Episode 46 — Manage Deviation Requests and Exceptions
In Episode Forty-Six, titled “Manage Deviation Requests and Exceptions,” we turn our attention to a topic that sits at the crossroads of practicality and governance: how to handle necessary departures from control baselines without losing control of the risk itself. Every mature compliance program must face the reality that absolute conformity is not always possible. Systems evolve, technologies age, and business operations sometimes require short-term compromises. The key is not to eliminate exceptions but to manage them transparently as controlled, documented risk decisions. When a deviation process is clear, consistent, and auditable, it strengthens credibility rather than eroding it. Instead of hidden shortcuts, you have a well-lit pathway for temporary variance—one that shows regulators, assessors, and executives that the program can flex without fracturing.
A deviation is defined as a temporary, approved variance from established baseline control requirements. It acknowledges that while the control objective remains valid, the prescribed implementation cannot be met fully under current conditions. This is distinct from noncompliance; deviation is conditional compliance with agreed oversight. It applies, for example, when legacy technology cannot support a new encryption protocol or when maintenance windows conflict with continuous monitoring schedules. Defining deviations this way prevents confusion with findings or violations. It also signals to reviewers that the organization recognizes the gap, owns the decision, and has a documented path back to alignment. Without a clear definition, discussions about exceptions devolve into semantics instead of risk management.
Deviations generally fall into three categories: false positive, operational need, and technical constraint. A false positive deviation addresses a control finding that turns out to be invalid upon deeper inspection—say, a scan misidentifies a configuration as vulnerable when compensating security layers render it unexploitable. Operational need covers situations where strict adherence would disrupt mission-critical functions or availability, as in delaying a patch during a seasonal transaction peak. Technical constraint describes environments where legacy components or vendor dependencies block immediate compliance. Labeling deviations by type helps classify the motive behind the variance and shapes the compensating safeguards needed. It also clarifies whether the fix is verification, scheduling, or engineering in nature, which simplifies review and oversight.
Capturing each deviation’s rationale, scope, duration, and compensating safeguards in writing is the foundation of accountability. The rationale explains why variance is necessary; scope defines which systems, users, and controls are affected; duration sets how long the deviation will remain valid; and safeguards show how risk will be contained. Safeguards might include added monitoring, traffic restrictions, stricter authentication, or enhanced logging. Each component should be tied to measurable evidence, not promises. A deviation without a defined endpoint or clear guardrails is indistinguishable from neglect. By documenting these parameters at the outset, you transform an unavoidable imperfection into a controlled, observable state of exception that can be governed intelligently.
Every deviation must have an assigned owner, milestones, monitoring plan, and review checkpoints to ensure active management. The owner is accountable for implementing safeguards, reporting status, and initiating closure or extension requests before expiration. Milestones chart progress toward remediation or replacement solutions, while monitoring ensures compensating measures continue to function. Checkpoints create structured opportunities for reassessment and force conversation rather than allowing quiet drift. These can be monthly or quarterly, depending on severity and scope. The record of these reviews—attendance, decisions, evidence checked—becomes as important as the original approval. Without ownership and milestones, even well-intended deviations can outlive their purpose and accumulate unnoticed risk debt.
Coordination with the program sponsor, the Project Management Office (P M O), and the Third Party Assessment Organization (T P A O) is essential before acceptance. The sponsor ensures the variance aligns with organizational risk tolerance; the P M O confirms that dependencies and schedules remain consistent with the overall authorization plan; and the T P A O validates that evidence of compensating safeguards satisfies the assessment framework. Early coordination prevents misinterpretation during audits and avoids the reputational damage of assessors discovering “unknown” exceptions. Approval should be conditional, based on the completeness of the deviation record and agreement on expiration and revalidation. Transparent coordination signals maturity and builds the trust that future reviews depend on.
A common pitfall occurs when silent deviations are discovered during assessments—findings of “shadow exceptions” that were never recorded or approved. These erode confidence quickly and suggest weak internal controls. The assessor’s job is to test effectiveness, not to unearth hidden variances. When deviations are managed openly, even a high volume of them is less concerning than one surprise. Silent deviations create paperwork crises and rework cycles, consuming time better spent on genuine risk reduction. The lesson is clear: visibility always outperforms concealment. Document every exception, however minor, and let governance decide its priority. Trust thrives in sunlight.
A quick operational win comes from adopting a standardized deviation request template with explicit evidence requirements. The template should include identification details, rationale, scope, compensating safeguards, approval workflow, and required attachments such as configuration snapshots, logs, or policy excerpts. Building evidence fields into the form ensures applicants consider verification at the outset instead of as an afterthought. Standardization makes deviations easier to evaluate, compare, and audit, and it prevents oversights that occur when freeform requests omit critical data. When every deviation follows the same structure, reviewers can focus on substance—does the rationale hold, do safeguards reduce risk adequately—rather than chasing missing context.
Consider a simple scenario: an application stack relies on a legacy library that does not support modern Transport Layer Security (T L S) ciphers. Rather than halting operations, the team applies a compensating safeguard—enforcing T L S termination on a hardened reverse proxy with up-to-date protocols and strong cipher suites. Logs and packet captures prove the legacy system never negotiates weak encryption externally. The deviation record documents the condition, the compensating control, the risk statement, and the planned upgrade timeline. When assessors review the case, they can see both transparency and rigor: the variance is temporary, bounded, and demonstrably mitigated. This is deviation management done correctly—honest, measured, and defensible.
Set firm expiration dates and automated reminders for reevaluation so no deviation quietly becomes permanent. The expiration should reflect realistic remediation schedules but err on the side of shorter intervals to enforce accountability. Automate reminders through ticketing or compliance tracking systems so owners and reviewers receive notices well before renewal deadlines. Require explicit justification for extensions, supported by fresh evidence that the compensating safeguards remain effective. This simple automation step transforms governance from reactive policing into proactive maintenance, ensuring that exceptions are living records under active supervision rather than forgotten footnotes.
Track cumulative deviation risk alongside ongoing P O A & M remediation progress to maintain an integrated picture of residual exposure. Deviations are not isolated from the broader risk portfolio; they contribute to the organization’s overall risk surface. By aggregating metrics—number of open deviations, average age, risk ratings, and affected systems—you can see where compensating safeguards are concentrating effort or where architectural debt is accumulating. Present these metrics with the same prominence as open findings and closed milestones in risk dashboards. A complete view of both remediation and variance ensures that leadership’s risk posture decisions rest on full information, not selective visibility.
Define and document rollback triggers and termination conditions for each deviation. Rollback triggers might include detection of attempted exploitation, failure of a compensating safeguard, or major configuration changes that invalidate assumptions. Termination conditions should specify when the deviation automatically closes, such as after an upgrade, system decommissioning, or control redesign. When triggers and conditions are explicit, action is immediate and non-negotiable—no waiting for committee meetings while exposure persists. This readiness mindset keeps governance responsive and reinforces that deviations exist under the authority of risk management, not convenience.
A mini-review structure helps maintain clarity. Restate the deviation in one sentence, confirm that safeguards still function, verify ownership remains active, and reaffirm the end date or renewal decision. This lightweight review, conducted regularly, prevents backlog buildup and provides fresh evidence of oversight. Document the review outcome with a simple status tag—active, extended, or closed—and a timestamp. Over time, these records form a chronological audit trail showing responsible governance in action. Even brief mini-reviews, when consistent, demonstrate that the organization treats every deviation as a live control, not an archived note.
In conclusion, managing deviations and exceptions effectively transforms a potential weakness into a proof point of governance maturity. Each deviation becomes a transparent, time-bound, evidence-supported risk decision owned by accountable leaders and watched through closure. The final step is straightforward: register all current deviations in the master tracking system, ensuring that none remain informal or unlogged. Once registered, review them with the same cadence and rigor as P O A & M items. When exceptions live in daylight—tracked, reviewed, and retired on schedule—they cease to be vulnerabilities of process and instead become indicators of a program that governs itself with integrity and foresight.
