Thought LeadershipTools, Platforms & Technology
AuditBoard Implementation Guide for SOC 2 Compliance
Published · Updated ·13 min read
AuditBoard's collaboration features help compliance teams work with control owners across the organization who may not be familiar with SOC 2 requirements. We recommend investing in a brief orientation session for all control owners before launching evidence requests — it dramatically improves response quality and timeliness.
Key Takeaways
- •AuditBoard's collaboration features help compliance teams work with control owners across the organization who may not be familiar with SOC 2 requirements.
- •For the next operating decision, compare SOC 2 compliance for startups with policies needed for SOC 2.
- •AuditBoard organizes compliance work through workspaces and programs.
This guide covers workspace and program setup, SOC 2 framework template configuration, control library customization, workflow automation, integration setup with enterprise systems, evidence request management, cross-functional collaboration, and how to leverage AuditBoard's audit management capabilities for organizations managing SOC 2 alongside other compliance programs.
For the next operating decision, compare SOC 2 compliance for startups with policies needed for SOC 2. Confirm the work included, the evidence you need, and who will own implementation before committing to a provider.
What prerequisites apply?
| Prerequisite | Details | How to Verify |
|---|---|---|
| AuditBoard license and admin access | Implementation requires administrator-level access to configure the platform | Confirm license activation and admin credentials with your AuditBoard account team |
| SOC 2 scope defined | Know which Trust Service Criteria, systems, and processes are in scope | Document scope decisions before beginning platform configuration |
| Control inventory | Have a preliminary list of controls or control objectives for SOC 2 | Reference your gap assessment or readiness assessment output |
| Stakeholder identification | Know which teams will own controls and provide evidence | Map control owners across engineering, IT, HR, and security teams |
| Integration inventory | List of systems that will integrate with AuditBoard for evidence collection | Document cloud providers, identity providers, HR systems, and development tools |
| Auditor engagement | Have your SOC 2 auditor selected or in process | Auditor requirements may influence how you configure the platform |
Workspace and Program Setup
Step 1: Configure Your AuditBoard Workspace
AuditBoard organizes compliance work through workspaces and programs. The workspace is your organizational container, and programs represent specific compliance initiatives.
| Configuration Element | Setting | Considerations |
|---|---|---|
| Workspace name | Your organization name | Standard naming convention; consistent across all programs |
| SOC 2 program creation | Create a dedicated SOC 2 program | Separate program for SOC 2 allows independent management; can link to other programs later |
| Program scope definition | Define the Trust Service Criteria and examination period | Match your engagement letter scope; typically Security + Availability at minimum |
| Team structure | Add team members with appropriate roles | Admin, program manager, control owner, reviewer roles available |
| Notification settings | Configure email and in-app notification preferences | Set up notifications for evidence requests, review deadlines, and status changes |
Step 2: Define Organizational Structure
AuditBoard allows you to map your organizational structure, which enables effective control ownership assignment and evidence routing.
| Structure Element | Purpose | How to Configure |
|---|---|---|
| Business units / departments | Organize controls and evidence by department | Create departments that match your organizational structure (Engineering, IT, HR, Security, Legal) |
| Locations | Define physical and cloud locations relevant to SOC 2 scope | Add office locations and cloud regions as applicable |
| Systems inventory | Catalog systems in SOC 2 scope | Add each in-scope system with description, owner, and classification |
| Third-party vendors | Document subservice organizations and key vendors | Add cloud providers, SaaS tools, and other vendors in your supply chain |
SOC 2 Framework Template Configuration
Using AuditBoard's SOC 2 Template
AuditBoard provides a SOC 2 framework template that maps Trust Service Criteria to controls. In our experience, customizing this template to your organization is the most critical implementation step — do not skip or rush it.
| Template Configuration Step | Details | Time Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| Import SOC 2 framework template | Load AuditBoard's pre-built SOC 2 Trust Service Criteria mapping | Depends on scope and readiness |
| Select applicable Trust Service Criteria | Enable only the criteria included in your SOC 2 scope | 30 minutes |
| Review default control mappings | Examine the pre-mapped controls for each criteria point | Depends on scope and readiness |
| Customize control descriptions | Modify control descriptions to match your specific implementations | Depends on scope and readiness |
| Add organization-specific controls | Add controls unique to your environment not covered by the default template | Depends on scope and readiness |
| Remove non-applicable controls | Disable or remove controls that do not apply to your organization | Depends on scope and readiness |
| Total template configuration | Complete framework template ready for use | Depends on scope and readiness |
Trust Service Criteria Mapping
| Criteria Series | AuditBoard Template Coverage | Customization Needed |
|---|---|---|
| CC1 — Control Environment | Pre-mapped controls for organizational structure, governance, HR processes | Moderate — customize to your governance structure and HR practices |
| CC2 — Communication and Information | Pre-mapped controls for internal and external communication | Light — adjust communication channels and stakeholders |
| CC3 — Risk Assessment | Pre-mapped controls for risk identification and evaluation | Moderate — customize to your risk assessment methodology |
| CC4 — Monitoring Activities | Pre-mapped controls for ongoing and separate evaluations | Moderate — customize to your monitoring tools and cadence |
| CC5 — Control Activities | Pre-mapped controls for control selection and development | Light — general control activity framework |
| CC6 — Logical and Physical Access | Pre-mapped controls for access management and authentication | Heavy — customize extensively for your identity management and access control implementation |
| CC7 — System Operations | Pre-mapped controls for detection and response | Moderate — customize for your monitoring and incident response tools |
| CC8 — Change Management | Pre-mapped controls for change control processes | Heavy — customize for your development workflow and deployment pipeline |
| CC9 — Risk Mitigation | Pre-mapped controls for risk management activities | Light — general risk mitigation framework |
| A1 — Availability | Pre-mapped controls for capacity and disaster recovery | Moderate — customize for your infrastructure and DR approach |
| C1 — Confidentiality | Pre-mapped controls for confidential information handling | Moderate — customize for your data classification and handling |
| PI1 — Processing Integrity | Pre-mapped controls for processing accuracy and completeness | Heavy — customize for your specific data processing activities |
Control Library Customization
Building Your Control Library
AuditBoard's control library is the central repository of all controls your organization maintains. For SOC 2, we recommend ensuring each control maps to one or more Trust Service Criteria points — this mapping is what your auditor will test against.
| Control Attribute | Purpose | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Control ID | Unique identifier for tracking and reference | CC6.1-01, CC8.1-03 |
| Control title | Brief descriptive title | "Multi-Factor Authentication Enforcement" |
| Control description | Detailed description of what the control does | "MFA is enforced for all users accessing production systems through the identity provider configuration" |
| Control type | Preventive, detective, or corrective | Preventive |
| Control frequency | How often the control operates | Continuous, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, annually |
| Control owner | Person responsible for the control's operation | Security Engineer, IT Manager, Engineering Lead |
| Evidence type | What evidence demonstrates the control is operating | Configuration screenshot, system-generated report, log export, policy document |
| Criteria mapping | Which Trust Service Criteria the control addresses | CC6.1, CC6.2 |
| Testing procedure | How the control's effectiveness will be tested | "Review IdP configuration confirming MFA is enabled for all users; verify no exemptions exist" |
Control Ownership Assignment
| Department | Typical Control Areas | Number of Controls (Typical) |
|---|---|---|
| Security / IT | Access management, network security, endpoint protection, vulnerability management | 25-40 controls |
| Engineering | Change management, code review, deployment controls, infrastructure configuration | 15-25 controls |
| HR | Onboarding, offboarding, background checks, security training | 8-12 controls |
| Leadership / GRC | Governance, risk assessment, policy management, vendor management | 10-15 controls |
| Operations | Incident response, business continuity, backup management | 8-12 controls |
Which workflows should you automate?
Configuring Automated Workflows
AuditBoard's workflow engine allows you to automate recurring compliance activities, reducing manual effort and ensuring consistency. We advise clients to prioritize evidence request automation and access review workflows first — these two deliver the highest return on setup time.
| Workflow Type | Configuration | Benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence request automation | Schedule recurring evidence collection requests to control owners | Ensures evidence is collected on time; reduces manual follow-up |
| Review and approval workflows | Configure multi-step review workflows for evidence and controls | Enforces review process; creates audit trail of approvals |
| Access review workflows | Schedule quarterly access review tasks with assignment and tracking | Automates the most common SOC 2 finding area (CC6 access reviews) |
| Risk assessment workflows | Schedule periodic risk assessment activities with assigned reviewers | Ensures risk assessments occur on schedule |
| Policy review workflows | Schedule annual policy review tasks with acknowledgment tracking | Tracks policy currency and employee acknowledgment |
| Exception management workflows | Route control exceptions through investigation and remediation | Ensures exceptions are documented, investigated, and resolved |
Evidence Collection Cadence
| Evidence Type | Collection Frequency | Workflow Configuration |
|---|---|---|
| System configurations (cloud, IdP, MDM) | Monthly or continuous (via integration) | Automated collection where integrated; monthly manual request where not |
| Access review documentation | Quarterly | Quarterly workflow triggering access review tasks for each system owner |
| Policy documents | Annual review | Annual workflow for policy review and re-acknowledgment |
| Training completion records | Annual or upon hire | Annual training cycle workflow; new hire onboarding workflow |
| Vulnerability scan results | Monthly or continuous | Monthly evidence request or integration with scanning tools |
| Change management evidence (PRs, reviews) | Continuous (via integration) | Automated collection through repository integration |
| Incident response evidence | Per incident | Triggered by incident declaration; follows incident response workflow |
| Risk assessment documentation | Annual | Annual risk assessment workflow with multi-step review |
How should you configure integrations?
Enterprise Integration Strategy
AuditBoard's integration ecosystem is designed for enterprise environments. In our experience, configuring integrations is where you get the most leverage — automating evidence collection eliminates the largest recurring time cost.
| Integration Category | Common Integrations | Evidence Collected | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cloud infrastructure | AWS, GCP, Azure | Infrastructure configuration, encryption status, network security, IAM | High — largest evidence volume |
| Identity provider | Okta, Azure AD, Google Workspace | User management, MFA configuration, SSO settings, access logs | High — foundational access control evidence |
| Code repository | GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket | Branch protection, PR reviews, code review evidence | High — change management evidence |
| HR system | Workday, BambooHR, Rippling | Employee roster, onboarding, terminations | High — access lifecycle evidence |
| Endpoint management | Jamf, Kandji, Intune | Device encryption, security configuration, compliance status | Medium — endpoint security evidence |
| Ticketing | Jira, ServiceNow | Change management tickets, incident records | Medium — process evidence |
| Vulnerability scanning | Qualys, Rapid7, Nessus | Vulnerability assessment results, remediation tracking | Medium — vulnerability management evidence |
| Monitoring and alerting | Datadog, PagerDuty, Splunk | Monitoring configuration, alert evidence, log management | Medium — operations evidence |
Integration Configuration Process
For each integration:
- Identify the evidence the integration provides — Map integration data to specific SOC 2 controls
- Configure API credentials — Set up service accounts or API tokens with read-only access
- Configure data synchronization — Set sync frequency (real-time, hourly, daily)
- Map data to controls — Link integration data to the appropriate controls in your library
- Verify data accuracy — Compare integration data to direct source verification
- Set up monitoring — Configure alerts for integration failures or data gaps
Evidence Request Management
Managing Evidence Across Teams
One of AuditBoard's strengths is its evidence request management system, which helps compliance teams coordinate evidence collection across the organization. What we tell clients is that evidence management is where many AuditBoard implementations either succeed or struggle — invest in clear templates and realistic due dates.
| Evidence Management Feature | How to Use It | Best Practice |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence requests | Create and assign evidence collection tasks to control owners | Include clear instructions, examples, and due dates in each request |
| Templates | Create reusable evidence request templates for recurring collections | Standardize templates for each evidence type to ensure consistency |
| Due date tracking | Set due dates and track completion status | Depends on scope and readiness |
| Review and approval | Configure review steps for submitted evidence | Require compliance team review before marking evidence as complete |
| Evidence repository | Organize completed evidence by control, period, and type | Use consistent naming conventions and folder structures |
| Auditor access | Grant auditor read-only access to the evidence repository | Coordinate with your auditor on preferred evidence format and organization |
Evidence Organization Best Practices
| Organization Strategy | Implementation | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Control-based filing | Organize evidence by control ID (CC6.1-01, CC8.1-03) | Auditors test by control; control-based organization streamlines fieldwork |
| Period-based folders | Create folders for each audit period (quarterly, annual) | Prevents evidence from different periods being confused |
| Consistent naming | Use standardized file naming conventions | Reduces confusion; makes evidence searchable |
| Version control | Maintain version history for evidence that updates over time | Demonstrates evidence currency; shows changes over time |
| Completeness tracking | Use AuditBoard's dashboard to track evidence completeness by control | Identifies gaps before audit fieldwork begins |
Cross-Functional Collaboration
Engaging Control Owners
| Collaboration Feature | Use Case | Configuration |
|---|---|---|
| Role-based access | Give control owners access only to their controls and evidence tasks | Configure granular permissions by department and control area |
| Task assignment | Assign specific evidence collection and review tasks to individuals | Use clear task descriptions with context about why the evidence is needed |
| Communication threads | Enable discussion on specific controls or evidence items | Use in-platform communication to maintain an audit trail |
| Training materials | Provide control owners with guidance on SOC 2 and their responsibilities | Create a brief SOC 2 orientation for control owners explaining their role |
| Dashboard views | Give control owners visibility into their outstanding tasks | Configure department-specific dashboards showing task status |
| Automated reminders | Set up reminder notifications for approaching due dates | Configure reminders at seven days, three days, and one day before due date |
Multi-Framework Leverage
Using AuditBoard for SOC 2 Alongside Other Frameworks
AuditBoard's enterprise positioning means many organizations use it for multiple compliance frameworks simultaneously. We consistently see cross-framework control mapping deliver the highest ROI for our clients — leveraging shared controls reduces duplicate effort significantly.
Cross-Framework Control Mapping
- Identify shared controls — Review controls that map to multiple frameworks
- Create unified control descriptions — Write control descriptions that satisfy all mapped frameworks
- Configure multi-framework evidence collection — Collect evidence once, map to multiple controls
- Set up framework-specific testing — Where testing procedures differ, configure separate test plans
- Generate framework-specific reports — Use AuditBoard's reporting to produce framework-specific views
Audit Readiness
Preparing for Auditor Fieldwork in AuditBoard
| Preparation Step | Timing | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence completeness review | Depends on scope and readiness | Review dashboard for evidence gaps; follow up on outstanding requests |
| Evidence quality review | Depends on scope and readiness | Compliance team reviews evidence for accuracy and completeness |
| Auditor workspace setup | Depends on scope and readiness | Configure auditor read-only access; provide platform orientation |
| Control walkthrough preparation | Depends on scope and readiness | Prepare control owners for auditor walkthroughs; review control descriptions |
| Evidence export preparation | Depends on scope and readiness | Prepare evidence exports for any controls not covered by direct platform access |
| Final completeness check | Depends on scope and readiness | Final review of all evidence; address any remaining gaps |
AICPA & CIMA’s SOC overview describes CPA assurance services. It defines the assurance context; it does not establish vendor rankings, market prices, or a particular company’s readiness.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is implementing AuditBoard different from Vanta or Drata?
AuditBoard is built for enterprise GRC rather than startup compliance automation, so implementation is configuration-heavy. You customize the framework template, build out the control library, and design workflows, instead of connecting integrations and accepting sensible defaults.
What is the most important step in an AuditBoard SOC 2 setup?
Customizing the SOC 2 framework template to your organization. The template maps Trust Service Criteria to controls, and that mapping is exactly what your auditor tests against, so rushing it creates rework through the rest of the engagement.
Which AuditBoard workflows should you automate first?
Evidence request automation and access review workflows. Both are recurring, high-volume, and easy to verify, so they return the most for the setup time. Integrations come next, since automated evidence collection removes the largest ongoing manual cost.
Tyler Carbone
Managing Director and Cofounder
Tyler Carbone is a Managing Director and Cofounder of Agency and one of the industry's leading voices on governance, risk, and compliance. He holds degrees from Harvard and a JD/MBA from the University of Virginia, and previously worked in cybersecurity at Deloitte. Tyler has helped hundreds of companies operate SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR programs.
LinkedIn
