How should IAM and SOC teams decide where to focus behaviour analytics first?

Where behaviour analytics creates the fastest signal

Behaviour analytics should start where abnormal activity will look most like normal work until the last possible moment. That usually means user journeys that cross business-critical systems, external communication channels, and multiple authentication or approval steps. Those workflows give you the best chance of spotting deception, account abuse, or lateral movement before the activity fans out.

For SOC teams, the practical test is not volume alone, it is whether a path carries both trust and consequence. A low-value account with noisy usage may be less useful than a high-value workflow that an attacker can exploit once and then reuse across connected applications. That is why Identity Security Programme Guide is most relevant where behaviour analytics needs to reflect real business journeys, not just isolated logins.

Which journeys to prioritise first

Start with externally facing journeys that routinely involve customers, partners, suppliers, or regulated interactions, because those are the paths attackers most often try to mimic. Then move to journeys that grant access to multiple downstream applications, shared data sets, or privileged operational actions. The more connected the path, the more useful behaviour analytics becomes for detecting impossible travel, abnormal sequencing, unusual device context, or unexpected step-up events.

This is also where account type matters. A journey handled by workforce users, contractors, service operators, and automations needs different thresholds and baselines than one used only internally. If the workflow spans identity lifecycle issues, access governance, or long-lived access paths, NHI Lifecycle Management Guide and Ultimate Guide to NHIs, Lifecycle Processes for Managing NHIs help frame where persistent access tends to accumulate.

Behaviour analytics is most valuable when it watches the workflow an attacker would want to abuse after initial deception. That is why shared journeys across identity, cloud, and operational systems are usually better starting points than single isolated apps.

How to make the first deployment useful to both IAM and SOC

The first rollout should be narrow enough to tune and broad enough to show real attack paths. IAM teams should define the canonical journeys, ownership, and allowed exceptions. SOC teams should define the behavioural signals that matter, such as new device posture, unusual approval timing, access outside normal sequence, and repeated failures followed by success. Together, they should decide which alert means investigate, which means monitor, and which means block.

For cloud-connected or hybrid estates, combine journey selection with privilege and control-plane review. Workflows that rely on broad entitlements, delegated administration, or cross-system trust deserve earlier attention because abnormal behaviour there can translate quickly into material impact. The most useful reference points here are Cloud PAM and CIEM Guide and Cloud Workload Identity Guide, because they connect access paths to the privilege structure behind them.

Behaviour analytics fails when it is tuned to generic anomalies instead of the points where misuse would actually change business outcomes. The first successful use case should produce fewer false positives and a clearer decision rule for escalation, not just more telemetry.

Risk and Threat Considerations

These journeys are attractive to attackers because they combine believable user behaviour with access to valuable outcomes. If the workflow is trusted, external, and interconnected, a small compromise can look normal long enough for the attacker to pivot into adjacent systems, escalate privileges, or trigger business actions that are hard to unwind.

Failure mechanism: Behaviour analytics is blind or delayed when the organisation monitors the login event but not the full sequence of actions across applications, approvals, and downstream use of access. Attackers then blend into ordinary workflow patterns and move laterally before detection.

Impact: The result can be credential abuse, fraudulent transactions, unauthorized changes, or compromise of multiple connected systems from one initial entry point. In practice, the highest-cost failures are often the ones that start as a legitimate-looking journey and only become obvious after the business process has already been affected.

Practitioner Guidance

What to prioritise: Pick the journey where a single bad decision can create the largest downstream blast radius, not the journey with the most alerts. If you can only instrument one path first, choose the one that combines external exposure, business criticality, and repeated cross-application access.

What to verify: Confirm that IAM and SOC are using the same journey definition, the same ownership model, and the same escalation thresholds. If the two teams disagree on what “normal” looks like, the analytics will be noisy even if the tooling is strong.

Common mistake: Starting with broad user population coverage before the high-value journeys are understood. That usually creates lots of low-signal detections and delays the one thing behaviour analytics is supposed to improve, which is earlier detection of meaningful misuse.

Practitioner takeaway: The best first behaviour-analytics use case is the workflow that is both business-critical and easy to abuse without breaking its normal shape, because that is where trust and consequence intersect most sharply.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• How should security teams govern non-human identities for SOC 2 compliance?
• How do teams decide which IAM findings to fix first?
• How do IAM and NHI teams decide where to automate revocation first?
• How should security teams decide where to use AI first in the SOC?