Topic starter
25/06/2026 2:46 pm
TL;DR: Policy-based identity governance can cut audit preparation costs by up to 65% and manual governance workloads by as much as 80%, according to SafePaaS, because unified controls replace spreadsheet-driven evidence gathering and fragmented access records. Manual audit prep is no longer just inefficient; it becomes a governance risk that drains IAM, compliance, and technical teams.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SafePaaS: “Why Policy-Based Identity Governance and Administration Software Saves Audit Costs”.
By the numbers:
- Organizations with mature identity governance and administration software can reduce audit preparation costs by up to 65% compared with traditional or manual methods.
- Organizations with mature identity governance and administration software can decrease manual governance workloads by as much as 80% compared with traditional or manual methods.
- Industry results show organizations transitioning from manual audit processes to automated policy-based governance routinely slash audit prep time by up to 80%.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when audit evidence is still collected manually across ERP and cloud systems?
A: Manual evidence collection breaks when control data is scattered across systems and teams, because reviewers cannot reconstruct a complete and timely picture of access, SoD, or change activity.
Q: Why do policy-based controls reduce audit prep effort compared with RBAC alone?
A: Policy-based controls reduce effort because they can enforce context-aware rules and document decisions continuously, while RBAC mainly describes static access patterns.
Q: How do teams know if IGA is actually working?
A: Look for evidence that entitlement changes are being governed before access expands beyond need.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise evidence capture Centralise access approvals, review outcomes, and certification logs so audit requests can be answered from one governed record set rather than reconstructed across systems.
- Automate lifecycle-linked access reviews Tie joiner, mover, and leaver workflows to scheduled certifications so entitlement changes and review evidence remain aligned through the full identity lifecycle.
- Move SoD checks into policy Encode separation of duties rules in the governance workflow so risky combinations are blocked or flagged before auditors find them.
Bottom line: Manual audit preparation creates both cost and control risk because teams must reconstruct evidence from disconnected records.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
25/06/2026 3:54 pm
Policy-based IGA is becoming the audit evidence layer, not just the access layer. Manual governance fails when proof has to be assembled from exports, spreadsheets, and disconnected approvals. The control problem is no longer simply who can see data, but whether the organisation can demonstrate decision traceability at audit speed. Practitioners should treat evidence generation as a core governance function, not an afterthought.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should IAM teams do when audit preparation keeps consuming too many hours?
A: They should map where evidence is being rebuilt manually and shift those steps into lifecycle workflows, policy enforcement, and central reporting. The goal is to remove repeated reconciliation work, not just speed up a single review cycle. If a control cannot produce its own proof, it is still too dependent on human assembly.
👉 Read our full editorial: Policy-based IGA cuts audit prep costs and manual governance load