Quality Objectives 2026¶
Document ID: BD-QMS-OBJECTIVES-001 Version: 1.0 Year: 2026 Effective Date: 2026-03-17 Review Date: 2026-12-31
Alignment with Quality Policy¶
These objectives align with BeDefended's Quality Policy commitments: - Consistent, non-destructive testing methodology - Accurate, verified findings with full compliance mapping - On-time delivery exceeding client expectations - Continuous improvement through feedback integration - Team competence and certification currency
Strategic Quality Objectives (Annual)¶
QO-1: Finding Accuracy & Verification (CSAT Impact: HIGH)¶
Objective: Maintain ≥99% finding accuracy rate through rigorous PoC verification
Target: - Verified PoCs for 100% of findings (no unverified/presumed findings) - False positive rate: <1% (0-3 false positives per 300 findings) - Finding severity accuracy: ≥98% peer-reviewed
Current Baseline: 98.2% accuracy (2025)
Measurement: - Track false positives monthly (ratio: FP / total findings) - Peer review before delivery (minimum 1 reviewer, max 3% defect rate) - Client dispute rate (target: <0.5% of findings disputed post-delivery)
Owner: QA Lead Timeline: Quarterly reviews, corrective actions as needed
Success Criteria: - All findings have working, reproducible PoCs - CVSS 4.0 vector validation (vector reviewed by ≥1 reviewer) - Zero findings reported without evidence - Client feedback: "Findings were accurate and actionable"
QO-2: On-Time Delivery & Engagement Management (CSAT Impact: HIGH)¶
Objective: 100% of reports delivered by agreed-upon date
Target: - Zero late deliveries (0 reports delivered >1 day past deadline) - Average delivery time: <5 working days post-testing phase (down from 7d) - Client satisfaction with timeline: ≥4.5/5
Current Baseline: 94% on-time (2025) — 3 late deliveries of 40 engagements
Measurement: - Track delivery date vs. agreed deadline (monthly report) - Identify delays: resource constraints, scope creep, tool failures - Root cause analysis on any delayed engagement - Client survey question: "Report was delivered when promised" (scale: 1-5)
Owner: Engagement Manager Timeline: Weekly tracking, monthly review
Success Criteria: - CSAT for "Timeline" component ≥4.5/5 - Zero unplanned delays (only delays due to client-requested scope expansion) - Report turnaround time trending downward
QO-3: Client Satisfaction (CSAT) (CSAT Impact: HIGHEST)¶
Objective: Achieve average CSAT score ≥4.5/5 across all engagements
Target: - Overall CSAT: ≥4.5/5 (5-point scale) - "Findings were accurate": ≥4.5/5 - "Recommendations were actionable": ≥4.5/5 - "Would recommend BeDefended": ≥90% (yes/probably)
Current Baseline: 4.3/5 (2025) — trending upward
Measurement: - Post-engagement CSAT survey (sent 7 days after delivery) - Survey questions: 10-point scale covering accuracy, actionability, communication, overall satisfaction - Response rate target: ≥70% - Trending: Monthly average, quarterly review
Owner: Client Success Manager Timeline: Real-time tracking, weekly review of new surveys
Success Criteria: - Average CSAT ≥4.5/5 for 11/12 months in 2026 - Zero CSAT <3.0 (critical escalations) - Client retention: >95% of prior clients re-engage in 2026
QO-4: Compliance Mapping Coverage (CSAT Impact: MEDIUM)¶
Objective: 100% of requested compliance frameworks mapped in every report
Target: - Framework coverage: 100% of frameworks requested by client are included - Mapping accuracy: ≥95% of findings mapped to correct control/safeguard - Report completeness: Classification, approval blocks, distribution lists for all engagement types
Current Baseline: 92% (2025) — missing HIPAA mappings in some reports
Measurement: - Checklist per report: All frameworks listed in request → present in report - Spot audit: 10% of reports monthly for mapping accuracy - Client feedback: "Compliance sections were complete and useful"
Owner: Compliance Officer Timeline: Per-report verification, monthly audit
Success Criteria: - Zero reports missing requested frameworks - All findings mapped to CVSS + compliance controls - Client confirms: "Report meets our compliance requirements"
QO-5: Report Quality & Peer Review (CSAT Impact: MEDIUM)¶
Objective: ≥95% of reports pass peer review on first attempt (no rework)
Target: - Peer review pass rate: ≥95% (1st submission passes review) - Average review turnaround: <24 hours - Defect rate: <3% (formatting, clarity, accuracy issues) - Zero grammatical errors in final report
Current Baseline: 87% (2025) — ~5 reports of 40 required rework
Measurement: - Track peer review submissions: passes/failures ratio - Identify failure root causes (template errors, missing sections, FP findings) - Quality scorecard: Grammar check, formatting compliance, completeness
Owner: QA Lead Timeline: Per-report feedback, monthly metrics
Success Criteria: - Rework rate <5% (at most 2 reports per quarter) - Client feedback: "Report was well-written and professional" - Template adherence: 100%
QO-6: Team Competence & Certifications (CSAT Impact: MEDIUM)¶
Objective: 100% of pentester staff maintain active, relevant certifications
Target: - CEH/OSCP/equivalent: 100% of pentesters (currently 85%) - Certification currency: 0 expired certs (monitor 90-day pre-expiration) - Annual training completion: 100% (security awareness, compliance, tools) - Knowledge sharing: ≥4 internal training sessions per year
Current Baseline: 85% CEH/OSCP (2025) — 3 staff without certs
Measurement: - Quarterly certification audit (expiration dates vs. renewals) - Training attendance tracking - Internal knowledge share calendar + attendee logs - Client survey: "Pentesters demonstrated deep technical knowledge"
Owner: HR / Training Lead Timeline: Quarterly cert audit, monthly training calendar
Success Criteria: - 100% of active pentester staff with current certs - Zero training sessions cancelled - Team feedback: "Training improved my skills"
QO-7: Non-Destructive Testing Compliance (CSAT Impact: CRITICAL)¶
Objective: 100% adherence to non-destructive testing rules in all engagements
Target: - Zero data modifications (0 INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE executions) - Zero service disruptions (0 DoS attacks, rate limiting respected) - Zero unauthorized access to systems outside scope - Zero client complaints about damage or disruption
Current Baseline: 100% (2025) — perfect compliance, continue
Measurement: - Pre-engagement rules of engagement review (signed by pentester + client) - Methodology checklist: Non-destructive markers on all testing - Post-engagement client confirmation: "Testing did not disrupt our systems" - Audit: Sample <5% of evidence (HTTP traffic, command output) for compliance
Owner: CISO + QA Lead Timeline: Per-engagement verification, monthly spot audit
Success Criteria: - Zero non-compliance incidents - Client confirmation: 100% "Testing was non-disruptive" - Methodology adherence: 100%
QO-8: Attack Surface & Endpoint Coverage (CSAT Impact: MEDIUM)¶
Objective: Achieve ≥85% endpoint coverage in all discoveries
Target: - Endpoint discovery rate: ≥85% of total endpoints identified + tested - API parameter coverage: ≥80% of parameters identified - JS source analysis: ≥90% of JS sources analyzed - Testing completeness: All discovered endpoints have ≥1 test skill applied
Current Baseline: 78% (2025) — gaps in API parameter discovery
Measurement: - App-map.json: Total endpoints discovered vs. documented - Test plan: Endpoints assigned to test skills (coverage %) - Phase 4 verification: All endpoints in test plan received testing - Client feedback: "You didn't miss any endpoints"
Owner: Lead Pentester Timeline: Per-engagement review, quarterly analysis
Success Criteria: - Average coverage ≥85% across Q1-Q4 engagements - Zero client-identified endpoints missed by BeDefended - Phase completeness: <2% endpoints untested
Quarterly Targets¶
| Objective | Q1 Target | Q2 Target | Q3 Target | Q4 Target | YTD Target |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finding Accuracy | 98% | 98.5% | 99% | 99% | 99% |
| On-Time Delivery | 95% | 97% | 98% | 100% | 98% |
| CSAT Overall | 4.3/5 | 4.4/5 | 4.45/5 | 4.5/5 | ≥4.5/5 |
| Compliance Mapping | 94% | 96% | 98% | 100% | 100% |
| Peer Review Pass | 90% | 92% | 94% | 95% | ≥95% |
| Certifications Current | 90% | 95% | 98% | 100% | 100% |
| Non-Destructive | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% | 100% |
| Coverage | 80% | 82% | 84% | 85% | ≥85% |
Responsibilities & Ownership¶
| Objective | Owner | Support | Review |
|---|---|---|---|
| Finding Accuracy | QA Lead | Pentester team | Weekly |
| On-Time Delivery | Engagement Manager | Project Mgr, Pentester | Weekly |
| CSAT | Client Success | All staff | Weekly |
| Compliance Mapping | Compliance Officer | Report generator | Monthly |
| Peer Review | QA Lead | Reviewer pool | Per report |
| Certifications | HR / Training | All staff | Quarterly |
| Non-Destructive | CISO + QA Lead | Pentester team | Per engagement |
| Coverage | Lead Pentester | All pentesters | Per engagement |
Monitoring & Review¶
Dashboard¶
- Real-time CSAT tracking (Engagement Manager dashboard)
- Monthly accuracy metrics (QA spreadsheet + trend chart)
- Quarterly review meeting (all objective owners + leadership)
Adjustments¶
- If objective at risk: Monthly 1:1 with owner to identify barriers and support
- If exceeded consistently: Raise target in next quarter
- If unachievable: Review root cause (resource, tooling, process) and adjust
Approval & Sign-Off¶
| Role | Signature | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Quality Manager | _____ | 2026-03-17 |
| CISO | _____ | 2026-03-17 |
| CEO | _____ | 2026-03-17 |
Review Schedule: Quarterly (end of each quarter) Next Review: 2026-06-30
Document Control - Owner: Quality Manager - Last Updated: 2026-03-17 - Status: Approved