Topic starter
25/06/2026 12:53 am
TL;DR: Manual access certification for NetSuite is still consuming large amounts of IT effort, with Fastpath customers reporting 80% less time spent on access certifications after automation, according to Delinea. The underlying issue is not just efficiency but privilege creep, over-permissive native roles, and review processes that are too spreadsheet-driven to keep pace with access change.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Delinea: “Access certification for NetSuite: Reducing manual effort with automation”.
By the numbers:
- Fastpath customers reported an average of 80% less time spent on access certifications after automation.
- ChemTreat reduced time spent on UARs from over 100 hours per quarter to just one hour.
- Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings saved approximately 300 hours a year on UARs.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when NetSuite access certification is left to spreadsheets and email follow-up?
A: The control loses pace and consistency.
Q: When should organisations prioritise automated access reviews over manual audit sampling?
A: They should prioritise automation when access is distributed across many systems, when role changes happen frequently, or when privileged access is in scope.
Q: How do organisations know if access certification is actually working?
A: Look for shrinking numbers of standing privileges, faster revocation after review decisions, and fewer orphaned or overprivileged accounts over time.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise review scope around current role and entity access Define certification campaigns so reviewers see current role, subsidiary, and application scope together, not as separate extracts.
- Target over-permissive native roles first Begin with the roles most likely to carry excess access beyond job need, especially where native application roles favour functionality over restraint.
- Automate evidence collection and reviewer follow-up Use workflow automation to retrieve access data, assign reviewers, send nudges, and retain completion records in one system of record.
Bottom line: Manual NetSuite certification tends to fail as a governance process when it depends on spreadsheets, reminders, and disconnected extracts.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
25/06/2026 9:57 am
Manual certification is the control failure, not just the inconvenience. In this pattern, the review process itself becomes too slow to govern the access it is meant to certify. When review evidence lives in spreadsheets and email follow-ups, the organisation is managing administration rather than entitlement risk. The practitioner lesson is that review design must match the pace of role change.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between manual access certification and automated user access reviews?
A: Manual access certification depends on people collecting reports, checking permissions, and chasing approvals by hand, which makes the process slower and more error prone. Automated user access reviews pull access data into one workflow, compare it to roles, flag exceptions, and produce audit evidence consistently. The difference is not just speed. Automation improves repeatability, traceability, and control quality.
👉 Read our full editorial: Access certification for NetSuite shows how automation cuts review toil