙ AI system inventory tracking approved tools ∙ Basic AI risk assessment for each deployed AI system Medium Business (50-249 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 5-6∙ Formal AI governance program (policies, standards, procedures)∙ NIST AI RMF implementation (https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence) ∙ AI system inventory with risk classification ∙ EU AI Act readiness assessment (if applicable) Large Business (250-999 staff) / BLS Firm Size Classes 7-8∙ Formal AI governance program with dedicated AI risk function∙ NIST AI RMF and ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System alignment ∙ AI ethics and trustworthy AI policies ∙ AI Risk Management Committee Enterprise (> 1,000 staff) / BLS Firm Size Class 9∙ Enterprise AI governance program with board-level oversight∙ ISO/IEC 42001 AI Management System certification or alignment ∙ NIST AI RMF full implementation across all AI systems ∙ Dedicated Chief AI Officer (CAIO) or AI governance function ∙ EU AI Act compliance program (if operating in EU) SCR-CMMLevel 0 Not PerformedPractices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.Level 1 Performed InformallyArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) domain capabilities are ad hoc and inconsistent. Capability criteria associated with this control may include:▪ Policies, standards & procedures associated with AAT domain capabilities provide limited coverage due to the depth and breadth of the existing documentation. ▪ AAT-related processes are expected to follow the organization's existing processes (e.g., incident response, asset management, change control and risk assessments). ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide AAT oversight, where the Chief Information Officer (CIO), or similar function, governs technology decisions what is acceptable for AAT within the organization. Level 2 Planned TrackedArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are requirements-driven, but are not standardized across the entity (e.g., local/regional level consistency). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are documented and maintained by process owners. ▪ IT and/or cybersecurity personnel work with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). ▪ Artificial Intelligence (AI)-related controls are primarily administrative and preventative in nature (e.g., policies, standards and procedures & guidelines). ▪ Asset management may be a defined function (e.g., team or department) or assigned as an additional duty to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. ▪ AAT is regarded as a technology and governed by the entity's existing IT governance practices. ▪ No formal Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team exists to provide oversight of AAT-related activities. GRC functions are assigned to existing IT and/or cybersecurity personnel. Level 3 Well DefinedArtificial Intelligence and Autonomous Technology (AAT) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist:▪ Policies and standards associated with AAT domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with AAT domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ An Artificial Intelligence Governance (AIG) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain AAT domain capabilities. ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of AI governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., dedicated AI governance platform). ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, works with business stakeholders and process owners to appropriately scope and reasonably implement cybersecurity and data protection controls associated with AAT domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to ensure policies, processes, procedures and practices related to the mapping, measuring and managing of AAT-related risks are in place, transparent and implemented effectively. Level 4 Quantitatively ControlledUtilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions:▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define. Level 5 Continuously ImprovingUtilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions:▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define. 1. Ħarsa ġenerali
1.1 Referenzi1.2 Rekwiżiti identifikati1.3 Regolamenti relatati2. Rekwiżiti identifikati
3. Regolamenti relatati
Kwistjonijiet marbuta
|