Date: 30 October 2026
Common Gaps We See Between the ISMS and the Response Plan
Even organisations with ISO 27001 certification sometimes find their ISMS and their incident response capability have drifted apart. The most common gaps include:
- Out-of-date asset registers. New cloud services and SaaS tools are adopted faster than the register is updated, so responders are working from an incomplete picture.
- Supplier blind spots. Third parties are assessed at onboarding and then forgotten. When a supplier is breached, nobody knows quickly what data they hold.
- Plans written for auditors, not responders. Documents that satisfy an audit can be too long and too abstract to use at 3am.
- No link between exercises and the risk register. Tabletop findings are discussed but never translated into changes to risks or controls.
How to Bring Them Together
Closing these gaps does not require starting again. A few practical steps make a significant difference:
- Map your playbooks to your risk register. Each high-rated risk should have a corresponding response scenario, and each playbook should reference the assets and owners recorded in the ISMS.
- Use tabletop exercises as ISMS inputs. Treat every exercise finding as a potential nonconformity or improvement action, and track it in the same system as your audit findings.
- Review supplier records after every exercise. If the scenario involved a third party, check that contact details, data flows and contractual notification terms were accurate.
- Keep the response plan short. Put the detail in the ISMS and keep the plan itself to decisions, contacts and steps that people can follow under stress.
- Automate the evidence where you can. Manual spreadsheets go stale quickly. Many organisations now use compliance platforms to keep risks, controls, suppliers and incidents linked in one place.
Final Thoughts
An incident response plan tells people what to do when something goes wrong. An ISMS makes sure they have the information, authority and context to do it well. Treating the two as separate projects leaves organisations exposed at precisely the moment they can least afford it.
If your next tabletop exercise raises questions that nobody can answer quickly, the fix may not be a better playbook. It may be a stronger management system underneath it.

.webp)
.webp)
.webp)