Scenario 8:
Scenario 8: InnovateSoft, headquartered in Berlin, Germany, is a software development company known for its innovative solutions and commitment to excellence. It specializes in custom software solutions, development, design, testing, maintenance, and consulting, covering both mobile apps and web development. Recently, the company underwent an audit to evaluate the effectiveness and
compliance of its artificial intelligence management system AIMS against ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit team engaged with the auditee to discuss their findings and observations during the audit's final phases. After evaluating the evidence, the audit team presented their audit findings to InnovateSoft, highlighting the identified nonconformities.
Upon receiving the audit findings, InnovateSoft accepted the conclusions but expressed concerns about some findings inaccurately reflecting the efficiency of their software development processes. In response, the company provided new evidence and additional information to alter the audit conclusions for a couple of minor nonconformities identified. After thorough consideration, the audit team leader clarified that the new evidence did not significantly alter the core conclusions drawn for the nonconformities. Therefore, the certification body issued a certification recommendation conditional upon the filing of corrective action plans without a prior visit.
InnovateSoft accepted the decision of the certification body. The top management of the company also sought suggestions from the audit team on resolving the identified nonconformities. The audit team leader offered solutions to address the issues, fostering a collaborative effort between the auditors and InnovateSoft. During the closing meeting, the audit team covered key topics to enhance transparency. They clarified to InnovateSoft that the audit evidence was based on a sample, acknowledging the inherent uncertainty. The method and time frame of reporting and grading findings were discussed to provide a structured overview of nonconformities. The certification body's process for handling nonconformities, including potential consequences, guided InnovateSoft on corrective actions. The time frame for presenting a plan for correction was
communicated, emphasizing urgency. Insights into the certification body’s post-audit activities were provided, ensuring ongoing support.
Lastly, the audit team briefed InnovateSoft on complaint and appeal handling.
InnovateSoft submitted the action plans for each nonconformity separately, describing only the detected issues and the corrective actions planned to address the detected nonconformities. However, the submission slightly exceeded the specified period of 45 days set by the certification body, arriving three days later. InnovateSoft explained this by attributing the delay to unexpected challenges encountered during the compilation of the action plans.
Question:
Was the audit team leader’s attitude appropriate regarding the new evidence provided by the company?
Did Samuel consider all the necessary factors while reviewing documented information during the stage 1 audit? Refer to Scenario 6.
Scenario 6: AfrinovAl, based in Nairobi, Kenya, develops Al tools to improve agriculture in Africa. The company uses Al to address challenges faced by African farmers,
offering tools for analyzing satellite images to monitor crop health, predicting pest and disease outbreaks, and automating irrigation to use water more efficiently.
AfrinovAl has implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS based on ISO/IEC 42001, reflecting its commitment to ethical and effective
management practices in its Al solutions.
AfrinovAl is undergoing a certification audit to obtain certification against ISO/IEC 42001. Samuel, an expert in Al technologies and management systems, is heading
the audit team. Before initiating the audit process, Samuel reviewed and approved the audit plan, which served as a basis for the agreement between the certification
body and the auditee.
During the stage 1 audit, the audit team focused on a detailed evaluation of AfrinovAI's documented information, critically assessing both their format and content.
Samuel held a meeting with his team to prepare for the stage 2 audit. During this meeting, responsibilities were allocated among team members, assigning specific
processes, functions, sites, areas, or activities based on each auditor's expertise and the audit requirements. He also assigned auditing roles to technical experts to
leverage their specialized knowledge in specific areas.
In the stage 2 audit, Samuel and his team held an opening meeting during which Samuel explained how the audit activities will be undertaken. AfrinovAI's also
participated in the meeting. Afterward, the audit team conducted on-site activities to closely inspect the physical locations of the audited processes. The interviewed
individuals from the auditee's personnel regarding the AIMS and observed some of the operations of the auditee. They also used sampling and technical verification to
assess the implementation of Al-related controls, verify compliance with established procedures, and identify any gaps in adherence to the AIMS requirements. They
skipped the review of documented information related to the AIMS since some documents had already been reviewed during the stage 1 audit. This comprehensive
approach ensured a thorough evaluation of AfrinovAI's AIMS against the ISO/IEC 42001.
Question:
Who is responsible for reviewing the corrections, identified causes, and corrective actions of the auditee?
Scenario 9 (continued):
Scenario 9: Securisai, located in Tallinn. Estonia, specializes in the development of automated cybersecurity solutions that utilize AI systems. The company recently implemented an artificial intelligence management system AIMS in accordance with ISO/IEC 42001. In doing so, the company aimed to manage its Al-driven systems’ capabilities to detect and mitigate cyber threats more efficiently and ethically. As part of its commitment to upholding the highest standards of Al use and management, Securisai underwent a certification audit to demonstrate compliance with ISO/IEC 42001.
The audit process comprised two main stages: the initial or stage 1 audit focused on reviewing Securisai's documentation, policies, and procedures related to its AIMS. This review laid the groundwork for the stage 2 audit, which involved a comprehensive, on-site evaluation
of the actual implementation and effectiveness of the AIMS within Securisai's operations. The goal was to observe the AIMS in operation, ensuring that it not only existed on paper but was effectively integrated into the company's daily activities and cybersecurity strategies.
After the audit, Roger, Securisai's internal auditor, addressed the action plans devised to rectify nonconformities identified during the certification audit. He developed a long term strategy, highlighting key AIMS processes for triennial audits. Roger's internal audits play a
key role in advancing Securisai's goals by employing a systematic and disciplined method to assess and boost the efficiency of risk
management, governance processes, and strategic decision-making. Roger reported his findings directly to Securisai's top management.
Following the successful rectification of nonconformities, Securisai was officially certified against ISO/IEC 42001.
Recently, the company decided to transfer its ISO/IEC 42001 certification registration from one certification body to another despite being initially bound by a long-term agreement with the current certification body. This decision was motivated by the desire to partner with a certification body that offers deeper insights and expertise in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence in cybersecurity.
To ensure a smooth transition and uphold its certification status, Securisai is diligently compiling the required documentation for submission to the new certification body. This includes a formal request, the most recent audit report underscoring its adherence to ISO/IEC 42001, the latest corrective action plan that highlights its continuous efforts toward improvement, and a copy of its current valid certification registration.
A year following Securisai's initial certification audit, a subsequent audit was carried out by the certification body on its AIMS. The
purpose of this audit was to assess compliance with ISO/IEC 42001 and verify the ongoing improvement of the AIMS. The audit team
concluded that Securisai's AIMS consistently meets the requirements set by ISO/IEC 42001.
Question:
Based on Scenario 9, what should Securisai’s certification be?
Copyright © 2021-2025 CertsTopics. All Rights Reserved
