Topic starter
24/06/2026 11:31 pm
TL;DR: Role changes, app shifts, and offboarding drift make quarterly user access reviews too slow, SecurEnds says, so stale entitlements can linger until the next cycle. Access governance needs to move with HR events and product changes, or least privilege and audit evidence remain behind the business.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SecurEnds: “Compliance by Design: How To Bake UAR Into Product & HR Processes”.
Key questions
Q: Why do HR events matter so much for access certification?
A: HR events matter because joiner, mover, and leaver changes are the earliest reliable signals that access should be reassessed.
Q: How do teams know if automated access reviews are actually working?
A: Automated reviews are working when exception rates fall, reviewer overrides become rare, and access decisions are grounded in clean role definitions rather than ad hoc exceptions.
Q: What breaks when user access reviews stay quarterly only?
A: Quarterly-only reviews break when roles, applications, and offboarding events change faster than the review cycle can catch them.
Practitioner guidance
- Embed joiner-mover-leaver triggers Connect HR events to access review initiation so promotions, transfers, and departures automatically create review tasks instead of waiting for quarterly campaigns.
- Align app roles to job functions Standardize role definitions with business job duties so reviewers can judge entitlements against current work rather than inherited permissions.
- Automate review routing and evidence capture Route entitlements to the correct approver, record timestamps and comments, and preserve remediation status in one workflow so audit evidence is complete.
Bottom line: Quarterly user access reviews are too slow for environments where roles, apps, and departures change continuously.
Glossary terms: User Access Review, Continuous Access Review, Joiner-Mover-Leaver Lifecycle, Privilege Creep
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 17 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 8:28 am
Continuous access review is the new control model because identity no longer changes on a quarter-end schedule. The article reflects a broader governance shift: access review can no longer be treated as a periodic compliance event when role changes, app proliferation, and offboarding delays happen continuously. That makes the control lifecycle-driven, not calendar-driven. Practitioners should treat review cadence as an operational design choice, not an audit convenience.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Over 70% of organisations lack automated access risk analysis, user access reviews and provisioning and deprovisioning, according to Pathlock's 2025 Digital Transformation and Access Risk Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should IAM teams govern access reviews across multiple systems?
A: They should define one accountable review owner, one evidence standard, and one remediation path that applies across every connected directory, SaaS platform, and on-prem system. If the review cannot trigger action in all downstream systems, it only measures governance. Consistency matters more than review volume.
👉 Read our full editorial: Continuous user access review is the new compliance baseline