Topic starter
08/07/2026 7:04 pm
TL;DR: SAP role accumulation, emergency access that is never revoked, and weak segregation of duties reviews create a repeatable fraud path in manufacturing environments, according to OpenIAM’s analysis, with audit findings ranging from reportable deficiencies to material payment and journal-entry abuse. The control failure is not SAP itself but governance that allows conflicting roles to coexist unchecked.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by OpenIAM: “The 5 most dangerous SoD conflicts in SAP — and what they could cost your manufacturing company”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when SAP users accumulate conflicting roles over time?
A: Segregation of duties breaks when users keep temporary, emergency, or legacy access that combines two sides of the same process.
Q: Why do SAP SoD conflicts create audit and fraud risk in manufacturing?
A: They let one person complete a financial control path alone, which can lead to fictitious supplier payment, bank redirection, self-approved journals, or self-released purchase orders.
Q: How should teams detect SAP segregation of duties conflicts before audit season?
A: Use conflict rules that evaluate role combinations against the business process, not just whether each role is individually justified.
Practitioner guidance
- Map SAP roles to transaction combinations Build a conflict matrix that links SAP transaction codes and authorization objects to the financial process they affect, then test for role combinations that complete the full path alone.
- Remove standing emergency access Revoke emergency and temporary SAP access once the business event ends, and require a time-bounded approval record for every exception that remains open.
- Separate master data from execution paths Ensure vendor master changes, bank detail changes, journal posting, purchase order creation, and payment execution are held by different named users or groups.
Bottom line: SAP segregation of duties fails when role accumulation creates a single identity that can both initiate and complete a financial process.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
08/07/2026 7:28 pm
SoD in SAP is a lifecycle governance problem, not a software defect. The article shows that most conflicts emerge after the original access grant, when promotions, temporary coverage, and emergency access create cumulative privilege combinations. That means the control failure sits in joiner-mover-leaver discipline and periodic recertification, not in the initial provisioning event. The practitioner conclusion is simple: what matters is how access changes over time, not whether each individual grant looked reasonable when issued.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should security teams do when SAP exceptions keep reappearing?
A: Treat repeat exceptions as evidence that the control design is too permissive or the offboarding process is failing. Escalate the pattern, remove standing access where possible, and require a compensating control that is stronger than policy language alone. If the same conflict keeps returning, the review process is not closing the loop.
👉 Read our full editorial: SAP segregation of duties conflicts expose manufacturing control gaps