User Access Reviews (UARs) are a necessary part of governance and compliance. Enterprises rely on them to ensure sensitive data, including personally identifiable information (PII), remains protected. But the way they’ve been conducted for years isn’t just inefficient, it’s fundamentally flawed.
The traditional UAR process: a costly burden
Every quarter, managers receive a spreadsheet or an automated email asking them to review and validate access for their direct reports. On the surface, this seems straightforward. In reality, it’s frustrating, expensive, and inefficient.
- Managers aren’t always the right people to judge access needs, not because they don’t know their teams, but because they don’t have clear information UARs often lack enough context for a manager to determine whether an employee truly requires access to a system or dataset.
- Reviewing line by line is tedious, leading to rubber-stamping. Most people skim for anomalies rather than critically evaluating each entry.
- Role changes aren’t well reflected. Employees transition to new responsibilities, but their outdated access often lingers.
- Non-human identities are ignored. Service accounts and automated processes rarely get scrutinized, even though they can be exploited.
- Compliance is point-in-time. A completed review only guarantees access was valid on that day, leaving a 90-day (or longer) window where outdated entitlements go unchecked.
The cost of UARs scales with the number of employees and the complexity of access. Every additional line item adds financial and operational overhead. Enterprises aren’t just spending time—they’re spending money on a process that isn’t delivering real security.
The risk: when auditors challenge the process
Beyond inefficiency, there’s a deeper risk: if an auditor detects a non-compliant access, they can call the entire UAR process into question. A single overlooked entitlement, such as an employee retaining access to a system they no longer need or a privileged account that should have been revoked, can undermine the credibility of the organization’s access review process. If auditors conclude that reviews are ineffective, they may require deeper scrutiny, additional reporting, or even costly remediation efforts. Worse, if non-compliant access results in a security incident, regulators and stakeholders will question why the review process failed to prevent it.
Traditional UARs create an illusion of security but do little to enforce ongoing access governance. Instead of catching issues before they become risks, organizations end up defending an inherently flawed process.
A smarter approach: review policies, not just access
Quarterly UARs persist because compliance mandates them. But compliance shouldn’t be about checking a box—it should enhance security. The problem isn’t the intent of UARs; it’s the execution.
Instead of forcing managers to review every single access record, enterprises should focus on the policies that govern access. Here’s what a smarter review process looks like:
- Evaluate policies first – Instead of reviewing static access lists, start by assessing the policies that determine access. If policies are well-structured and enforced, access remains appropriate by design.
- Spot-check actual usage – Move beyond theoretical access and actually follow up on whether the requested access rights are being used.
- Flag anomalies – When access is justified and allowed, but outside of the norm, call attention to these events as part of reviews, focusing on the improvement of policy over time.
- Eliminate static access – Many employees retain access they use only occasionally, leading to unnecessary risk. Dynamic, policy-based access ensures privileges are granted only when needed and revoked when they aren’t.
By shifting focus from exhaustive reviews to policy-driven governance in real-time, organizations can improve compliance without the fatigue. Reviewing access policies and auditing actual access behavior makes security stronger, reduces operational cost, and helps prevent standing access from becoming an attack vector.
The future of access reviews
Enterprises can’t afford to keep spending time and money on a process that doesn’t work. A better approach exists—one that replaces reactive, manual reviews with proactive, policy-driven controls. By redefining how access is evaluated, organizations can move beyond inefficient checklists and embrace security that adapts in real time.
It’s time to rethink UARs. The right tools should support what you’re doing, not force you into a broken process. Reach out to our team if you’d like to see how it’s done.