MEA01: Managed Performance and Conformance Monitoring

MEA01 requires you to run a managed, repeatable monitoring program that measures IT performance and confirms conformance to internal policies and external obligations, then proves it with retained evidence. Operationalize it by defining what you measure, assigning owners, setting targets and thresholds, monitoring on a set cadence, escalating exceptions, and reporting results to management with traceable artifacts. ¹

Key takeaways:

• MEA01 is a “measure, monitor, evaluate, escalate, and report” requirement for IT performance and conformance. ¹
• Evidence matters as much as monitoring; auditors will ask for artifacts that tie metrics to actions and decisions. ²
• Make it operational with a metric catalog, dashboards, exception workflows, and a governance cadence with documented minutes and actions. ¹

“MEA01: managed performance and conformance monitoring requirement” is where COBIT stops being a design framework and becomes an operating discipline. For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the fastest path to implementation is to treat MEA01 as a closed-loop system: define what “good” looks like, measure it, spot deviations, drive corrective action, and retain proof that this happens consistently.

MEA01 commonly fails in practice for two reasons. First, organizations monitor lots of things but cannot explain why those metrics matter, who owns them, what thresholds trigger action, and how exceptions get resolved. Second, teams can describe their monitoring verbally, but cannot produce decision-grade evidence (tickets, minutes, attestations, dashboards, and follow-ups) that shows monitoring is managed and acted on.

This page gives requirement-level guidance you can apply immediately: scope who and what is in MEA01, build a minimum viable monitoring inventory, set reporting and escalation paths, and create an evidence trail that will survive audit scrutiny. COBIT is a framework, not a statute; your obligation is to meet the implementation expectation in a way that is consistent, risk-based, and provable. ¹

Regulatory text

Framework excerpt (provided): “COBIT 2019 objective MEA01 implementation expectation.” ¹

Operator interpretation: You must implement and operate a managed capability to:

• Monitor performance of IT-enabled services and internal IT processes against defined objectives.
• Monitor conformance to internal requirements (policies, standards, control expectations) and applicable external obligations where your organization has adopted COBIT-aligned governance.
• Evaluate results, identify exceptions, and drive corrective actions.
• Report to the right decision-makers with evidence that monitoring occurs and is used for governance. ¹

COBIT allows flexibility in how you implement, but it does not excuse ad hoc monitoring. “Managed” means roles are defined, metrics are defined, thresholds are defined, monitoring is repeatable, and exceptions are handled through a documented process. ²

Plain-English interpretation (what MEA01 expects)

MEA01 expects you to answer, with evidence, five exam-style questions:

1. What are you monitoring and why? A defined set of performance and conformance measures tied to business and control objectives.
2. Who is accountable? Named metric owners, data owners, and an escalation owner (often IT Ops plus GRC).
3. How do you know it’s working? Targets, thresholds, and trend analysis, not just raw data.
4. What happens when you miss? A consistent exception and corrective action workflow.
5. How do leaders know? A reporting cadence that reaches operational owners and governance forums. ¹

Who it applies to

Entities: Any enterprise IT organization (or IT function) using COBIT 2019 as its governance framework, including regulated enterprises that adopt COBIT to structure IT controls. ¹

Operational contexts where MEA01 shows up in audits:

• Central IT operations and service management (incident/problem/change, availability, capacity).
• Security operations and control monitoring where “conformance” overlaps with internal security standards.
• GRC-managed control testing and continuous controls monitoring programs.
• Outsourced or hybrid operating models where third parties run IT services and you still need performance and conformance visibility.

Practical scope boundary (set this explicitly):

• In-scope systems: production services, key business applications, identity platforms, network/security infrastructure, core data platforms.
• In-scope obligations: internal policies/standards you’ve adopted, contractual requirements you must monitor, and control commitments you report on internally.
• Out-of-scope: experimental pilots or sandbox environments, if explicitly documented with risk acceptance and review criteria.

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

1) Define ownership and governance for monitoring

Create a simple RACI that covers:

• MEA01 process owner (often IT Service Management lead or GRC lead).
• Metric owners (service owners, control owners).
• Data producers (tool owners: SIEM, ITSM, cloud monitoring, GRC platform).
• Exception manager (who ensures corrective actions close).
• Approvers for changes to metric definitions and thresholds.

Minimum governance: a standing agenda item in an operational risk or IT governance forum where monitoring outcomes and exceptions are reviewed and decisions are recorded. ¹

2) Build a metric catalog (the core artifact)

Create a “MEA01 Monitoring Register” with, at minimum, these fields:

Field	What to record	Example
Metric name	Plain name	“Change success rate”
Type	Performance / Conformance	Conformance
Objective	What it demonstrates	“Changes follow process and do not degrade service”
Owner	Accountable person	Head of IT Ops
Data source	Tool + report	ITSM change report
Threshold	Trigger point	“Escalate if below target”
Review cadence	How often reviewed	Weekly ops; monthly governance
Exception workflow	Ticket type + SLA	“Problem record + corrective action”
Evidence	Where stored	GRC folder + meeting minutes

Do not start with dozens of metrics. Start with a defensible set mapped to critical services and key control obligations, then expand. ²

3) Set targets, thresholds, and decision rules

For each metric, document:

• Target (the desired state).
• Threshold(s) (what triggers escalation).
• Tolerance (one-off vs trend).
• Decision rule (who decides what action is required).

Auditors look for consistency: the same type of exception should follow the same path, unless you document a risk-based rationale. ¹

4) Implement monitoring operations (collect → review → act)

Operationalize the loop:

1. Collect metric data from authoritative systems (ITSM, monitoring, GRC testing results).
2. Validate data quality (missing fields, stale data, tool coverage gaps).
3. Review on the defined cadence (ops review plus governance review).
4. Record outcomes (pass, warn, fail) and the decisions taken.
5. Escalate exceptions to a tracked corrective action.
6. Close corrective action with verification (re-test metric, confirm sustained performance).

A common exam hangup: teams escalate by email but never convert the issue into a tracked artifact with an owner and due date. Treat exceptions as first-class work items. ²

5) Report performance and conformance in a management-ready format

Build two reporting layers:

• Operational dashboard (for teams): detailed, actionable metrics and exception queues.
• Governance report (for management): trends, top exceptions, root causes, remediation status, and risk acceptance decisions.

Include narrative on what changed since last period and what decisions were made. Meeting minutes are often the simplest proof that monitoring influenced governance. ¹

6) Control the documentation (so you can prove it later)

MEA01 usually fails because evidence is scattered. Set:

• A standard naming convention for dashboards and exports.
• A single system of record (GRC tool, controlled SharePoint, or evidence repository).
• Retention and access controls aligned to your internal policy.

If you use Daydream to manage third-party risk or broader GRC workflows, treat MEA01 evidence like any other control: map the monitoring register to owners, store artifacts per metric, and track exceptions as corrective actions with status and approvals. Keep the workflow simple; the value is audit-ready traceability.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Auditors and assessors typically want artifacts that prove the loop runs and results in action:

Design evidence (what you intended):

• MEA01 Monitoring Register (metric catalog) with owners, sources, thresholds, and cadences.
• Documented escalation criteria and corrective action workflow.
• Role assignments (RACI) and governance charter/agenda.

Operating evidence (what happened):

• Dashboard screenshots or exported reports for the review periods.
• Meeting minutes showing review, decisions, and follow-ups.
• Tickets/records for exceptions (incident/problem/change nonconformance, control failures).
• Corrective action plans with owners, dates, and closure evidence.
• Evidence of threshold or metric changes with approval.

Traceability evidence (how it ties together):

• Crosswalk from key services/controls to metrics.
• Links from metric exceptions to corrective actions and closure verification. ²

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Use these as a readiness checklist:

• “Show me your defined performance and conformance measures and why you chose them.”
• “Who owns this metric, and what do they do when it breaches threshold?”
• “Where is the evidence that management reviewed results?”
• “How do you ensure monitoring coverage across critical services, including outsourced components?”
• “How do you validate data quality from monitoring tools?”
• “Show me a recent exception from detection through closure and verification.” ¹

Hangups that cause findings:

• Metrics exist, but no documented thresholds or decisions.
• Exceptions are discussed but not tracked to closure.
• Reporting is produced, but there’s no proof it was reviewed by accountable leaders.
• Conformance is treated as annual audit only, with no ongoing monitoring discipline. ²

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

Mistake	Why it fails	Fix
Monitoring “everything”	Noise hides risk; teams stop acting	Start with critical services + key obligations; add only if decisions change
No clear ownership	Exceptions stall	Assign a named owner per metric and an escalation owner
Thresholds are vague	No consistent action	Write explicit decision rules and escalation triggers
Evidence is ad hoc	You can’t prove operation	Centralize evidence and standardize period snapshots
Conformance disconnected from operations	GRC finds issues late	Feed control testing results into the same exception workflow

Enforcement context and risk implications

COBIT is a framework; public enforcement typically cites sector regulations rather than COBIT objectives directly. Your risk is indirect but real: weak monitoring and weak evidence increase the chance that operational failures, security control gaps, or contractual nonconformance persist until they become incidents or audit findings. MEA01 reduces that risk by turning oversight into a repeatable operating rhythm with traceable artifacts. ¹

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Use phased delivery without pretending timing guarantees.

First 30 days (Immediate foundation)

• Name the MEA01 owner and approve a one-page scope statement.
• Draft the MEA01 Monitoring Register with an initial set of performance and conformance metrics tied to critical services.
• Define thresholds and escalation rules for each metric.
• Stand up an evidence repository structure and naming convention.
• Start capturing meeting minutes for the monitoring review forum. ¹

By 60 days (Run the loop and prove it works)

• Operate at least one full review cycle end-to-end: collect, review, record, escalate, close.
• Convert exceptions into tracked corrective actions with owners and due dates.
• Produce a management report with trend and top exceptions.
• Validate data quality for the highest-risk metrics; document known gaps and remediation plans. ²

By 90 days (Harden and scale)

• Expand metric coverage to remaining critical services and key conformance obligations.
• Add a change control step for metric definitions and thresholds (approval + versioning).
• Introduce periodic effectiveness checks: sample exceptions and confirm closure verification.
• Prepare an “audit packet” export: register, dashboards, minutes, exceptions, corrective actions, and crosswalk. ¹

Frequently Asked Questions

Does MEA01 require specific KPIs, like availability or incident response times?

COBIT MEA01 does not mandate specific KPIs; it expects managed monitoring with defined measures, thresholds, owners, and actions. Pick metrics tied to your critical services and your internal conformance obligations. ¹

How do I separate “performance” monitoring from “conformance” monitoring in practice?

Performance metrics show service/process outcomes (uptime, throughput, change success). Conformance metrics show adherence to requirements (policy compliance, control pass/fail, required reviews completed). Keep both in the same register but label the type and map each to an objective. ²

What’s the minimum evidence I need to pass an audit for MEA01?

Auditors usually need a metric catalog with ownership and thresholds, plus operating proof: periodic reports, meeting minutes, and at least a few exception-to-closure examples. If you can trace one metric breach through corrective action and verification, you are in good shape. ¹

We outsource key IT services to third parties. How does MEA01 apply?

You still need monitoring and conformance visibility. Add third-party-provided metrics and attestations to your register, define escalation paths when the third party misses targets, and retain the evidence alongside internal metrics. ¹

Can we satisfy MEA01 with dashboards alone?

Dashboards are necessary but rarely sufficient. You need proof of review, decisions, and corrective actions, typically captured through minutes and tracked tickets. ²

How does Daydream fit into MEA01 without turning it into a tooling project?

Treat Daydream as the system of record for the MEA01 register, evidence attachments, and exception tracking across owners. Start with a small metric set and enforce traceability, then expand coverage as teams stabilize the operating cadence.

Footnotes

1. ISACA COBIT overview

2. OSA COBIT 2019 objective mapping