Topic starter
14/09/2026 10:10 am
TL;DR: Manual segregation of duties checks break down when ERP roles bundle incompatible permissions, creating hidden overlaps in vendor setup, payments, journals, and reconciliations, according to SafePaaS. The governance problem is no longer whether a policy exists, but whether finance teams can prove continuous enforcement across complex systems.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SafePaaS: “Segregation of duties in accounting: from theory to daily, audit‑ready control”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when separation of duties is enforced only on paper?
A: When SoD exists only as policy, teams can still route sensitive actions through manual exceptions, informal approvals, or incomplete workflows.
Q: Why do bundled ERP privileges create a higher control risk in finance systems?
A: Bundled privileges increase risk because segregation of duties is enforced at the entitlement level, not by job title.
Q: How do security teams know if SoD controls are actually working?
A: SoD controls are working only if live access state matches the approved separation model across systems.
Practitioner guidance
- Define incompatible activity pairs in business language Create a finance-led segregation of duties matrix that maps supplier maintenance, payment approval, journal posting, and reconciliation into explicit conflicts that owners can review.
- Test access at the privilege level Evaluate entitlements inside ERP roles and profiles rather than relying on role names or job titles, especially where company codes, workflow overrides, or custom functions exist.
- Separate reconciliation from transaction control Ensure the person who reconciles bank, payroll, or clearing accounts cannot also initiate, approve, post, or clear the transactions feeding those accounts.
Bottom line: Segregation of duties fails when ERP access combines incompatible activities that should remain independently controlled.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 24 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
14/09/2026 10:10 am
Hidden control overlap is the real segregation of duties failure. The problem is rarely the absence of policy language. It is the accumulation of ERP entitlements that let one user bridge initiation, approval, posting, and reconciliation in ways the business never intended. That is an IAM and IGA issue inside finance, and it should be treated as a live access governance problem rather than a documentation problem.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own segregation of duties decisions when business and IT disagree?
A: Business process owners should own the risk decision, while IAM and security teams provide the control design and enforcement. If ownership sits only with IT, the rules often miss the operational realities that created the conflict in the first place.
👉 Read our full editorial: Segregation of duties in ERP finance: why paper controls fail
This post was modified 24 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group