Topic starter
07/06/2026 8:03 pm
TL;DR: User access review programs are often completed on time but fail in practice because repetition, missing context, and overloaded reviewers turn certification into a mechanical exercise, according to SecurEnds. The result is a governance model that preserves audit evidence while steadily weakening real decision quality.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SecurEnds: “Review Fatigue: How UAR Programs Fail Due to Human Overload”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when access reviews become repetitive and low-context?
A: The control stops producing judgment.
Q: Why do high approval rates not prove that access reviews are working?
A: Because near-universal approval often signals fatigue, not flawless access hygiene.
Q: How can organisations tell that certification overload is hurting governance?
A: Look for long-running campaigns, repeated approvals of unchanged access, low remediation rates, and constant IT clarification requests.
Practitioner guidance
- Prioritise review scope by risk and change Split routine entitlements from privileged or sensitive access, then route the highest-risk items to reviewers who can act on them with context.
- Attach usage evidence to each certification Present last-use, change history, and owner context beside every access decision so reviewers are not forced to approve blind.
- Tie reviews to lifecycle events Trigger certification when roles change, users move, or access is granted rather than waiting for a broad calendar campaign.
Bottom line: Review fatigue turns user access reviews into a completion exercise, so the programme records approvals without reliably challenging risk.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
07/06/2026 9:49 pm
Review fatigue is a control-quality problem, not a people problem. The article makes clear that managers are not failing because they are careless; they are failing because the control asks humans to repeatedly certify access without enough signal to distinguish risk from noise. In identity governance terms, the review no longer changes the state of access, so completion becomes a paperwork outcome rather than a security one. The practitioner conclusion is that review design must be judged by decision quality, not by closure rate.
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: Should access reviews be tied to lifecycle events instead of fixed cycles?
A: Yes, when the goal is meaningful governance rather than simple compliance. Reviews tied to onboarding, role change, or exit preserve context and reduce repetition. Fixed cycles still have a place for oversight, but they should not be the only trigger for certification.
👉 Read our full editorial: Review fatigue in user access reviews weakens IAM governance
This post was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group