BAI03: Managed Solutions Identification and Build

To meet the bai03: managed solutions identification and build requirement, you must run a controlled, auditable lifecycle for identifying solution options and building or configuring the chosen solution, with clear ownership, documented requirements, traceability, testing, and release controls. The fastest way to operationalize BAI03 is to standardize your solution build process and retain evidence that it was followed.

Key takeaways:

• Treat BAI03 as “prove you built the right thing, the right way, with traceability from need to release” ¹.
• Standard templates plus workflow evidence beat long policies; auditors want repeatable execution artifacts ².
• Your biggest risk is “we do this informally”: missing build evidence, unclear ownership, and weak requirements-to-test traceability ¹.

BAI03 in COBIT 2019 focuses on disciplined solution engineering: how you identify solution options, select an approach, and then build/configure it in a managed way. For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the practical question is simple: can you demonstrate, on demand, that each material solution change (new system, major enhancement, configuration build, integration) followed a defined process with approvals, testing, and traceability?

Operationalizing this requirement usually fails for one of two reasons. First, teams treat “solution build” as an IT delivery practice that doesn’t need compliance evidence, then struggle during audits to reconstruct decisions and testing outcomes. Second, they document a process once, but they don’t enforce it through tooling or stage gates, so evidence is inconsistent.

This page translates the bai03: managed solutions identification and build requirement into an execution-ready set of steps, decision points, and artifacts you can standardize across product, engineering, IT, and security. The aim is exam-ready proof: who approved what, why that option was chosen, how requirements were validated, and what controls prevented unsafe releases ³.

Regulatory text

Framework excerpt (provided): “COBIT 2019 objective BAI03 implementation expectation.” ³

What the operator must do

Translate that expectation into a controlled solution lifecycle with evidence. In practice, that means you:

1. Identify and evaluate solution options (build, buy, configure, reuse, retire) against requirements and risk.
2. Select a solution approach with documented rationale and approvals.
3. Build/configure the solution using defined engineering and change controls.
4. Validate the solution (testing, security checks, acceptance criteria) tied back to requirements.
5. Release and transition with appropriate readiness, documentation, and support artifacts.
6. Retain evidence that each step occurred for each in-scope change ¹.

Plain-English interpretation

BAI03 requires disciplined engineering governance: “Show me you had requirements, picked a solution rationally, built it under control, tested it against those requirements, and released it safely.” The compliance bar is not perfection of engineering; it is repeatability, accountability, and traceability across the solution build lifecycle ¹.

Who it applies to (entity and operational context)

Applies to: enterprise IT organizations adopting COBIT, including regulated organizations using COBIT to demonstrate IT governance maturity ¹.

Operational scope (typical):

• Internal application development and major enhancements
• Configurations in SaaS platforms (ERP/CRM/IAM) where “configuration is code” in effect
• Integrations, ETL/data pipelines, and middleware changes
• Infrastructure-as-code or significant cloud architecture builds
• Material end-user computing solutions when they function as business systems

Where to draw the line: scope BAI03 to changes that could affect confidentiality, integrity, availability, financial reporting, customer outcomes, or regulatory obligations. Document your scoping rule and stick to it.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

Step 1: Define ownership and a minimum lifecycle

Assign a BAI03 control owner (often Head of Engineering Enablement, IT PMO, or Change Management) and name accountable approvers for:

• Requirements sign-off (business owner)
• Security sign-off (security lead for defined risk tiers)
• Release approval (change authority / CAB or equivalent)

Keep it simple: one RACI matrix and a “minimum required steps” checklist mapped to your delivery workflow ¹.

Step 2: Standardize intake and requirements capture

Implement a standard intake artifact that works for both Agile and waterfall delivery:

• Problem statement and business objective
• In-scope/out-of-scope
• Functional requirements (or user stories)
• Non-functional requirements (security, availability, privacy, data retention)
• Dependencies and constraints
• Data classification and system boundary notes (if applicable)

Operator tip: auditors accept Agile artifacts if you can show completeness and approvals. A well-structured epic with linked acceptance criteria and sign-off often beats a long requirements document.

Step 3: Formalize solution option analysis (right-sized)

For each material initiative, require documented consideration of options:

• Build vs buy vs configure vs reuse vs retire
• Architectural fit and integration impacts
• Security and privacy implications (high level)
• Operational support model (who runs it, monitoring, on-call)
• Total cost considerations (qualitative is fine if you can’t quantify)

Retain the decision record (architecture decision record, design review minutes, or an approved business case). The point is to show you didn’t “default build” without evaluation ².

Step 4: Enforce design/build controls in the delivery workflow

Your build controls should be embedded where work happens (ticketing, CI/CD, change tooling). Minimum expectations:

• Version control for code and configuration
• Peer review or merge approvals
• Segregation of duties expectations for high-risk changes (document the rule, then show the workflow enforces it)
• Environment promotion rules (dev/test/prod) with approvals for production

If you can’t enforce technically, enforce procedurally and keep evidence consistent, then plan a tooling uplift.

Step 5: Testing and validation with requirements traceability

BAI03 evidence lives or dies on traceability. Require:

• Test plan or test approach (can be lightweight)
• Evidence of execution (test results, pipeline logs, screenshots for manual tests)
• Mapping from requirements/acceptance criteria to test cases or test results
• Security testing appropriate to the change (for example, SAST/DAST outcomes when applicable)

Make “definition of done” include “tests linked to requirements.” That single rule resolves most audit hangups ¹.

Step 6: Release, transition, and operational readiness

Before production release, require:

• Approved change record (or release ticket) with risk tier
• Rollback/backout plan proportional to risk
• Updated runbook or support notes
• Monitoring/alerting changes documented (or explicit statement of “no change”)
• User communication plan for user-facing changes

This is where compliance aligns tightly with uptime and incident reduction: unprepared transitions cause avoidable outages and control failures.

Step 7: Evidence retention and mapping for audit readiness

Create an evidence map that ties BAI03 to artifacts your teams already generate. The recommended control from your backend data is a good minimum: document control ownership, procedures, and evidence mapped to BAI03 ³.

Practical approach: in Daydream, teams typically store a “BAI03 evidence bundle” per release or per initiative: a single folder or record with links to all required artifacts plus the RACI and process reference. This avoids last-minute evidence hunts during audits.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Use this as your audit binder checklist:

Lifecycle point	Minimum artifacts	What auditors look for
Intake/requirements	Approved requirements/stories, acceptance criteria, data classification notes	Clear scope, accountable owner, sign-off evidence
Option analysis	Design notes, decision record, architecture review minutes	Alternatives considered, rationale documented
Build controls	Repo links, PR approvals, CI/CD logs, config change history	Controlled changes, review evidence
Testing	Test plan/approach, test results, defect log (if any)	Tests executed; results tied to requirements
Release	Change ticket, approvals, rollback plan, release notes	Controlled deployment, readiness
Transition	Runbooks, monitoring changes, training/communications	Operability and supportability

Retention period should align to your internal audit and regulatory expectations; document your rule and apply it consistently.

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

• “Show one recent production release end-to-end: requirements → build → test → approval → release.”
• “Who approves solution approach selection, and where is the evidence?”
• “How do you ensure security requirements were included and tested for this change?”
• “How do you prevent developers from pushing unreviewed changes to production?”
• “How do you handle emergency changes while maintaining traceability?”

Hangup pattern: teams provide a policy but cannot produce a complete evidence chain for a sampled change.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

1. Mistake: documenting BAI03 as a policy only.
   Fix: implement workflow gates and templates that generate evidence by default ¹.

2. Mistake: no defined “material change” threshold.
   Fix: define scoping criteria (risk tiering) and require the full BAI03 bundle only for high/medium changes.

3. Mistake: weak requirements-to-test traceability.
   Fix: enforce linking rules in Jira/Azure DevOps and require test evidence links in the release ticket.

4. Mistake: treating SaaS configuration as “not development.”
   Fix: bring configuration changes into the same change, testing, and approval path.

5. Mistake: evidence scattered across tools with no index.
   Fix: maintain an evidence index per release/initiative. Daydream can serve as the system of record for “what evidence exists where,” even if delivery remains in engineering tools.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement. Practically, BAI03 failures show up as:

• audit findings for SDLC/change management weaknesses,
• inconsistent testing evidence,
• unclear accountability for production changes,
• operational incidents tied to uncontrolled releases.

The risk is compounded when third parties build or configure systems on your behalf; you still need evidence that the solution build was governed and accepted.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize and define)

• Name the BAI03 owner and approvers; publish a one-page RACI.
• Define the in-scope change criteria and risk tiers.
• Publish templates: intake/requirements, decision record, test evidence checklist, release readiness checklist.
• Pilot an evidence bundle on a small set of current initiatives.

Next 60 days (embed into tooling and operating rhythm)

• Add workflow gates in your ticketing/change system (required fields, required approvals).
• Standardize traceability: requirements link to tests, and release ticket links to both.
• Train engineering, IT, and security reviewers on “what good evidence looks like.”
• Run an internal “mock audit” sample: pick recent changes and see if you can reconstruct the chain in under an hour.

Next 90 days (scale and prove operation)

• Expand to all in-scope teams and third parties working on your systems.
• Start KPI-style operational checks (qualitative): completeness of evidence bundles, exceptions logged and approved.
• Hold a quarterly control review: update templates and gates based on audit feedback and incident learnings.
• Centralize mapping and evidence indexing in Daydream so GRC can answer audit requests without interrupting delivery teams.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does BAI03 apply to SaaS configuration changes (like Salesforce or Workday)?

Yes when configuration changes are material and can impact business processes, data handling, or access controls. Treat configuration as part of the solution build and require the same approvals, testing evidence, and release readiness artifacts.

We’re Agile. Do we need formal requirements and design documents?

You need requirements and design evidence, but they can be Agile-native. Use epics/stories with acceptance criteria, plus a lightweight decision record or architecture review note that shows options considered and approval.

What’s the minimum evidence chain auditors expect to see for one change?

A clear set of links: approved requirements, solution decision/design note, build review evidence (PR approvals), test results tied to acceptance criteria, and an approved change/release record with rollback notes.

How do we handle emergency changes without failing BAI03?

Allow an emergency path with after-the-fact documentation requirements. Require post-implementation review notes, retroactive approvals, and captured test evidence or compensating validation.

Third parties develop for us. Who owns BAI03 evidence?

You do. Require contract language and delivery checklists that make third parties provide the same artifacts (requirements traceability, test results, release notes), then store the evidence in your repository.

What’s the fastest way to get audit-ready if we’re starting from scratch?

Standard templates plus an evidence index per release get you most of the way quickly. Use Daydream to map BAI03 to your artifacts and track which releases have complete evidence bundles versus exceptions.

Footnotes

1. ISACA COBIT overview

2. OSA COBIT 2019 objective mapping

3. ISACA COBIT overview; OSA COBIT 2019 objective mapping