Why Access Reviews Fail (and How to Fix Them)

Most access reviews are dreaded events—tedious, ineffective, and often little more than compliance checkboxes.

Managers click through approvals mindlessly, compliance teams measure superficial metrics, and at the end, you're left wondering if you're actually reducing risk at all.

So why are access reviews so broken, and how can we fix them?

Access reviews often fail because managers face overwhelming amounts of approvals without adequate context. They’re expected to quickly assess access rights without understanding the implications or reasoning behind the original approvals. This frequently results in what many call "rubber-stamping"—mindlessly approving all presented entitlements simply to move the process along.

Another key issue is that compliance teams tend to measure the wrong metrics. Rather than focusing on reducing risk, they emphasize completion rates and deadlines. This approach might look good on paper but does little to improve security or genuinely identify inappropriate access.

To solve these issues, the first step is shifting from exhaustive reviews to prioritized, risk-based assessments. Rather than burdening managers with every entitlement every cycle, reviews should highlight the most critical access: privileged accounts, sensitive systems, or permissions that deviate significantly from normal patterns. Leveraging analytics can help identify anomalies—for instance, highlighting situations where a junior employee holds privileges typically reserved for more senior roles.

Context is also crucial. Providing clear, actionable context around each entitlement significantly improves review quality. Reviewers should understand why access was originally granted, when it was last used, and how the access compares with colleagues in similar roles. Integrating reviews with HR or ticketing systems can enrich the context further—for example, clearly indicating if an employee transferred roles months ago and questioning whether their previous access remains appropriate.

Automation and AI-driven recommendations can dramatically streamline the review process. By automatically suggesting approvals, revocations, or escalations, managers can concentrate on exceptions and high-risk cases instead of mundane approvals. Automating low-risk decisions allows reviewers to use their expertise where it’s genuinely needed.

Another essential step is rethinking how success is measured. Instead of solely tracking completion rates, organizations should measure actual impact—such as the number of risky entitlements removed, reductions in audit findings, or decreases in unauthorized access incidents. Reporting these meaningful metrics to leadership not only validates compliance efforts but also demonstrates tangible risk mitigation.

Lastly, improving access reviews involves proactive partnership with auditors. Organizations should engage auditors early, discussing openly how analytics and automation enhance review efficiency and effectiveness. These discussions should focus on how evidence will be presented, how data-driven decisions are validated, and how contextual information is documented and proven. Rather than treating auditors as external observers, organizations should foster collaborative dialogues, ensuring that access reviews meet compliance objectives without sacrificing operational efficiency.

The goal of better access reviews isn’t merely about completing them faster—it’s about conducting them smarter. Strategic, targeted, and contextual reviews reduce risk, save time, and demonstrate tangible security improvements. Done correctly, access reviews become a powerful tool for proactive risk management, compliance assurance, and overall enhancement of the identity management program.