People-centric architecture reduces friction because teams can work in the way they already operate. When a SOAR platform adapts to local reporting, tasking, severity scoring, and case management needs, users are less likely to bypass it or create shadow processes. The practical result is better consistency, faster response, and more realistic automation uptake across different teams and use cases.
Why people-centric SOAR adoption is usually higher
A people-centric SOAR design starts from how analysts, incident responders, and operations teams actually work, then standardises the parts that need consistency. That matters because adoption is driven less by abstract workflow elegance and more by whether the platform fits local reporting, triage, severity scoring, and case handling without forcing teams into constant workarounds.
Rigid workflow models often fail for a simple operational reason: they optimise for uniformity, but security operations are rarely uniform. A single playbook that ignores team-specific escalation paths, evidence capture habits, and service ownership boundaries can create friction, slow decisions, and encourage users to keep parallel manual processes outside the tool.
People-centric architecture does not mean “anything goes.” It means the workflow is shaped around a shared control objective, while allowing practical variation in how teams enter data, route cases, and document decisions. That balance is usually what turns SOAR from a tooling initiative into a usable operating model.
Why local flexibility improves response quality
When users can map the platform to their real operating context, they spend less time translating their work into someone else’s process. That improves consistency because teams are more likely to use the platform end to end, rather than copying data between systems or bypassing automation when the default workflow does not fit.
Flexibility is especially important where response depends on judgment, not just automation. Severity scoring, assignment rules, and approval paths often vary by business unit, asset class, or incident type. A people-centric SOAR model lets those differences exist without breaking common oversight, which is what makes automation feel usable instead of imposed.
This is also why adoption tends to be more durable. If the platform reflects how a team already triages, escalates, and closes cases, the learning curve is lower and the operating friction is smaller. Over time, that usually produces better automation uptake because the tool supports the team’s real work rather than asking the team to reorganise itself around the tool.
What a rigid workflow model gets wrong
A rigid model assumes process uniformity will create control. In practice, it often creates exceptions, and exceptions become shadow processes. When users must repeatedly override the platform to handle local reporting structures, evidence standards, or handoff rules, the SOAR system becomes a record of ideal behaviour rather than the system where work actually happens.
The problem is not only usability. Rigid models can also distort operational data. If teams avoid the platform for awkward cases, the organisation loses visibility into queue times, automation coverage, and true closure patterns. That makes it harder to judge whether the automation is improving response or just shifting work elsewhere.
A better design assumption is that consistency should come from shared governance, not identical workflows. Teams can follow the same policy intent while still using different tasking, case notes, and routing patterns where the operational environment genuinely differs.
Risk and Threat Considerations
A SOAR platform that users do not trust or do not fit into their workflow creates operational risk even when the underlying automation is technically sound. The main exposure is bypass behaviour, where teams fall back to email, chat, spreadsheets, or manual ticketing because the platform is too rigid for day-to-day use.
Failure mechanism: The workflow model over-constrains local decision-making, so analysts route around the platform, duplicate records, or delay action while they reconcile the tool with real operational needs. That reduces visibility, weakens consistency, and can leave automation coverage lower than the programme assumes.
Impact: Response becomes slower and less measurable, case data becomes incomplete, and the organisation may lose the very standardisation the SOAR programme was meant to create. In higher-volume teams, the effect compounds because small usability gaps turn into persistent shadow operations.
Standards & Framework Alignment
This section maps relevant standards and security frameworks to the operational risks and controls described in this guidance.
NIST CSF 2.0 and NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 set the technical controls, while ISO/IEC 27001:2022 defines the regulatory obligations.
| Framework | Control / Reference | Relevance |
|---|---|---|
| NIST CSF 2.0 | GV.OC-01 — Organizational Context | SOAR adoption depends on aligning workflow design with operating context and team roles. |
| GV.RM-01 — Risk Management Strategy | Rigid workflows create operational risk, shadow processes, and visibility gaps. | |
| PR.AT-01 — Personnel are provided awareness and training | Adoption improves when users understand how to use the platform in their real work patterns. | |
| Recommendation — Align SOAR workflows to the operating context and responsibilities of each team. Set a risk strategy that accepts local workflow variation where it improves control and adoption. Train teams on the workflow paths they actually use, not only the ideal process. | ||
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 | PM-11 — Mission and Business Process Definition | People-centric SOAR maps security automation to actual business and operational processes. |
| Recommendation — Define SOAR workflows around mission and business processes before standardising them. | ||
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | A.5.37 — Documented operating procedures | The topic concerns procedures that must be consistent yet workable across teams. |
| Recommendation — Document the shared SOAR procedure while allowing local execution detail where needed. | ||
Practitioner Guidance
What to prioritise: Start with the decisions that teams make most often, not the most elegant workflow diagram. Reporting fields, severity thresholds, assignment rules, and evidence handoff are usually the first places where adoption succeeds or fails.
What to verify: Test whether the platform can represent the team’s actual operating path without forcing constant manual exceptions. If a team cannot complete normal work without a workaround, the design is too rigid for adoption to hold.
Common mistake: Treating standardisation and adoption as the same goal. Standardisation is useful only when it reduces coordination cost; if it increases friction, users will preserve productivity by working outside the platform.
Practitioner takeaway: The best SOAR architectures standardise outcomes and controls, not every step in the human workflow, because adoption improves when the platform respects how people already operate.
Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group
- When do NHI access reviews create more value than a one-time cleanup?
- Why does a one-size-fits-all security awareness program create gaps in human risk reduction?
- Why does one-size-fits-all MFA often create more operational pain in Active Directory environments?
- What is the difference between automated remediation and a one-size-fits-all remediation model?
