Why Manual Access Reviews Fail (and Why Audits Don’t Wait)
Manual access reviews are one of the most common identity governance controls — and one of the least effective.
Many organizations still rely on spreadsheets, emails, and periodic certification campaigns to review access. In practice, these manual processes are slow, inconsistent, and difficult to complete, leaving security teams exposed and audit teams under pressure.
The issue isn’t effort or intent.
Manual access reviews fail because they don’t scale to modern, dynamic organizations — operationally, structurally, or auditorially.
What Are Manual Access Reviews?
Manual access reviews are periodic processes where managers or application owners are asked to review and certify user access, typically using spreadsheets or email-based workflows.
Their purpose is to:
- Confirm access is appropriate
- Remove unnecessary permissions
- Provide evidence for audits and compliance
On paper, this sounds straightforward. In reality, it rarely works as intended.
1. Manual Reviews Require Massive Upfront Effort
Before a single reviewer is asked to certify access, security and IAM teams must first assemble the review itself.
This typically requires teams to:
- Pull access data from dozens of applications and systems
- Create custom scripts, queries, or one-off reports to extract entitlements
- Normalize inconsistent data formats and naming conventions
- Decide which access should be reviewed — and which reviewer should receive it
This work is largely manual and must be repeated every review cycle, even when little has changed.
For many organizations, access reviews fail before reviewers ever see them.
2. Review Distribution and Follow-Up Is Largely Manual
Once access data is assembled, security teams must then:
- Manually map access to the appropriate reviewers
- Distribute reviews through spreadsheets, email, or ticketing systems
- Track responses and chase reviewers to meet deadlines
As review windows close, campaigns turn into escalation exercises.
Security teams spend more time managing process and chasing approvals than reducing access risk.
3. Reviews Rarely Complete on Time
Because manual reviews require so much preparation and coordination, timelines inevitably slip.
By the time reviewers receive access lists:
- The data may already be outdated
- Reviewers are overwhelmed by volume
- Context is missing
Incomplete reviews, late certifications, and poorly documented exceptions become common.
When audits arrive, organizations are left explaining why reviews weren’t completed instead of demonstrating effective control.
4. Reviewers Lack the Context to Make Real Decisions
Managers are routinely asked to approve access they:
- Did not request
- Do not use
- Do not fully understand
Without context — such as why access was granted, how it’s used, or what risk it carries — reviewers default to approval just to move on.
This turns access reviews into rubber-stamping exercises, creating the appearance of governance without meaningful oversight.
5. Manual Reviews Treat All Access as Equal
Manual processes rarely distinguish between:
- Low-risk application access
- Privileged or administrative access
- Financial or ERP system roles
As a result, reviewers are flooded with certifications that demand equal attention, regardless of risk.
As volume increases, decision quality declines, and the most sensitive access receives the least scrutiny.
6. Access Lingers Between Review Cycles
Manual access reviews are periodic and backward-looking.
They do not respond effectively to:
- Role or job changes
- Department transfers
- Manager changes
- Temporary assignments or projects
Access that should have been removed weeks or months earlier often remains active until the next review cycle — if it is discovered at all.
This creates real security exposure, not just compliance gaps.
7. Manual Reviews Don’t Respond to Business Events
Organizations change constantly, but manual access reviews are static.
Some of the highest-risk access situations emerge from business events, such as:
- An employee moving into a new role
- A transfer to a different department
- A change in reporting structure
- Temporary or emergency responsibilities
Manual reviews are not designed to trigger reassessment when these events occur.
Instead, organizations wait for the next scheduled review cycle — often months away — to revisit access that may already be inappropriate.
As a result, access risk accumulates between reviews, exactly when governance matters most.
8. Reviewers Lack Meaningful Peer Context
When reviewers evaluate access, they instinctively want to understand how that access compares to others in similar roles.
Manual reviews rarely provide:
- Role-based baselines
- Peer comparisons
- Visibility into what “normal” access looks like
Without this context, reviewers are forced to make decisions in isolation.
The safest option becomes approval — even when access may be excessive — further weakening the effectiveness and defensibility of reviews.
9. Manual Reviews Lack Closed-Loop Remediation
Even when a manual access review is completed on time, the process typically ends at certification, not enforcement.
When access is marked for removal, security teams must usually:
- Create tickets in ServiceNow or another ITSM system
- Route requests to application or infrastructure teams
- Manually track whether access was actually removed
- Follow up repeatedly when remediation stalls
The review process and remediation process are disconnected.
As a result:
- Revocations may be delayed or never completed
- There is no authoritative record of when access was removed
- Evidence is scattered across emails, tickets, and spreadsheets
Auditors don’t just need proof that access was reviewed — they need proof that inappropriate access was actually revoked, and when that occurred.
From an audit perspective, unverified remediation is indistinguishable from no remediation at all.
10. Ticket-Based Workarounds Increase Risk and Overhead
To compensate for the lack of closed-loop remediation, many organizations rely on ITSM tickets to create a paper trail.
While tickets provide a record of work, they introduce new problems:
- Tickets are created manually and inconsistently
- Ticket completion does not guarantee access was removed correctly
- Evidence must be stitched together across systems
- The process adds significant operational overhead
Instead of closing the loop, tickets often become another manual process to defend during audits.
11. Manual Reviews Create Audit Fire Drills
Because review decisions, remediation actions, and evidence are fragmented across systems and time periods, audit preparation becomes reactive.
Teams scramble to:
- Prove that access removals actually occurred
- Correlate certifications with ticket completion
- Explain delays, discrepancies, and exceptions
Instead of demonstrating control, organizations spend audit cycles defending broken processes.
Why Manual Review Failure Is a Governance Problem
Manual access reviews fail not because teams don’t care, but because the governance model cannot keep up with operational and business reality.
Modern environments are:
- Dynamic
- Distributed across systems and clouds
- Constantly changing
Periodic, manual reviews cannot keep pace with evolving access, roles, and risk.
This is not just a tooling issue. It is a governance issue.
What Changes When Access Reviews Actually Work
Organizations that improve access reviews don’t simply automate spreadsheets.
They change how reviews are approached:
- Governance effort is aligned to risk
- Reviewers receive meaningful context
- Access is reassessed when change occurs
- Remediation is verified, not assumed
- Evidence is captured continuously, not reconstructed later
This transforms access reviews from a compliance exercise into a real, defensible governance control.
Manual Reviews Are a Symptom — Identity Governance Is the Fix
Access reviews are not a standalone activity.
They are one of the most visible — and painful — components of identity governance.
When governance is fragmented or overly manual, reviews fail first.
When governance enforces accountability and verifies outcomes, reviews become easier to complete, easier to trust, and easier to defend.
Start Reducing Review Failure Without Disruption
Organizations do not need to replace their IAM stack to fix broken access reviews.
Many start by:
- Simplifying high-risk reviews
- Reducing unnecessary review volume
- Improving accountability and visibility
Then expand governance over time.
Talk to an Identity Governance expert to see how OpenIAM helps organizations move beyond manual access reviews — without disruption.
Let’s Connect
Managing identity can be complex. Let OpenIAM simplify how you manage all of your identities from a converged modern platform hosted on-premises or in the cloud.
For 15 years, OpenIAM has been helping mid to large enterprises globally improve security and end user satisfaction while lowering operational costs.