Untitled

In most manufacturing organizations, employee identity governance is well-established. Access is provisioned based on role. Changes are managed through defined processes. When someone leaves, their accounts are disabled. The infrastructure reflects years of investment.

Then there are the external identities.

Dealers with access to operational dashboards and parts ordering systems. Supplier engineers with credentials to ERP platforms, product lifecycle environments, and quality management systems. Contract workers who completed MES projects months ago and still have active access to PLC systems. Design partners at agencies that have changed personnel since the engagement began, still holding credentials to repositories containing proprietary engineering files.

This population sits alongside the employee workforce in the same operational systems, with access to some of the most sensitive assets in the manufacturing environment, and it is governed with a fraction of the rigor applied to employees.

The assumption behind this arrangement is that external identities are lower priority because they are lower privilege. In practice that assumption does not hold. Suppliers interact with engineering collaboration environments and supply chain platforms. Contractors work within MES environments where access to production logic and quality workflows carries real operational consequences. Dealers handle high-value financial transactions and in some cases access real-time production data.

The governance gap manifests in predictable ways. Accounts accumulate without automated deprovisioning because there was no process to trigger removal when the relationship ended. Supplier identities scatter across multiple applications with no centralized visibility, making it impossible to answer a basic audit question about who currently has access to what without manual reconstruction. Authentication relies on single credentials that create direct exposure when passwords are reused across platforms, which in external partner networks they routinely are. A stolen session that reaches an MES is not only a data problem. It is a production problem.

None of this requires a sophisticated attack to become a material risk. It requires access that was never removed, credentials that were shared across platforms, and authentication controls that treat a routine login identically to a 3 AM attempt from an unrecognized location to modify production logic.

The governance programs that have closed this gap did not become more complex. They became more complete. Lifecycle management extended to supplier and contractor identities with the same automation applied to employees. Centralized visibility across all identity populations. Authentication controls that reflect the actual risk profile of external access rather than the convenience of a single password protecting sensitive operational systems.

The identity risk in manufacturing is not primarily inside the employee population. It is in the external identities that the governance program was never extended to cover.

Manufacturing Identity Governance: The Identity Risk Organizations Are Not Governing 

Walk through the access governance of a typical mid-sized manufacturer and a pattern becomes visible quickly. 

Employee identities are well-managed. Joiner, mover, and leaver processes are documented. Role-based access is defined. Access reviews run on a regular schedule. When an employee changes roles, their access changes with them. When they leave, their accounts are disabled. The governance infrastructure for workforce identity reflects years of investment and refinement. 

Then look at the external identities. 

A dealer network with hundreds of locations, each with multiple staff members accessing the dealer management system, the parts ordering portal, and in some cases operational dashboards tied to the manufacturing execution system. Supplier engineers with access to SAP portals, product lifecycle systems, and supply chain platforms, provisioned when their engagement began and rarely revisited. Contract engineers who worked on MES integrations six months ago whose accounts remain active because nobody filed a deprovisioning request. Design partners at agencies that have since changed personnel, still holding credentials to industrial design repositories containing years of proprietary engineering work. 

This is the identity landscape that most manufacturing organizations are actually operating, and it is governed with a fraction of the rigor applied to the employee population it sits alongside. 

Why external identities carry more risk, not less 

The assumption embedded in most manufacturing identity programs is that external identities are lower priority because they are lower privilege. In practice, this assumption does not hold. 

Suppliers interact directly with engineering collaboration environments, quality management systems, and supply chain planning platforms. Contractors on the plant floor work within MES environments where access to production logic, sensor configurations, and quality workflows carries significant operational consequences. Dealers interact with systems that handle high-value financial transactions, parts ordering at scale, and in some cases real-time operational data tied to production schedules. 

These are not peripheral access points. They are access to some of the most sensitive operational and intellectual property assets in the manufacturing environment. And they are managed by identity practices that in many organizations amount to manual provisioning at the start of a relationship and no formal deprovisioning process at the end of one. 

The result is an accumulation problem that compounds quietly over time. A dealership changes ownership and the prior owner's staff credentials persist in the DMS. A contract engineer finishes a project on the MES production line and their access to PLC systems remains active indefinitely. A design partner's employee leaves the agency and their access to the IDM repository where proprietary CAD files are stored stays open. None of these situations involves a deliberate decision to leave access in place. They persist because there was no automated process to remove them, and no visibility mechanism to surface the fact that they exist. 

The audit question that exposes the gap 

There is a question that reliably surfaces the state of external identity governance in manufacturing organizations: can you name every supplier employee who currently has access to your systems? 

In most organizations, the honest answer is no. Supplier identities are scattered across multiple applications, portals, and platforms, each managing its own access records independently. There is no centralized repository. There is no unified governance view. The information needed to answer the question exists somewhere across the environment, but assembling it requires manual effort across systems that were never designed to produce that answer together. 

This becomes a serious liability the moment an auditor, a regulator, or an incident response team asks it. The inability to answer a basic access inventory question is not a documentation problem. It is a visibility problem that reflects a governance architecture in which external identities were never brought under the same framework as the workforce identities sitting alongside them. 

This is precisely where IGA for manufacturing must go beyond its traditional employee-focused scope. Effective manufacturing identity governance requires that the same governance framework governing employee access also governs the dealers, suppliers, and contractors operating in the same systems. 

The authentication dimension of the same problem 

Governance gaps in external identity management do not only manifest as orphaned accounts and audit trail failures. They also manifest in how those identities authenticate. 

Most dealer portals and external partner access points are protected by a single username and password. Dealers routinely reuse passwords across multiple platforms, meaning a credential breach in an unrelated consumer context can become a direct entry point into a manufacturer's operational systems. A stolen session that reaches the MES does not only create a data exposure risk. It creates the conditions for production disruption, modification of manufacturing logic, or deliberate operational interference. 

The absence of contextual authentication compounds this. A login attempt from a dealer's usual location at a normal hour looks identical to the same account logging in from an unrecognized location at 3 AM attempting to modify a rush order in the manufacturing execution system. A system that treats both attempts the same because it only checks a username and password has already failed before the attack completes. 

This is not a niche threat scenario. It is the practical consequence of deploying external-facing systems without the adaptive authentication controls that the risk profile of those systems warrants. 

What governing external identities actually requires 

The governance gap in external manufacturing identity is not closed by adding more reviews to the existing program. It is closed by extending the governance framework to include the external identity population that currently sits outside it. 

That means automated lifecycle management that applies to supplier engineers, dealer staff, and contractors with the same rigor applied to employees. When a supplier relationship changes, access changes with it. When a contract ends, accounts are deprovisioned without requiring a manual request. When a dealership changes ownership, prior credentials do not persist. 

It means centralized visibility across all identity populations so that the question of who currently has access to which systems has a definitive answer that does not require manual reconstruction across fragmented records. 

It means authentication controls that reflect the actual risk profile of external access, including adaptive authentication that evaluates contextual signals and step-up verification for high-risk transactions, rather than a single credential protecting access to systems that handle proprietary engineering data and production-critical workflows. 

And it means IGA for manufacturing that extends segregation of duties controls beyond the employee population to the contractor and supplier identities working alongside them in the same operational environments. 

The manufacturing organizations that have addressed this are not operating more complex governance programs than the ones that have not. They are operating governance programs whose scope corresponds to their actual identity environment rather than to the subset of it that was easy to govern first. 

Why Identity Governance Fails Even When Everything Gets Reviewed

Most identity governance programs have one thing in common. 

They review everything. 

Every system. Every user. Every entitlement. 

On paper, that looks like strong governance. 

In reality, it creates a problem. 

Because risk is not evenly distributed. 

The Hidden Flaw in Most Governance Models 

Governance effort is applied evenly. 

Risk is not. 

Some access carries significant risk. Privileged roles, sensitive systems, high-impact permissions. 

Most access does not. 

But governance treats all of it the same. 

What Happens Next Is Predictable 

Review volume increases. 

Managers evaluate large datasets of access. 

Most of it is low-risk. 

Fatigue sets in. 

Signal gets lost. 

High-risk access becomes harder to identify because it is buried in noise. 

When Governance Becomes Activity Instead of Control 

At this point, governance still appears successful. 

Reviews are completed. 

Campaigns close on time. 

Reports show high completion rates. 

But something is missing. 

Risk is not being reduced. 

Because reviewing everything equally is not the same as controlling risk. 

The Real Problem Is Not Coverage 

Most organizations already have coverage. 

They review access regularly. 

They document decisions. 

They prove oversight. 

The issue is prioritization. 

What Effective Governance Looks Like 

Organizations that reduce access risk do one thing differently. 

They focus. 

They prioritize high-risk access. 

They reduce noise. 

They align governance effort with actual exposure. 

The Takeaway 

Effort without prioritization creates activity. 

Prioritization creates risk reduction. 

Identity governance does not fail because organizations lack control. 

Why Treating All Access, the Same Increases Security Risk 

Most organizations design identity governance programs to be consistent. 

They apply the same review cycles across systems. They follow standardized certification processes. They ensure that all access is reviewed regularly. 

This creates coverage. 

But it does not always create control. 

The issue is not the absence of governance. It is how governance effort is distributed. 

Access risk does not spread evenly across an enterprise. It concentrates in specific systems, roles, and permissions. 

When organizations treat all access the same, they create a gap between governance effort and actual risk. 

The Problem with Uniform Governance 

Uniform governance feels efficient. 

It ensures that every user and entitlement is reviewed. It creates repeatable processes. It supports audit requirements. 

However, this model assumes that all access carries similar risk. 

In reality, that is rarely true. 

Some access allows broad system changes. Some roles provide privileged capabilities. Some permissions expose sensitive data. 

Other access is routine and low impact. 

When governance applies the same level of attention everywhere, it dilutes focus. 

High-risk access does not receive the attention it requires. 

How Risk Gets Lost in the Process 

This creates a predictable pattern. 

Managers review large volumes of access. Most of it carries little risk. Over time, fatigue sets in. 

As review volume increases, the ability to identify high-risk access declines. 

Critical permissions become harder to spot because they appear alongside low-risk entitlements. 

Governance becomes a process of completion rather than a process of control. 

Why More Reviews Do Not Solve the Problem 

Some organizations respond by increasing review frequency. 

They move from quarterly to monthly campaigns. They add more checkpoints. 

But this does not fix the underlying issue. 

More reviews still apply the same uniform model. 

They increase effort, not effectiveness. 

Without prioritization, governance continues to treat all access equally. 

Rethinking Governance Around Risk 

Organizations that reduce access risk take a different approach. 

They focus on prioritization. 

They recognize that not all access decisions carry equal consequence. 

They apply deeper scrutiny to high-risk access. They reduce noise around low-risk access. 

They align governance effort with risk, not coverage. 

The Shift That Matters 

Effective identity governance is not about reviewing everything equally. 

It is about focusing where control matters most. 

Because the goal is not to complete reviews. 

What Auditors Actually Expect From Identity Governance 

Many regulated enterprises design identity governance programs around what they believe auditors expect. 

Quarterly certification campaigns. Large entitlement review lists. Extensive documentation archives. Governance dashboards filled with completion metrics. 

These practices can demonstrate strong oversight. 

But they are often based on assumptions rather than actual regulatory requirements. 

Most audit frameworks do not mandate specific governance structures. They require organizations to demonstrate that access is controlled, that segregation of duties is enforced where appropriate, and that oversight decisions are documented and defensible. 

In other words, auditors expect accountability and evidence. 

They do not require organizations to run large-scale certification campaigns across every entitlement or follow rigid review calendars. 

This misunderstanding leads many governance programs to prioritize documentation over exposure reduction. Completion rates improve. Evidence archives grow. Yet underlying access patterns may remain unchanged. 

Audit validation and risk reduction measure different outcomes. 

Passing audits confirms that oversight exists. It does not automatically prove that governance is reducing access risk. 

Organizations that understand this distinction design governance programs differently. They focus on defensible control rather than documentation volume and align governance mechanisms with real exposure signals rather than static review assumptions. 

The Audit Myth in Identity Governance: What Regulators Actually Expect

Across regulated industries, identity governance programs often evolve under the shadow of audit preparation. 

Access certification campaigns are planned months ahead. Managers receive long lists of user permissions to review. Documentation workflows are carefully structured so that every approval, rejection, and exception can be preserved for examination. When auditors arrive, the organization can produce the evidence they expect to see. 

On the surface, this looks like governance maturity. 

Yet many organizations still struggle to answer a deceptively simple question: what do audit frameworks actually require from identity governance? 

The answer is frequently misunderstood. Most regulatory frameworks are far less prescriptive than organizations assume. They expect oversight, accountability, and traceable evidence that governance controls operate consistently. What they do not prescribe is the exact structure of the governance programs built around those expectations. 

This distinction matters more than it appears. When governance programs are designed around assumptions rather than actual regulatory intent, they can become overly focused on producing documentation rather than reducing access risk. 

How governance programs slowly become audit-shaped 

In sectors such as financial services, healthcare, and the public sector, compliance pressure is unavoidable. Supervisory reviews, regulatory reporting, and external audits create strong incentives for organizations to demonstrate control clearly and consistently. 

Over time, identity governance programs begin to mirror the rhythms of those oversight processes. 

Quarterly certification campaigns align neatly with reporting cycles. Annual review events fit comfortably into compliance calendars. Governance dashboards begin to track completion metrics such as how many managers submitted reviews on time or how quickly attestation campaigns closed. 

These indicators are useful for demonstrating oversight. They help organizations show that governance activity exists and that processes are repeatable. 

But those metrics reveal very little about the underlying exposure profile. 

An access review campaign can achieve excellent completion rates even if privileged access continues to expand slowly across systems. Certification reports can confirm that managers reviewed entitlements while unnecessary permissions remain intact. Documentation can grow more robust even as the number of access pathways increases. 

When governance programs are designed primarily to prove that activity occurred, documentation becomes the organizing principle of the system. 

This is where audit readiness and governance effectiveness begin to diverge. 

What audit frameworks actually evaluate 

Contrary to common belief, most audit frameworks do not dictate the operational mechanics of identity governance programs. 

Whether the regulatory environment involves SOX, HIPAA, FFIEC guidance, or other supervisory expectations, auditors typically focus on several core principles. 

Organizations must demonstrate that access to systems is restricted to authorized individuals. They must ensure that conflicts of interest are prevented through appropriate separation of duties controls. And they must maintain defensible evidence showing that access decisions are subject to oversight and periodic validation. 

These expectations define the outcomes regulators want to see. 

They do not define the exact operational structures organizations must build to achieve those outcomes. 

In other words, audit frameworks require governance to exist and function. They do not require large-scale certification campaigns covering every entitlement in the environment. Nor do they prescribe rigid review cadences as the only acceptable governance model. 

Auditors care about whether access oversight is defensible and whether the organization can explain how governance controls operate. 

How that oversight is operationalized remains flexible. 

Where organizations misinterpret audit expectations 

Despite the flexibility built into most regulatory frameworks, many governance programs are designed around assumptions about what auditors require. 

These assumptions often take the form of unwritten rules. 

Organizations convince themselves that quarterly access reviews are mandatory. They believe every entitlement must be certified regardless of risk level. They assume certification campaigns must cover every system and every permission. Some even treat the sheer volume of evidence produced as proof of governance maturity. 

In reality, these habits are rarely dictated by regulation. They are usually internal interpretations that have hardened over time. 

As those assumptions become embedded in governance processes, certification campaigns expand. Review volumes increase. Evidence archives grow. Governance teams spend more time coordinating review cycles and collecting documentation. 

Meanwhile, the fundamental question remains unanswered: is access risk actually declining? 

The difference between oversight and exposure reduction 

Audit validation and exposure reduction measure two different things. 

Audit validation confirms that governance controls exist and that those controls operate in a way that can be demonstrated during examination. It focuses on oversight and accountability. 

Exposure reduction focuses on whether excessive or inappropriate access is actually removed. 

The two outcomes are related, but they are not identical. 

A governance program can produce excellent documentation showing that reviews occurred while leaving entitlement patterns largely unchanged. Certification campaigns can close successfully even if remediation actions are delayed or inconsistently enforced. 

This is how identity governance programs pass audits while failing to reduce risk. 

The oversight process is functioning. The exposure profile remains stable. 

Recognizing this difference is central to evaluating identity governance effectiveness versus compliance. 

The structural misalignment at the center of the problem 

When governance programs prioritize documentation production, success metrics naturally revolve around activity indicators. 

Completion rates become a measure of effectiveness. Certification statistics rise. Evidence archives expand. 

These metrics demonstrate that governance activity occurred. They do not necessarily show that access exposure declined. 

This does not indicate operational negligence. In many organizations, governance teams execute certification campaigns diligently and produce high-quality documentation. 

The issue lies in how success is defined. 

If governance programs measure success primarily through audit readiness indicators, they may consistently satisfy compliance expectations while leaving underlying exposure patterns largely unchanged. 

Passing audits confirms that oversight exists. 

It does not automatically confirm that governance is reducing risk. 

Why the distinction matters for regulated enterprises 

For regulated organizations, audit performance often becomes shorthand for governance maturity. Clean audit reports signal that internal controls exist and that oversight mechanisms operate consistently. 

From a compliance standpoint, that validation is essential. 

However, organizations increasingly recognize that audit success alone does not provide a complete picture of security posture. Boards and executive leadership are beginning to ask a different question: not only whether governance programs pass audits, but whether they are actually reducing exposure. 

Understanding what audit frameworks truly require allows organizations to evaluate governance programs more realistically. 

Regulators expect defensible oversight and consistent control execution. They do not mandate governance architectures that prioritize documentation volume over measurable exposure reduction. 

When governance design reflects that understanding, compliance and security outcomes become aligned rather than competing priorities. 

Rethinking governance beyond audit assumptions 

Audit readiness will always remain a critical objective for regulated enterprises. Governance programs must produce evidence showing that oversight exists and that access decisions are subject to accountability. 

But audit validation should not be mistaken for the ultimate measure of governance effectiveness. 

Identity governance becomes significantly more effective when programs are designed to reduce exposure while still producing defensible oversight evidence. 

Understanding that audit frameworks require outcomes rather than specific operational mechanics is the first step toward that alignment. 

What Breaks in the Access Certification Process — and Why Context Is the Fix 

The access certification process is one of the most consistently underperforming controls in identity governance. 

Not because it is poorly designed. Not because security teams fail to execute it. But because the data available at the point of review is rarely sufficient to support a confident decision. 

This is a technical problem with a governance consequence — and understanding where it breaks is the first step to fixing it. 

Where the Access Certification Process Falls Apart 

At its core, the access certification process asks a reviewer to answer one question: does this person still need this access? 

Answering that question requires four things: 

Why the access was granted — the original business justification or request record 

How the access is being used — recent activity, frequency, last-used timestamps 

What risk the access carries — sensitivity of the entitlement, potential blast radius 

Whether the access is normal — peer and role baselines to flag anomalies 

In most implementations, none of these signals are surfaced at the point of review. The reviewer sees an entitlement name, a user, and an approve/revoke button. That is not enough information to make a meaningful decision. 

The result is predictable: reviewers default to approval. Not because access is appropriate — but because there is no basis to challenge it. 

The Data Fragmentation Problem 

The signals that would enable confident access review decisions exist in most enterprise environments. They are simply scattered across systems that are never connected to the review workflow. 

Provisioning tools hold request history and justification records. HR systems hold role and department context. Application logs hold usage and activity data. SIEM and analytics platforms hold behavioral signals and anomaly indicators. 

A well-structured IGA access review workflow should aggregate these signals and surface them at the point of decision. In practice, most implementations do not — leaving reviewers to work from flat entitlement lists with no supporting context. 

This is the data fragmentation problem at the heart of the access certification process. It is not a gap in tooling availability. It is a gap in how existing data is connected and presented. 

What an Effective Access Recertification Workflow Looks Like 

An access recertification workflow that supports confident decisions needs to do more than present a list of entitlements. It needs to answer the four questions above — automatically, at the point of review. 

That means: 

Pulling request history into the review interface so reviewers can see why access was originally granted 

Surfacing usage data from application logs — last accessed, frequency, active vs. dormant 

Calculating risk scores based on entitlement sensitivity, so high-risk decisions are flagged for closer scrutiny 

Generating role baselines from peer group analysis, so anomalous access stands out rather than blending in 

When these signals are present, reviewers make faster and more accurate decisions. High-risk entitlements get scrutinized. Dormant access gets revoked. And the access certification process produces the outcome it was designed for. 

Entitlement Review Best Practices for IT and Security Teams 

For teams looking to improve decision quality in their current certification programs, a few practical starting points: 

Prioritize before you certify. Not all entitlements carry equal risk. Segment reviews by sensitivity and route high-risk entitlements to reviewers with the context to evaluate them — not just the manager of record. 

Surface usage data wherever possible. Even basic last-login or last-accessed timestamps significantly improve decision confidence. Reviewers can immediately identify dormant access without needing to investigate further. 

Build role baselines incrementally. You do not need a fully mature role model to start flagging anomalies. Begin with peer group comparisons within well-defined teams and expand from there. 

Track revocation rates as a quality signal. Low revocation rates in a certification campaign are often a sign of rubber-stamping, not clean access. Use revocation rate trends to identify reviewers or campaigns that warrant closer attention. 

Conclusion: The Access Certification Process Is Only as Good as the Data Behind It 

The mechanics of access certification — campaigns, workflows, approvals, audit trails — are well understood. What is less well understood is that those mechanics only work when reviewers have the context to make confident decisions. 

Improving the access certification process is not primarily a workflow problem. It is a data problem. Solve the data problem, and decision quality follows. 

Why Your Access Governance Is Only as Good as the System Behind It 

Enterprise security teams invest heavily in identity and access management. They deploy sophisticated IAM platforms, configure role-based access controls, and enforce authentication policies across their environments. And yet, access governance failures — over-privileged accounts, undetected access drift, inconsistent policy enforcement — remain a persistent problem in organizations of every size. 

The reason is often architectural, not operational. The tools being used to govern access were not built for that purpose. 

Access Governance and Access Management Are Not the Same Thing 

This is a distinction that gets blurred in vendor messaging and enterprise planning alike, but it matters considerably in practice. 

Access management is about enforcement. It answers the question: can this identity access this resource, right now? IAM systems are designed around this function. They provision accounts, resolve authentication requests, and enforce policies at the point of access. They do this well — within the environments they manage. 

Access governance is about validation and control. It answers a different question: should this identity have this access, across all the systems where it exists, given the organization's risk posture and compliance requirements? This function requires visibility and policy logic that operates at a different level — across systems, not within a single one. 

When organizations try to perform governance using their IAM platform alone, they are using an enforcement tool to do a control function. The result is governance that is bounded by the IAM system's own scope and limitations. 

The Visibility Problem 

IAM platforms manage what they are configured to manage. In a typical enterprise, that is a meaningful but incomplete slice of the actual identity environment. SaaS applications with their own identity systems, cloud workloads, legacy applications, third-party access — these often fall outside the IAM platform's direct management scope. 

When governance depends on IAM infrastructure, it inherits those boundaries. A certification campaign run through an IAM-embedded governance tool will only evaluate the access that the IAM system can see. Access that exists in systems outside that scope goes unevaluated — not because anyone decided to skip it, but because the governance layer simply cannot reach it. 

In small, homogeneous environments this may be an acceptable tradeoff. In enterprise environments with distributed identity estates, it is a governance gap that quietly grows over time. 

When Policies Cannot Reflect Real Risk 

The second problem is less visible but equally significant. IAM systems model access in terms of their own constructs: roles, groups, entitlements, application permissions. When governance policies are expressed within an IAM platform, they are naturally expressed using these constructs. 

The challenge is that access risk does not map neatly onto IAM data models. A combination of entitlements that appears unremarkable within any single system's model may represent a meaningful segregation-of-duties violation when viewed across systems. An account that looks appropriately provisioned in the IAM layer may be carrying excessive access in a SaaS application the IAM system does not directly manage. 

Governance policies that live inside IAM infrastructure can only evaluate risk using the information and logic structures that IAM infrastructure supports. Risk context that exists outside those structures — behavioral signals, cross-system entitlement combinations, data sensitivity classifications — is difficult or impossible to incorporate. 

The Multi-IAM Reality 

There is an additional complication that affects most large enterprises: they are not running a single IAM system. Acquisitions, decentralized IT, cloud migrations, and purpose-built identity solutions for specific environments mean that the typical enterprise identity estate spans multiple IAM platforms. 

When governance is dependent on IAM infrastructure, it tends to be dependent on one IAM platform — which means it governs one portion of the identity estate consistently, and the rest inconsistently or not at all. Different policies, different certification processes, and different enforcement outcomes apply to the same types of access depending on which system manages it. 

This fragmentation is not a configuration problem that can be solved by tuning the existing system. It is a structural outcome of housing governance within infrastructure that was not designed to operate across heterogeneous identity environments. 

Governance Needs Its Own Foundation 

The organizations managing enterprise identity governance most effectively are those that have separated the governance function from the enforcement function — treating governance as its own architectural layer with its own visibility, policy logic, and workflow capabilities, rather than as an extension of IAM. 

This does not require replacing existing IAM investments. IAM platforms continue to perform the enforcement function they were designed for. What changes is that governance no longer depends on them — and therefore is no longer bounded by them. 

If your organization is experiencing governance gaps that your IAM platform cannot seem to close, the issue may not be how you are using the platform. It may be that the platform was never designed to do what you are asking of it. 

Why Identity Governance Risk Starts With How Access Decisions Are Made 

Identity governance risk is not always visible in the places organizations look for it. 

Audit logs are clean. Access certifications are completed. Compliance reports show no outstanding exceptions. And yet, excessive access persists — because the decisions that were supposed to catch it were made without the confidence to challenge it. 

For CISOs and compliance leads, this is the governance gap that deserves closer attention. 

Governance Measures Completion. Risk Is Determined by Confidence. 

Most identity governance frameworks measure success by activity: how many reviews were completed, how quickly certifications were processed, whether evidence was generated on schedule. 

These are useful operational metrics. But they say nothing about whether the decisions behind them were sound. 

A reviewer who approves access they do not understand has technically completed the review. The certification is recorded. The audit trail is intact. But the access remains — and the risk it carries remains with it. 

This is the core of identity governance risk in enterprise environments. It is not a failure of participation. It is a failure of decision quality. 

What CISOs Need to Understand About Access Certification Compliance 

Access certification compliance is designed to ensure that access is periodically validated against business need. In principle, this is a strong control. In practice, it depends entirely on whether reviewers have the information needed to make a judgment. 

When reviewers lack context — why access was granted, how it is being used, what risk it carries — certification becomes a procedural exercise. Approvals accumulate. Entitlements persist beyond their legitimate purpose. And the governance program that was supposed to reduce identity governance risk quietly becomes a vehicle for preserving it. 

This is not a technology failure. It is a decision-quality failure — and it is one that scales directly with the complexity of the environment. 

The Board-Level Implication 

For compliance leads, the consequence is straightforward: a completed access review is not a defensible control if the decisions behind it were uninformed. 

Regulators and auditors are increasingly attuned to this distinction. Evidence of completion satisfies a checkbox. Evidence of decision quality — that reviewers understood what they were certifying and why — is a materially stronger compliance posture. 

CISOs who treat access certification compliance as a completion target are solving the wrong problem. The goal is not a signed-off report. The goal is a governance program where decisions are made with enough context to be defended. 

Reducing Identity Governance Risk Requires More Than Process 

Organizations that take identity governance risk seriously are moving beyond process compliance toward decision enablement. 

That means ensuring reviewers have access to the context required to make confident decisions: the business justification behind access, usage signals that indicate whether access is active, risk indicators that surface high-priority decisions, and role baselines that define what normal looks like. 

Without this context, even well-designed governance programs will continue to produce low-confidence decisions — and the access risk that follows. 

Conclusion: Governance Is Only as Strong as the Decisions It Produces 

Access reviews do not reduce risk by existing. They reduce risk when the decisions they generate are informed, confident, and defensible. 

For CISOs and compliance leads, the question is not whether reviews are being completed. It is whether the decisions behind them would hold up under scrutiny — from a regulator, an auditor, or a breach investigation. 

Identity governance risk lives in the gap between those two things. 

The Hidden Cost of Treating IAM as a Governance Platform 

There is a quiet assumption embedded in how many enterprises approach identity security governance: that because IAM systems manage access, they can also govern it. It is an assumption that makes operational sense on the surface. But in practice, it produces governance programs that look functional until they are tested — and fail when it matters most. 

Understanding why requires looking at what IAM platforms were actually designed to do, and where that design creates limits for governance. 

IAM Was Built for Enforcement, Not Oversight 

IAM platforms are transactional systems. Their core function is resolving access decisions in real time: authenticating an identity, evaluating a policy, and allowing or denying a request. They are optimized for speed, consistency, and reliability within the environments they manage. 

Identity security governance is a different kind of function. It is not transactional — it is evaluative. It asks not whether access was granted, but whether it should have been. Not whether a policy was enforced, but whether the policy reflects the organization's actual risk posture. Not whether an account exists, but whether the access attached to that account remains appropriate given changes in role, responsibility, and business context. 

These are oversight functions. They require the ability to look across the identity estate — not just within a single enforcement layer — and make judgments about access that go beyond what the IAM system's data model was built to support. 

The Governance Gap No One Is Auditing 

Here is a practical scenario that illustrates the problem. An enterprise runs an access certification campaign using governance tools built into their IAM platform. Reviewers evaluate entitlements for the identities the IAM system manages. The campaign completes. Certifications are logged. 

But the enterprise also has dozens of SaaS applications managing their own user access, cloud environments with native identity controls, and a privileged access management system operating independently. None of these are within the IAM platform's governance scope. The access they contain — which may include some of the most sensitive entitlements in the organization — was not evaluated. 

The audit report shows a completed certification cycle. The actual access risk in the environment has not changed. 

This is the IAM governance gap: governance that appears complete because the IAM system has no visibility into what it is missing. 

Risk Does Not Respect System Boundaries 

A related problem is that access risk is rarely contained within a single system's data model. The most significant access risk scenarios in enterprise environments typically involve combinations — an account with administrative access in one system and financial transaction authority in another, or an identity with broad read permissions across cloud storage combined with the ability to export that data through an unmanaged SaaS tool. 

IAM-native governance evaluates access risk using the constructs available within the IAM platform. It can identify that a role has excessive permissions within the systems it manages. It cannot easily evaluate the combination of entitlements across systems it does not manage. 

Effective access risk management requires the ability to reason about identity and access holistically — across all systems, not just those visible to a single IAM platform. When governance logic is housed inside IAM infrastructure, that holistic view is structurally unavailable. 

Decoupled Governance Changes the Equation 

The enterprises moving beyond this limitation are separating the governance function from the enforcement function — not by removing IAM, but by ensuring governance is not architecturally dependent on it. 

A decoupled identity governance layer operates independently of any specific IAM system. It ingests identity and access data from across the enterprise environment — multiple IAM platforms, cloud identity providers, SaaS systems, directories — and applies governance logic that is not constrained by any single system's data model or integration scope. 

This architecture does not require replacing IAM investments. IAM platforms continue to enforce access. The governance layer evaluates, validates, and controls that access from a position that is not bounded by any single enforcement system's visibility or capabilities. 

The result is governance that reflects the actual state of enterprise access — not just the portion of it that one IAM platform can see. 

The Cost of the Assumption 

The hidden cost of treating IAM as a governance platform is not always visible in day-to-day operations. It shows up in audit findings that reveal access no certification process reviewed, in incidents involving entitlements that governance never evaluated, and in compliance gaps that existed undetected in the space between IAM systems. 

Recognizing that IAM and governance are distinct architectural functions is the first step toward closing those gaps. 

Supplier Identity Access Management: Why External Identities Need the Same Governance as Employees 

Supplier identity access management is one of the most consistently overlooked areas of identity governance in manufacturing environments. 

Internal workforce identities get lifecycle automation, role-based provisioning, and regular access certification. External supplier identities often get a manually created account, an email with credentials, and very little after that. 

The gap between those two experiences is where risk accumulates. 

The Problem With How Supplier Access Is Typically Managed 

In most manufacturing organizations, supplier and partner identities are managed outside the core IGA platform. Accounts are created manually — often by request via email or a service desk ticket. Roles are assigned inconsistently. And when the supplier project ends, or the personnel change, deprovisioning rarely happens automatically. 

The practical consequences are straightforward: 

Dormant accounts persist. A supplier engineer finishes a project and moves on. Their account remains active in the SAP portal, the quality management system, or the engineering collaboration environment. Nobody flags it because nobody is tracking it. 

Privilege accumulates over time. Supplier users gain access to additional systems as projects evolve. When scopes change or contracts end, that access is rarely walked back to match the new reality. 

There is no audit trail. When an auditor or incident responder asks who had access to a specific system and when, the answer for external identities is often incomplete or unavailable. 

These are not edge cases. They are the default state of supplier identity access management in organizations that have not extended their IGA framework to external participants. 

What External Identity Lifecycle Management Actually Requires 

Fixing supplier identity access management is not primarily a tooling problem. It is a process and governance problem — and it starts with applying the same lifecycle discipline to external identities that already exists for employees. 

That means four things in practice: 

1. Structured onboarding with defined roles. Supplier access should be provisioned through the same request and approval workflow used for employees — with a defined business justification, a role assignment based on actual need, and a named internal owner accountable for the relationship. 

2. Time-bound access by default. Unlike employees, supplier relationships have a defined scope and duration. Access should reflect that. Time-bound provisioning — with automatic expiry tied to contract or project end dates — closes the dormant account problem without requiring manual follow-up. 

3. Continuous monitoring and periodic review. Supplier access should be included in regular access certification campaigns. Usage data — last login, activity frequency, systems accessed — should be surfaced at the point of review so certifiers can make informed decisions rather than defaulting to approval. 

4. Automated deprovisioning on relationship change. When a supplier contract ends, when a supplier employee leaves a project, or when an engagement scope changes, access revocation should trigger automatically — not depend on a manual request from a procurement or vendor management team that may not have a direct line to IT. 

IGA Supplier Access: Extending the Governance Framework 

For IT and security teams, the practical challenge is extending IGA supplier access controls to external identities without creating a parallel governance system. 

The most effective approach is to bring supplier identities into the same IGA platform used for workforce governance — using the same provisioning workflows, the same role model, and the same certification process. External identities are treated as a distinct population within a unified framework, rather than a separate problem managed through spreadsheets and service tickets. 

This requires two things the IGA platform needs to support: 

External identity onboarding — the ability to create and manage identities for users who are not in the corporate HR system, with appropriate workflows for invitation, approval, and lifecycle tracking 

Integration with supplier-facing systems — the SAP portals, PLM environments, MES platforms, and supply chain systems that supplier users actually access 

When these capabilities are in place, supplier identity access management becomes a governed, auditable process — not an afterthought. 

Partner Access Governance in Manufacturing: The Broader Picture 

Suppliers are one population. Partners, contractors, logistics providers, and service firms are others. Each has different access requirements and different lifecycle patterns — but all benefit from the same governance principles. 

Partner access governance in manufacturing means applying consistent policy across all external participants: structured provisioning, time-bound access, regular review, and automated deprovisioning. The specifics vary by population. The framework does not. 

Conclusion: External Identities Deserve First-Class Governance 

Supplier and partner identities interact with some of the most sensitive systems in manufacturing environments — ERP platforms, product lifecycle systems, quality management tools, and supply chain portals. 

They deserve the same governance discipline as internal workforce identities. Not a manual workaround. Not a spreadsheet. A structured, automated, auditable process — built into the same identity framework that governs everyone else. 

What Actually Breaks Access Certification Programs (It's Not What You Think) 

Most organizations running access certification programs believe they have governance under control. Reviews complete on time. Managers sign off. Reports look clean. So why does risky, unnecessary access keep persisting? 

The answer isn't process failure. It's a decision quality problem — and it's rooted in something most IGA program designs never account for. 

The Hidden Flaw in How Reviews Are Designed 

IGA program weaknesses rarely show up in dashboards. They show up in the moments between a reviewer opening a certification task and clicking approve — moments where the reviewer has no real basis for the decision they're about to make. 

The design assumption behind most access certification workflows is straightforward: managers know their teams and can evaluate what access those teams should have. That's true in principle. But it only holds when reviewers can actually interpret what they're reviewing. 

In most enterprise environments, they can't. 

What Reviewers Are Actually Seeing 

Entitlements are built by systems. They're named by systems. And when they surface in a review queue, they arrive with the kind of label that means something to a database administrator but very little to a business manager trying to decide whether access is still appropriate. 

This is the first of several permission transparency gaps that undermine entitlement review judgment. The reviewer sees a string of text. They don't see what it enables, what data it reaches, or what business function it supports. 

Layer on the absence of historical context — why this access was granted, whether the original reason still applies — and the absence of any risk indication, and you've created a review environment where the path of least resistance is always approval. 

The Compounding Effect of Uninformed Approvals 

User privilege review gaps don't stay contained. Each uninformed approval extends the life of access that may no longer serve a legitimate purpose. Over successive cycles, this compounds: permissions from completed projects, departed roles, and temporary exceptions accumulate beneath the surface of what looks, on paper, like a healthy governance program. 

The particularly difficult aspect of this problem is its invisibility. Nothing in the audit trail signals that decisions were based on assumption rather than evaluation. The review completed. The certification closed. The risk remains — and grows. 

What Effective IGA Strategies Actually Require 

Fixing this doesn't require more frequent reviews or more pressure on managers. It requires changing what's available to reviewers at the point of decision. 

Effective IGA strategies address three things directly. First, entitlements need to be described in terms of what they actually enable — not just labeled with a system string. Second, context needs to be present: why was this access granted, who owns it, and is the original justification still valid? Third, risk needs to be visible — reviewers should be able to see whether an entitlement is routine or carries elevated sensitivity. 

When these elements are in place, IGA contextual awareness transforms the review from a checkbox exercise into a genuine evaluation. Approvals happen because access is clearly justified. Questions get raised when it isn't. Revocations reflect real decisions — not defaults triggered by unfamiliarity. 

The Standard Worth Holding Access Reviews To 

Completing an access certification cycle is not the same as governing access. A review that runs on schedule and generates clean reports can still be fundamentally broken if the decisions inside it aren't real. 

The measure of a governance program isn't completion rate. It's decision quality. And decision quality starts with giving reviewers what they actually need to evaluate — not just a list and a deadline. 

Manufacturing Identity Security Is No Longer an IT Problem — It's a Business Risk Manufacturing has become the most targeted industry for cyberattacks. And in the vast majority of incidents, the entry point is not a vulnerability in production systems or operational technology. It is an identity. 

Compromised credentials, unrevoked supplier accounts, excessive contractor access — these are the attack surfaces that adversaries are exploiting in industrial environments. For CISOs in manufacturing, this makes manufacturing identity security one of the most consequential areas of the security program. 

Why Manufacturing Identity Risk Is Different 

Most enterprise identity security frameworks were built around a relatively contained population: employees accessing corporate systems from managed devices on known networks. 

Manufacturing environments look nothing like that. 

Industrial organizations operate complex ecosystems of internal employees, plant operators, engineering contractors, logistics providers, component suppliers, and service partners — all interacting with enterprise systems that span ERP platforms, manufacturing execution systems, product lifecycle environments, and supply chain portals. 

Each of these populations has different access requirements, different risk profiles, and different lifecycle patterns. A supplier engineer onboarded to a SAP portal for a specific project is not the same as a permanent employee. But in many organizations, their identities are managed — or rather, not managed — in exactly the same fragmented, manual way. 

This is where manufacturing identity security breaks down. Not at the perimeter. Inside it. 

The Supply Chain Identity Governance Gap 

Supply chain identity governance is one of the most consistently underdeveloped controls in industrial security. 

Suppliers and partners frequently require access to sensitive enterprise systems — supplier portals, quality management platforms, engineering collaboration environments, logistics coordination systems. In many organizations, this access is provisioned manually, governed inconsistently, and rarely reviewed after initial setup. 

The result is predictable: accounts accumulate. Supplier personnel change. Projects end. But access remains — sometimes for months or years after the business relationship that justified it has concluded. 

This is not a theoretical risk. It is an active exposure. And at the scale of a modern industrial supplier network, it is one that grows with every new partnership, every new project, and every new system integration. 

For CISOs, the question is not whether supplier access creates risk. It does. The question is whether the identity governance framework extends far enough to govern it. 

Workforce Identity Is the Foundation — But Not the Finish Line 

Many industrial organizations have made meaningful progress on workforce identity governance. Lifecycle automation for employees, role-based provisioning, access certification processes — these controls are increasingly in place. 

But workforce identity is the foundation, not the complete picture. 

As manufacturing operations become more digital and more interconnected, the identity surface extends well beyond internal employees. Contractors require temporary access to production systems. Engineering partners collaborate on sensitive IP environments. Logistics providers connect directly to supply chain platforms. Each of these external participants is a potential entry point — and each requires the same lifecycle discipline applied to permanent employees. 

Organizations that treat workforce identity and external identity as separate problems — managed by separate tools with separate policies — introduce the fragmentation that adversaries exploit. 

The Strategic Case for a Unified Identity Platform 

For CISOs making the case for identity investment in manufacturing environments, the strategic argument is straightforward. 

A unified identity governance platform — one that manages workforce access, supplier collaboration, and partner identity under a single policy framework — reduces the attack surface by closing the lifecycle gaps that fragmented tools leave open. It improves audit visibility by providing a consistent record of who has access to what, and why. And it reduces operational overhead by eliminating the manual processes that slow provisioning and delay deprovisioning. 

Manufacturing identity security is not a feature request from IT. It is a governance imperative for organizations operating in an environment where identity is the primary attack vector and the supply chain is a primary target. 

Conclusion: Identity Is the Control Plane for Industrial Security 

Manufacturing organizations today operate across deeply interconnected digital ecosystems. The perimeter is not the factory wall. It is the identity layer that governs who can access enterprise systems — and under what conditions. 

CISOs who treat manufacturing identity security as a strategic control layer, rather than an operational function, are better positioned to reduce risk, support compliance, and protect the ecosystems their organizations depend on. 

Quarterly access reviews are designed to validate access. 

But the highest access risk in most enterprises does not occur during reviews. 

It occurs between them, when roles change. 

Organizations schedule certification campaigns every three months to confirm that users still have appropriate system access. Managers review entitlements, confirm permissions, and document that governance oversight is occurring. These reviews provide structure and demonstrate that access decisions are being evaluated. 

However, they do not capture every risk event that emerges between review cycles. 

Access risk increases at the moment of change, not at the moment of review. 

This is the core issue. 

Why Role Changes Create the Highest Access Risk in Identity Governance 

Internal mobility is a constant in enterprise environments. 

Employees move across teams, responsibilities, and projects. These changes support business growth and operational flexibility. 

From an identity governance perspective, they introduce risk. 

A role change immediately affects what a user should access. Some permissions are no longer required. Others must be added. 

When governance does not adjust at the same pace, access begins to accumulate. 

Users retain permissions from previous roles while receiving new access for current responsibilities. 

This creates role-change access risk. 

What Happens to Access When Roles Change 

Several patterns contribute to hidden exposure during role transitions. 

Access Layering 

Users often retain old permissions while receiving new ones. 

Over time, this creates broader access than any single role requires. 

Delayed Deprovisioning 

Teams do not always remove outdated access immediately. 

Legacy entitlements remain active while new permissions are provisioned. 

Even short delays can extend exposure windows. 

Temporary Privilege Persistence 

Temporary access granted during transitions is not always removed. 

These privileges can remain embedded in user access profiles long after they are needed. 

Why Quarterly Access Reviews Miss Role-Change Risk 

Quarterly access reviews evaluate a snapshot. 

Managers review access at a specific moment. They confirm permissions and complete certification tasks. 

However, access risk evolves continuously. 

Role changes happen daily. Access updates occur outside review cycles. 

Periodic governance processes struggle to capture exposure created by role changes between reviews. 

This creates quarterly access review gaps. 

How Access Drift Builds Between Role Changes 

Over time, these patterns lead to access drift. 

Users accumulate permissions across roles and projects. Older access remains active longer than intended. 

As privileges build over multiple transitions, users can gain more access than their role requires. 

This exposure often remains invisible during periodic reviews. 

Why More Frequent Access Reviews Still Miss Risk 

Increasing review frequency does not solve this problem. 

More reviews create more oversight. But they still operate on a schedule. 

They still evaluate snapshots. 

They still miss risk events that occur between review cycles. 

This challenge is explored further in Why Periodic Access Reviews Can’t Keep Up With Risk. 

Why This Matters for Regulated Enterprises 

Organizations must control access to sensitive systems and data. 

Certification campaigns provide evidence that governance processes operate consistently. 

However, certification does not always reflect real access conditions. 

Users may retain unnecessary permissions even after reviews are completed. 

Certification can demonstrate oversight, even when access risk remains unchanged. 

The Structural Issue: Time-Based Governance vs Event-Based Risk 

Governance operates on time. 

Risk operates on events. 

That is the mismatch. 

Periodic reviews wait for the next cycle. 

Access risk evolves as roles change. 

Conclusion: Governance Must Align to Change, Not Schedule 

Periodic reviews remain important. 

But they are not enough. 

The organizations that reduce access risk most effectively do not rely only on scheduled reviews. 

Why Access Risk Increases Between Reviews, Not During Them 

Most organizations rely on periodic access reviews to validate user permissions. 

Managers certify access. Campaigns close. Audit evidence is produced. 

On paper, governance appears complete. 

Yet in many enterprise environments, access risk does not decrease after these reviews. 

In some cases, it increases. 

The reason is simple. 

Access risk does not change when reviews happen. 

It changes when business activity changes. 

The Blind Spot in Periodic Access Reviews 

Periodic access reviews operate on a fixed schedule. 

They evaluate access at specific points in time. They confirm whether users still have appropriate permissions. They provide structured oversight. 

However, they do not capture how access evolves between those checkpoints. 

In modern enterprises, access conditions change continuously. 

Employees move roles. Teams restructure. Projects begin and end. Privileges are granted temporarily and sometimes remain longer than intended. 

These changes introduce exposure long before the next review cycle begins. 

Why Role Changes Create Hidden Risk 

One of the most overlooked risk events in identity governance is internal mobility. 

When employees change roles, their access requirements change immediately. 

However, organizations do not always remove existing permissions at the same pace. 

Instead, access often accumulates. 

Users retain permissions from previous roles while receiving new privileges for current responsibilities. Temporary access granted during transitions may also persist. 

Over time, this creates layered access profiles that extend beyond what any single role requires. 

This type of exposure rarely appears during a review. 

It develops between them. 

The Structural Mismatch 

This creates a fundamental gap in governance. 

Reviews are time-based. 

Access risk is event-driven. 

That mismatch leads to exposure. 

Periodic reviews validate access at scheduled intervals. Risk evolves continuously as business activity changes. 

By the time the next review occurs, exposure may already exist. 

Why Increasing Review Frequency Doesn’t Solve It 

Some organizations respond by increasing review frequency. 

Monthly campaigns instead of quarterly ones. 

More reviews, more oversight. 

But the problem remains. 

Even frequent reviews still operate on a schedule. 

They still evaluate snapshots. 

They still miss the events that happen between them. 

Rethinking How Governance Aligns to Risk 

Organizations that effectively reduce access risk take a different approach. 

They recognize that risk does not follow a calendar. 

It follows change. 

Role transitions, privilege escalation, and system activity create exposure in real time. 

Governance must align with those moments. 

Because the goal is not just to review access. 

Why Access Reviews Don’t Fail During Certification — They Fail After 

Most organizations trust their access review process. 

Campaigns run on schedule. Managers complete certifications. Audit evidence is retained. 

On paper, governance appears strong. 

But in many enterprise environments, access risk does not decrease after these reviews. 

It persists. 

Sometimes, it increases. 

The problem is not the review itself. 

It is what happens after. 

The Hidden Gap Between Decision and Action 

Access reviews are designed to validate access. 

Managers review entitlements and decide whether permissions should remain or be removed. 

However, those decisions do not always translate into immediate action. 

Access removal depends on execution. 

It depends on systems, workflows, and coordination across teams. 

When that execution fails, a gap appears. 

A user may be marked for access removal, but the access itself may remain active. 

This is the point where governance begins to break down. 

Why Remediation Is More Complex Than It Appears 

In enterprise environments, removing access is rarely a single step. 

It often involves: 

Ticket-based workflows  

Application owners  

Directory updates  

Integration across systems  

Each step introduces delay. 

Each dependency introduces risk. 

Even when a decision is correct, the outcome may not be. 

The Illusion of Completed Governance 

This creates a subtle but important problem. 

Governance can appear complete even when access has not changed. 

Reports show high completion rates. 

Managers finish certifications. 

Audit records confirm that reviews occurred. 

But those records reflect decisions, not outcomes. 

Access may still exist where it should not. 

Why More Reviews Don’t Fix the Problem 

Some organizations try to fix this by increasing review frequency. 

More campaigns. More certifications. More oversight. 

But the issue remains. 

Reviews validate decisions. 

They do not guarantee execution. 

Without reliable enforcement, more reviews simply generate more unresolved actions. 

The Real Question Governance Must Answer 

This leads to a more important question. 

Did we review access? 

Or did we actually remove it? 

Because governance is not about documenting intent. 

It is about changing access. 

Where Effective Governance Starts 

Organizations that reduce access risk focus on a different outcome. 

They focus on execution. 

They ensure that decisions made during reviews translate into actual access changes. 

Because the goal is not to complete reviews. 

Why Access Reviews Don’t Fail During Certification — They Fail After 

Most organizations trust their access review process. 

Campaigns run on schedule. Managers complete certifications. Audit evidence is retained. 

On paper, governance appears strong. 

But in many enterprise environments, access risk does not decrease after these reviews. 

It persists. 

Sometimes, it increases. 

The problem is not the review itself. 

It is what happens after. 

The Hidden Gap Between Decision and Action 

Access reviews are designed to validate access. 

Managers review entitlements and decide whether permissions should remain or be removed. 

However, those decisions do not always translate into immediate action. 

Access removal depends on execution. 

It depends on systems, workflows, and coordination across teams. 

When that execution fails, a gap appears. 

A user may be marked for access removal, but the access itself may remain active. 

This is the point where governance begins to break down. 

Why Remediation Is More Complex Than It Appears 

In enterprise environments, removing access is rarely a single step. 

It often involves: 

Ticket-based workflows  

Application owners  

Directory updates  

Integration across systems  

Each step introduces delay. 

Each dependency introduces risk. 

Even when a decision is correct, the outcome may not be. 

The Illusion of Completed Governance 

This creates a subtle but important problem. 

Governance can appear complete even when access has not changed. 

Reports show high completion rates. 

Managers finish certifications. 

Audit records confirm that reviews occurred. 

But those records reflect decisions, not outcomes. 

Access may still exist where it should not. 

Why More Reviews Don’t Fix the Problem 

Some organizations try to fix this by increasing review frequency. 

More campaigns. More certifications. More oversight. 

But the issue remains. 

Reviews validate decisions. 

They do not guarantee execution. 

Without reliable enforcement, more reviews simply generate more unresolved actions. 

The Real Question Governance Must Answer 

This leads to a more important question. 

Did we review access? 

Or did we actually remove it? 

Because governance is not about documenting intent. 

It is about changing access. 

Where Effective Governance Starts 

Organizations that reduce access risk focus on a different outcome. 

They focus on execution. 

They ensure that decisions made during reviews translate into actual access changes. 

Because the goal is not to complete reviews.