October 13, 2025 • 16 mins
Clauses 7.1 and 7.2 emphasize the human and material foundation of the ISMS—adequate resources and competent personnel. Clause 7.1 ensures that sufficient financial, technological, and staffing resources are available to maintain effective security operations. Clause 7.2 extends this by mandating that individuals performing ISMS tasks are competent based on education, training, or experience. For exam purposes, candidates must understand how competence requirements tie to role definitions in Clause 5.3 and to continual improvement in Clause 10. Demonstrating resource adequacy is essential to proving leadership commitment under Clause 5.1.
Organizations typically document competence through training records, certifications, or performance reviews. Resource evidence may include budget allocations, staffing plans, and investment in monitoring or automation tools. Auditors evaluate whether resource shortages or skill gaps affect control performance or risk management effectiveness. Candidates should appreciate that competence is not a one-time qualification but an evolving requirement aligned with emerging threats and technologies. Produced by BareMetalCyber.com, where you’ll find more cyber audio courses, books, and information to strengthen your educational path. Also, if you want to stay up to date with the latest news, visit DailyCyber.News for a newsletter you can use, and a daily podcast you can commute with.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
When considering the types of resources covered under Clause 7.1, organizations must look beyond headcount. Qualified and skilled personnel are the core of any ISMS, but success also depends on the supporting tools, systems, and budgets that enable those people to perform effectively. This includes technologies such as security information and event management systems (SIEMs), access control platforms, and monitoring tools, as well as the infrastructure that supports them. Financial resources must be allocated not only for day-to-day operations but also for continuous improvement initiatives—such as upgrading technology, conducting training, or engaging external auditors. External expertise, such as consultants, penetration testers, or training providers, can also serve as valuable extensions of the organization’s capabilities. The intent of Clause 7.1 is to ensure that the ISMS is properly resourced in every dimension—human, technical, and financial.
(00:59):
Leadership plays a critical role in fulfilling the requirements of Clause 7.1. The accountability defined under Clause 5.1 extends directly into resourcing decisions. Senior management must ensure that funding and staffing levels are sufficient to support the ISMS’s objectives and that these allocations align with the organization’s risk appetite and business priorities. This demonstrates not only compliance but also leadership’s commitment to embedding information security within the organization’s governance structure. When executives approve budgets, authorize recruitment, or allocate technology investments, they are effectively shaping the ISMS’s capacity to protect information assets. Visible leadership support also builds confidence among employees and stakeholders, signaling that information security is a strategic imperative backed by tangible resources—not a compliance formality.
(01:53):
Auditors evaluating Clause 7.1 expect to see evidence that the organization has systematically allocated resources to its ISMS. This may include approved budgets for security initiatives, documented staffing levels aligned with ISMS scope, and records of investments in tools or infrastructure. Auditors will also look for connections between risk assessments and resource decisions, verifying that funding and staffing are proportionate to the identified risks and operational requirements. Evidence of ongoing resource commitments—such as training programs, technology upgrades, or awareness campaigns—demonstrates that management support is sustained, not episodic. The underlying expectation is that resourcing decisions are both strategic and traceable, showing a deliberate alignment between risk priorities, business needs, and available capabilities.
(02:45):
In practice, many organizations face pitfalls when implementing Clause 7.1. Over-reliance on a single individual to manage the ISMS is a common weakness, creating single points of failure and knowledge bottlenecks. Budget shortfalls are another recurring issue, especially when leadership underestimates the ongoing investment required to maintain certification and compliance. A lack of modern technical tools can also hinder monitoring, reporting, and automation, forcing teams to rely on manual processes that are inefficient and error-prone. Some organizations allocate resources reactively—responding to incidents or audit findings—rather than proactively planning investments based on risk trends. Addressing these pitfalls requires foresight, leadership engagement, and periodic review of the ISMS’s resource adequacy, ensuring that capacity grows alongside organizational complexity and threat evolution.
(03:42):
Clause 7.2 builds directly upon the foundation established by Clause 7.1, focusing not on what resources are available but on how effectively they are used. The standard requires organizations to ensure that individuals performing work under the ISMS are competent, based on their education, training, experience, and awareness. Competence extends beyond technical expertise to include understanding of governance, compliance, and risk management principles. A technically proficient engineer who lacks awareness of policy obligations, or a compliance officer unfamiliar with emerging cyber threats, can inadvertently undermine system effectiveness. Clause 7.2 ensures that every person—whether they design, operate, or audit controls—possesses the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their role effectively within the ISMS framework.
(04:35):
Establishing competence begins with identifying the specific skills and qualifications required for each ISMS-related role. This process includes evaluating professional certifications, such as ISO 27001 Lead Implementer or CISSP, and verifying relevant experience in information security, IT management, or risk governance. Practical assessments, such as post-training evaluations or simulation exercises, help confirm that theoretical knowledge translates into capability. Supervisory oversight and peer reviews also play a role in validating ongoing performance. For many organizations, competence frameworks are developed to map required skills to roles, ensuring coverage across operational, technical, and management domains. The aim is to remove assumptions and replace them with measurable, documented evidence that every ISMS participant can perform their assigned tasks with confidence and accuracy.
(05:36):
Training and awareness programs are key mechanisms for building and maintaining competence. While specialized staff require technical or regulatory training, every employee must receive ongoing education to maintain general security awareness. This ensures that security remains part of the organizational culture rather than confined to IT departments. Targeted training should address emerging technologies, evolving threats, and regulatory updates, while general awareness campaigns reinforce behavioral expectations such as password hygiene, data handling, and incident reporting. Refresher sessions and periodic testing help ensure that knowledge is retained and applied. By viewing competence as an ongoing process rather than a one-time certification, organizations create a workforce that remains vigilant, capable, and aligned with the ISMS’s goals.
(06:28):
For more cyber related content and books, please check out cyber author dot me. Also, there are other prepcasts on Cybersecurity and more at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.
Auditors reviewing Clause 7.2 look for tangible proof that the organization has established and maintained competence across all ISMS roles. They expect to see documented assessments demonstrating how the organization determines whether employees are qualified for their responsibilities. Training records, certificates, and attendance logs provide baseline evidence, but auditors also look for proof that learning outcomes are evaluated—showing not just that training occurred, but that it achieved its purpose. Evidence of periodic reviews of skills and training needs is another key expectation, ensuring that competence remains current as technology and risks evolve. When competence gaps are identified, corrective actions must be documented, such as new training programs, mentoring assignments, or job reassignments. Auditors interpret these actions as evidence of a living ISMS—one that continually invests in people, not just processes and technology.
(07:38):
Competence can be demonstrated in many ways, depending on the organization’s context. For example, an ISMS manager might hold an ISO 27001 Lead Implementer or Lead Auditor certification to validate their understanding of the standard and its application. IT administrators may complete technical training in encryption, endpoint security, or vulnerability management. Compliance officers may pursue specialized courses on data protection law, such as GDPR or HIPAA, ensuring that legal requirements are integrated into policy. Even HR departments contribute to competence evidence through records of security awareness participation or onboarding programs for new hires. The diversity of this evidence reflects the multidimensional nature of ISMS competence—technical expertise, governance literacy, and cultural awareness must all coexist for the system to function effectively.
Despite these expectations, many organizations face recurring weaknesses in competence management. A common issue is that training is delivered but never evaluated for effectiveness. Employees may attend sessions, yet no mechanism exists to test comprehension or behavioral change. Another frequent problem is focusing solely on technical staff while overlooking the importance of non-IT roles—such as procurement, HR, or marketing—that also handle sensitive information. Outdated qualifications present another challenge, as once-relevant certifications lose value in fast-moving industries. Finally, a lack of succession planning for key ISMS positions creates serious vulnerabilities (08:30):
when experienced staff leave, critical knowledge leaves with them. These shortcomings reveal that competence must be actively managed, not assumed. Without ongoing validation, organizations risk having gaps that only become visible after an incident or audit finding.
(09:29):
Best practices for building and maintaining competence begin with the creation of role-based competence frameworks. These frameworks define the skills, knowledge, and behaviors required for each ISMS role, from senior executives to operational staff. They provide a foundation for training plans, recruitment strategies, and performance evaluations. Integrating training and competence development into regular performance review cycles ensures accountability and continuous improvement. Encouraging external certification and professional development demonstrates organizational commitment to excellence, while internal programs, such as mentorship or knowledge-sharing workshops, help retain institutional expertise. Effectiveness should be monitored through internal audits and feedback mechanisms, ensuring that training investments produce measurable improvements. The goal is not just to certify competence but to cultivate a learning organization where security knowledge continuously evolves alongside the threat landscape.
(10:28):
Clause 7.1 and Clause 7.2 are deeply interconnected. Resources enable competence-building activities, and competence ensures that resources are used effectively. If one side falters, the other is compromised. For example, an organization might invest heavily in advanced monitoring tools (resource), but without trained analysts to interpret alerts (competence), those tools provide little value. Conversely, skilled staff cannot perform effectively without adequate funding, infrastructure, or support. This synergy between resourcing and competence ensures that the ISMS remains balanced and capable. Leadership must therefore view these clauses not as administrative requirements but as twin pillars of operational readiness—ensuring that both capacity and capability advance together as the ISMS matures.
(11:19):
Effective management of resources and competence yields strategic advantages that extend beyond compliance. Organizations that invest in their people and infrastructure achieve stronger resilience against evolving threats. Regulators and auditors gain confidence in the ISMS’s maturity, recognizing that a well-supported system is one that can sustain continuous improvement. Employees, empowered by knowledge and training, become active contributors to security rather than passive participants. This engagement builds a culture of accountability and vigilance, where individuals take ownership of protecting information assets. Over time, sustained investment in resources and competence transforms the ISMS from a reactive compliance mechanism into a proactive governance framework that drives innovation, trust, and long-term organizational success.
(12:10):
Maintaining the adequacy of resources and competence is an ongoing process. Budgets and staffing needs should be reviewed regularly, particularly during management reviews and after major organizational changes. Emerging technologies and new regulations must trigger evaluations of whether current skill sets remain sufficient. As cybersecurity threats evolve, so must the organization’s defenses—and that evolution depends on continually updating both resources and capabilities. Embedding these reviews into the ISMS cycle ensures that readiness is never assumed but always verified. This proactive approach positions the ISMS as a dynamic system, capable of adapting to changing demands while maintaining stability and performance.
(12:56):
In conclusion, Clause 7.1 ensures that an organization allocates sufficient resources—financial, technical, and human—to operate its ISMS effectively, while Clause 7.2 ensures that individuals possess the competence to use those resources wisely. Together, they form the operational backbone of the management system, linking leadership intent with practical execution. Adequate resources create capability; competence transforms capability into results. When managed together, they produce a sustainable, high-performing ISMS that grows stronger with each iteration. With resourcing and competence established, the organization is now ready to advance to Clauses 7.3 and 7.4, which focus on awareness and communication—the human and informational channels that ensure security principles are understood, shared, and applied throughout the enterprise.
When considering the types of resources covered under Clause 7.1, organizations must look beyond headcount. Qualified and skilled personnel are the core of any ISMS, but success also depends on the supporting tools, systems, and budgets that enable those people to perform effectively. This includes technologies such as security information and event management systems (SIEMs), access control platforms, and monitoring tools, as well as the infrastructure that supports them. Financial resources must be allocated not only for day-to-day operations but also for continuous improvement initiatives—such as upgrading technology, conducting training, or engaging external auditors. External expertise, such as consultants, penetration testers, or training providers, can also serve as valuable extensions of the organization’s capabilities. The intent of Clause 7.1 is to ensure that the ISMS is properly resourced in every dimension—human, technical, and financial.
(00:59):
Leadership plays a critical role in fulfilling the requirements of Clause 7.1. The accountability defined under Clause 5.1 extends directly into resourcing decisions. Senior management must ensure that funding and staffing levels are sufficient to support the ISMS’s objectives and that these allocations align with the organization’s risk appetite and business priorities. This demonstrates not only compliance but also leadership’s commitment to embedding information security within the organization’s governance structure. When executives approve budgets, authorize recruitment, or allocate technology investments, they are effectively shaping the ISMS’s capacity to protect information assets. Visible leadership support also builds confidence among employees and stakeholders, signaling that information security is a strategic imperative backed by tangible resources—not a compliance formality.
(01:53):
Auditors evaluating Clause 7.1 expect to see evidence that the organization has systematically allocated resources to its ISMS. This may include approved budgets for security initiatives, documented staffing levels aligned with ISMS scope, and records of investments in tools or infrastructure. Auditors will also look for connections between risk assessments and resource decisions, verifying that funding and staffing are proportionate to the identified risks and operational requirements. Evidence of ongoing resource commitments—such as training programs, technology upgrades, or awareness campaigns—demonstrates that management support is sustained, not episodic. The underlying expectation is that resourcing decisions are both strategic and traceable, showing a deliberate alignment between risk priorities, business needs, and available capabilities.
(02:45):
In practice, many organizations face pitfalls when implementing Clause 7.1. Over-reliance on a single individual to manage the ISMS is a common weakness, creating single points of failure and knowledge bottlenecks. Budget shortfalls are another recurring issue, especially when leadership underestimates the ongoing investment required to maintain certification and compliance. A lack of modern technical tools can also hinder monitoring, reporting, and automation, forcing teams to rely on manual processes that are inefficient and error-prone. Some organizations allocate resources reactively—responding to incidents or audit findings—rather than proactively planning investments based on risk trends. Addressing these pitfalls requires foresight, leadership engagement, and periodic review of the ISMS’s resource adequacy, ensuring that capacity grows alongside organizational complexity and threat evolution.
(03:42):
Clause 7.2 builds directly upon the foundation established by Clause 7.1, focusing not on what resources are available but on how effectively they are used. The standard requires organizations to ensure that individuals performing work under the ISMS are competent, based on their education, training, experience, and awareness. Competence extends beyond technical expertise to include understanding of governance, compliance, and risk management principles. A technically proficient engineer who lacks awareness of policy obligations, or a compliance officer unfamiliar with emerging cyber threats, can inadvertently undermine system effectiveness. Clause 7.2 ensures that every person—whether they design, operate, or audit controls—possesses the knowledge and skills necessary to perform their role effectively within the ISMS framework.
(04:35):
Establishing competence begins with identifying the specific skills and qualifications required for each ISMS-related role. This process includes evaluating professional certifications, such as ISO 27001 Lead Implementer or CISSP, and verifying relevant experience in information security, IT management, or risk governance. Practical assessments, such as post-training evaluations or simulation exercises, help confirm that theoretical knowledge translates into capability. Supervisory oversight and peer reviews also play a role in validating ongoing performance. For many organizations, competence frameworks are developed to map required skills to roles, ensuring coverage across operational, technical, and management domains. The aim is to remove assumptions and replace them with measurable, documented evidence that every ISMS participant can perform their assigned tasks with confidence and accuracy.
(05:36):
Training and awareness programs are key mechanisms for building and maintaining competence. While specialized staff require technical or regulatory training, every employee must receive ongoing education to maintain general security awareness. This ensures that security remains part of the organizational culture rather than confined to IT departments. Targeted training should address emerging technologies, evolving threats, and regulatory updates, while general awareness campaigns reinforce behavioral expectations such as password hygiene, data handling, and incident reporting. Refresher sessions and periodic testing help ensure that knowledge is retained and applied. By viewing competence as an ongoing process rather than a one-time certification, organizations create a workforce that remains vigilant, capable, and aligned with the ISMS’s goals.
(06:28):
For more cyber related content and books, please check out cyber author dot me. Also, there are other prepcasts on Cybersecurity and more at Bare Metal Cyber dot com.
Auditors reviewing Clause 7.2 look for tangible proof that the organization has established and maintained competence across all ISMS roles. They expect to see documented assessments demonstrating how the organization determines whether employees are qualified for their responsibilities. Training records, certificates, and attendance logs provide baseline evidence, but auditors also look for proof that learning outcomes are evaluated—showing not just that training occurred, but that it achieved its purpose. Evidence of periodic reviews of skills and training needs is another key expectation, ensuring that competence remains current as technology and risks evolve. When competence gaps are identified, corrective actions must be documented, such as new training programs, mentoring assignments, or job reassignments. Auditors interpret these actions as evidence of a living ISMS—one that continually invests in people, not just processes and technology.
(07:38):
Competence can be demonstrated in many ways, depending on the organization’s context. For example, an ISMS manager might hold an ISO 27001 Lead Implementer or Lead Auditor certification to validate their understanding of the standard and its application. IT administrators may complete technical training in encryption, endpoint security, or vulnerability management. Compliance officers may pursue specialized courses on data protection law, such as GDPR or HIPAA, ensuring that legal requirements are integrated into policy. Even HR departments contribute to competence evidence through records of security awareness participation or onboarding programs for new hires. The diversity of this evidence reflects the multidimensional nature of ISMS competence—technical expertise, governance literacy, and cultural awareness must all coexist for the system to function effectively.
Despite these expectations, many organizations face recurring weaknesses in competence management. A common issue is that training is delivered but never evaluated for effectiveness. Employees may attend sessions, yet no mechanism exists to test comprehension or behavioral change. Another frequent problem is focusing solely on technical staff while overlooking the importance of non-IT roles—such as procurement, HR, or marketing—that also handle sensitive information. Outdated qualifications present another challenge, as once-relevant certifications lose value in fast-moving industries. Finally, a lack of succession planning for key ISMS positions creates serious vulnerabilities (08:30):
when experienced staff leave, critical knowledge leaves with them. These shortcomings reveal that competence must be actively managed, not assumed. Without ongoing validation, organizations risk having gaps that only become visible after an incident or audit finding.
(09:29):
Best practices for building and maintaining competence begin with the creation of role-based competence frameworks. These frameworks define the skills, knowledge, and behaviors required for each ISMS role, from senior executives to operational staff. They provide a foundation for training plans, recruitment strategies, and performance evaluations. Integrating training and competence development into regular performance review cycles ensures accountability and continuous improvement. Encouraging external certification and professional development demonstrates organizational commitment to excellence, while internal programs, such as mentorship or knowledge-sharing workshops, help retain institutional expertise. Effectiveness should be monitored through internal audits and feedback mechanisms, ensuring that training investments produce measurable improvements. The goal is not just to certify competence but to cultivate a learning organization where security knowledge continuously evolves alongside the threat landscape.
(10:28):
Clause 7.1 and Clause 7.2 are deeply interconnected. Resources enable competence-building activities, and competence ensures that resources are used effectively. If one side falters, the other is compromised. For example, an organization might invest heavily in advanced monitoring tools (resource), but without trained analysts to interpret alerts (competence), those tools provide little value. Conversely, skilled staff cannot perform effectively without adequate funding, infrastructure, or support. This synergy between resourcing and competence ensures that the ISMS remains balanced and capable. Leadership must therefore view these clauses not as administrative requirements but as twin pillars of operational readiness—ensuring that both capacity and capability advance together as the ISMS matures.
(11:19):
Effective management of resources and competence yields strategic advantages that extend beyond compliance. Organizations that invest in their people and infrastructure achieve stronger resilience against evolving threats. Regulators and auditors gain confidence in the ISMS’s maturity, recognizing that a well-supported system is one that can sustain continuous improvement. Employees, empowered by knowledge and training, become active contributors to security rather than passive participants. This engagement builds a culture of accountability and vigilance, where individuals take ownership of protecting information assets. Over time, sustained investment in resources and competence transforms the ISMS from a reactive compliance mechanism into a proactive governance framework that drives innovation, trust, and long-term organizational success.
(12:10):
Maintaining the adequacy of resources and competence is an ongoing process. Budgets and staffing needs should be reviewed regularly, particularly during management reviews and after major organizational changes. Emerging technologies and new regulations must trigger evaluations of whether current skill sets remain sufficient. As cybersecurity threats evolve, so must the organization’s defenses—and that evolution depends on continually updating both resources and capabilities. Embedding these reviews into the ISMS cycle ensures that readiness is never assumed but always verified. This proactive approach positions the ISMS as a dynamic system, capable of adapting to changing demands while maintaining stability and performance.
(12:56):
In conclusion, Clause 7.1 ensures that an organization allocates sufficient resources—financial, technical, and human—to operate its ISMS effectively, while Clause 7.2 ensures that individuals possess the competence to use those resources wisely. Together, they form the operational backbone of the management system, linking leadership intent with practical execution. Adequate resources create capability; competence transforms capability into results. When managed together, they produce a sustainable, high-performing ISMS that grows stronger with each iteration. With resourcing and competence established, the organization is now ready to advance to Clauses 7.3 and 7.4, which focus on awareness and communication—the human and informational channels that ensure security principles are understood, shared, and applied throughout the enterprise.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.