By the time you’re done reading this, you’ll realize that treating OT like IT could cost you more than just a failed audit. It could cost you the plant.
In today’s world, compliance isn’t just a checkbox. It’s a frontline defense and nowhere is that more evident than in Operational Technology (OT). But many organizations still try to treat OT and IT compliance as two sides of the same coin. That’s where they go dangerously wrong.
Let’s break it down: what makes OT compliance different, why those differences matter, and what happens when you ignore them.
1. The Stakes Are Higher in OT
In IT, non-compliance might mean data breaches or financial loss. In OT, it could mean physical harm, equipment shutdowns, or nationwide supply chain disruptions.
Take the 2021 Oldsmar water treatment plant attack in Florida. Hackers remotely increased the level of sodium hydroxide in the water supply. It was caught in time but it’s a chilling reminder that OT non-compliance isn’t just about penalties. It’s about public safety.
2. The Controls Can’t Just Be Copied
IT compliance focuses on systems that can be regularly patched, restarted, or replaced.
OT systems? They’re often legacy assets, decades old, and can’t afford downtime. Patching a control system running a turbine or refinery process isn’t just disruptive, it can be dangerous.
That’s why standard IT protocols like frequent patching or endpoint antivirus often don’t apply in OT. According to a 2021 Ponemon Institute report, 44% of OT/ICS security leaders cite technical incompatibilities as one of the top reasons OT and IT teams fail to align.
3. The Frameworks Are Different for Good Reason
If you’re trying to manage your plant’s compliance using NIST 800-53 or ISO 27001 alone, you’re missing half the picture.
OT environments need frameworks like:
- IEC 62443 (tailored for industrial control systems)
- NERC CIP (for North American energy sector)
- NIST SP 800-82 (for ICS-specific guidance)
In fact, only 38% of organizations use ISA/IEC 62443, and 36% use no OT-specific standard at all. [Source: Ponemon Institute’s 2021 State of Industrial Cybersecurity Report]. That’s a worrying gap and one of the biggest reasons audit failures in OT are rising.
4. Safety Trumps Security in OT
In IT, the goal is security first. In OT? Safety always comes first.
You can’t lock down an OT system if it risks shutting off critical safety functions. The controls need to be engineering-informed, not just security-informed.
The SANS 2025 ICS/OT Cybersecurity Survey warns against applying IT controls directly in OT environments, noting that it can create a false sense of security and increase the risk of disruptive false positives.
5. The Attack Paths Are Interconnected
Here’s the scary part: 58% of OT breaches originate from compromised IT systems [Source: SANS 2025 ICS/OT Cybersecurity Budget Survey].
You can’t treat IT and OT compliance as isolated silos. But you must design controls that reflect the unique requirements of each.
When ransomware hits IT, it’s a race to contain it. When it pivots to OT, it becomes a race against physical consequences.
6. The Cost of Getting It Wrong Is Massive
A single cybersecurity incident in OT costs an average of $2.98 million, with over 316 days required for detection, investigation, and remediation. [Source: Ponemon Institute’s State of Industrial Cybersecurity Report 2021].
Those numbers aren’t theoretical. They’re based on real-world analysis of breach response efforts in energy, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure sectors.
That’s not just downtime. That’s lost revenue, regulatory fines, damaged reputation and in some cases, loss of human life.
Compliance Is Not Enough; You Need Context
Even organizations with compliance checklists in place still fail audits or suffer breaches because they lack context:
- Is this control relevant to this specific system?
- Is the asset categorized correctly under IEC 62443?
- Do we know who accessed what and when?
Without deep asset visibility and contextual compliance tracking, compliance becomes just a paper exercise.
And paper won’t save you during an incident.
So, What Should You Do Differently?
To close the gap between OT and IT compliance without compromising either; here’s what modern organizations are doing:
- Using OT-specific frameworks (IEC 62443, NIST SP 800-82)
- Maintaining a complete, contextual asset inventory
- Shifting from checklist compliance to risk-based governance
- Fostering collaboration between IT and OT teams, not command-and-control
- Investing in continuous improvement, not just annual audits
- Aligning compliance workflows with real-world engineering constraints
Final Thoughts: Compliance Is the Floor, Not the Ceiling
OT compliance isn’t about ticking boxes. It’s about ensuring safety, operational continuity, and resilience in environments where even a minor lapse can have major consequences.
So the next time someone says, “Can’t we just apply our IT compliance model here?” you’ll know the answer.
And now, so do they.
Ready to Get Serious About OT Compliance?
OTNexus helps industrial teams move beyond checklists into automated, contextual, and framework-aligned compliance.
- Deep inventory and configuration tracking
- Role-based governance controls
- Policy enforcement mapped to frameworks like NIST CSF and IEC 62443
Book a demo to see how we help you bridge the compliance gap safely, smartly, and at scale.
