Identity and access management (IAM) has reached a curious inflection point. On one hand, the sheer scale of modern enterprise identity management—with hundreds or thousands of employees cycling through dozens of applications and access levels—makes manual provisioning and deprovisioning increasingly impractical. On the other hand, the consequences of getting IAM wrong are so severe that many organizations find themselves cautious about removing human oversight from the equation.
The result is a debate that cuts to the heart of modern cybersecurity strategy: how much identity lifecycle management can be safely automated, and where does human judgment remain indispensable?
How We Got Here: The Automation Imperative
The push toward IAM automation didn’t emerge in a vacuum. It’s the natural response to a problem that has been growing exponentially with the size and complexity of modern organizations.
Consider the complexity: a mid-sized company with 500 employees using 50 different SaaS applications creates thousands of potential access relationships that need to be managed across role-based permissions and business functions. Add in the reality of role changes, promotions, department transfers, contractor engagements, and departures, and the volume of IAM decisions that need to be made on a daily basis quickly becomes overwhelming for any human team to manage effectively.
The promise of automated provisioning and deprovisioning is compelling. New hires get access to exactly what they need on day one. Role changes trigger automatic adjustments to permissions. Departing employees lose access across all systems the moment their employment ends. Ideally, there are fewer delays, oversights, or lingering access risks—but even automated IAM is susceptible to synchronization and policy mapping issues.
Early adopters of IAM automation have reported impressive results: provisioning times reduced from days to minutes, deprovisioning errors significantly reduced, and IT teams freed up to focus on strategic work rather than access administration busywork.
But as more organizations have moved down this path, a different set of challenges has emerged—ones that have given many pause about how far automation should extend.
The Stakes: When Automation Goes Wrong
The fundamental tension in IAM automation stems from the fact that identity and access decisions are inherently contextual and nuanced in ways that are difficult to capture in automated rules and workflows.
-
Over-provisioning risks represent one side of the problem. Automated systems that err on the side of granting access can lead to privilege creep at scale—employees accumulating far more access than they need because automated rules cast too wide a net. When this happens across hundreds of users and dozens of applications, the result can be a massive expansion of attack surface that goes unnoticed until it’s too late.
-
Under-provisioning risks represent the other side. Automated systems that are too restrictive can leave employees unable to do their jobs, creating productivity bottlenecks and encouraging workarounds that often bypass security controls entirely. A sales team that can’t access the CRM system because automated provisioning failed to account for a recent organizational change will find a way to get their work done—often in ways that create new security vulnerabilities.
-
Perhaps most concerning are automation errors that compound over time. A misconfigured rule that grants inappropriate access or fails to remove access when it should doesn’t just create a single security incident—it creates a systematic vulnerability that grows larger with each automated decision. Without proper monitoring and governance, these errors can affect numerous users across multiple systems before being detected and remediated.
The certification processes that many organizations have implemented as a safeguard against these risks create their own problems. When properly designed with appropriate tooling and context, certification processes can be effective, but they often become time-consuming exercises with busy managers rubber-stamping access decisions they don’t fully understand, or worse, avoiding the certification process entirely until forced to engage with it.
The Human Factor: What Automation Can’t Replace
The challenge with IAM automation isn’t just technical—it’s fundamentally about the kinds of decisions that humans make well versus the kinds of decisions that can be effectively systematized.
Humans excel at understanding context, recognizing exceptions, and making judgment calls based on incomplete information. When a new employee joins a team that’s working on a special project, a human administrator can quickly understand that this person needs access to resources that aren’t typically granted to their role level. When someone is transitioning between roles over a period of weeks, humans can manage the complexity of maintaining some old access while gradually adding new access.
Automated systems, on the other hand, excel at consistency, scale, and speed. They don’t forget to deprovision access when someone leaves. They don’t accidentally grant administrative privileges to someone who should have read-only access. They can process hundreds of access decisions in the time it takes a human to carefully consider just one.
The problem emerges when organizations try to replace human judgment entirely with automated rules. The edge cases, exceptions, and contextual decisions that are routine in human-managed IAM become systematic blind spots in automated systems.
This has led some organizations to what might be called “automation hesitancy"—a recognition that they need the scale and consistency that automation provides, but also a concern that removing human oversight entirely may create new categories of risk that they’re not prepared to manage.
The Certification Trap
One of the most common responses to automation concerns has been the implementation of regular certification processes—periodic reviews where managers are asked to validate that their team members have appropriate access across all systems.
In theory, this provides the best of both worlds: the efficiency of automated provisioning and deprovisioning, with human oversight to catch errors and ensure appropriateness. In practice, poorly implemented certification processes have proven to be among the less effective components of modern IAM programs.
The fundamental problem is that certification processes often ask busy managers to make detailed decisions about technical access levels across dozens of applications that they may not fully understand. The result is often either rushed approvals that don’t actually provide meaningful oversight, or bottlenecks where critical business processes are delayed because managers don’t have time to properly review access requests.
When poorly designed, certification processes can become compliance exercises—elaborate workflows that generate impressive audit trails but don’t actually improve security posture. Organizations spend significant resources on certification infrastructure and processes, while the underlying access management decisions remain as problematic as ever.
Finding the Balance: A Framework for Decision-Making
The question isn’t whether organizations should automate IAM—it’s how to determine where automation provides clear benefits versus where human oversight remains essential.
-
High-confidence, high-volume decisions are ideal candidates for full automation. Deprovisioning access when employees leave the organization falls into this category—the decision criteria are clear, the consequences of delay are significant, and the volume makes manual processing impractical. Similarly, provisioning standard access for well-defined roles with established access patterns can be safely automated.
-
Contextual and exception-based decisions remain better suited for human oversight. Access requests that fall outside normal patterns, temporary access for special projects, and access modifications that involve elevated privileges are examples where human judgment adds meaningful value.
-
Time-sensitive decisions may require a hybrid approach. Emergency access requests or urgent role changes may need automated approval with human review and validation happening after the fact rather than before.
The technical integration challenge is also significant—organizations must invest substantially in robust connectors and data synchronization between HR systems, identity providers, and target applications. Data quality issues, inconsistent API availability, and technical integration failures can undermine even well-designed automation policies and often prove to be determining factors in implementation success.
The key is recognizing that this isn’t a binary choice between full automation and full manual control—it’s about creating systems that apply the appropriate level of automation to different types of decisions based on risk, complexity, and business impact.
Recommendations for Enterprises
Organizations looking to navigate the IAM automation question should consider several practical approaches, while keeping in mind that regulatory frameworks in many industries impose specific requirements for human oversight that may constrain automation options regardless of technical capabilities:
-
Start with deprovisioning automation. The risks of leaving access in place when it should be removed almost always outweigh the risks of automated removal. Organizations should prioritize automated deprovisioning for departing employees and role changes that reduce access levels, while implementing robust monitoring to catch any automation failures.
-
Implement smart provisioning rules with human review triggers. Rather than trying to automate all provisioning decisions, create automated workflows that handle standard cases but flag unusual requests for human review. Access requests that exceed normal role-based patterns, involve administrative privileges, or fall outside established business processes should trigger human oversight.
-
Replace periodic certification with continuous monitoring. Instead of asking managers to review all access quarterly or annually, implement systems that continuously monitor access usage and flag anomalies for review. Unused access, access that deviates from peer patterns, or access associated with unusual activity patterns are much more meaningful review targets than comprehensive access inventories.
-
Create clear automation boundaries. Establish explicit policies about which types of access decisions can be fully automated versus which require human approval. These boundaries should be based on risk assessment and regulatory requirements rather than convenience—high-risk access should always involve human oversight regardless of volume.
-
Invest in automation observability. Organizations that increase IAM automation need corresponding investments in monitoring and alerting systems that can detect when automated decisions are producing unintended results. This includes tracking access patterns, monitoring for privilege creep, and maintaining audit trails that enable rapid diagnosis of automation errors.
-
Plan for automation failure. Even well-designed automated systems will occasionally make mistakes or encounter technical failures. Organizations need processes for detecting these errors quickly and correcting them without creating additional security exposures or business disruptions.
-
Address regulatory and compliance requirements early. Different industries have varying regulatory requirements that may mandate specific IAM controls or approval processes. Organizations should ensure their automation strategies align with relevant compliance frameworks before implementation, as these requirements may significantly limit automation possibilities.
-
Budget for substantial upfront investment. IAM automation platforms require significant initial investment and ongoing maintenance costs. Organizations should factor these expenses into their decision-making process, as budget constraints often prove to be determining factors in automation success.
-
Consider environment complexity. Cloud-native organizations and those with extensive legacy infrastructure face different automation challenges and may require distinct approaches. Legacy systems often require additional integration work and may have limited automation capabilities.
The Path Forward
The debate over IAM automation ultimately reflects a broader challenge in cybersecurity: how to leverage the efficiency and consistency of automated systems while maintaining the judgment and adaptability that human oversight provides.
The answer isn’t to choose sides in this debate, but rather to recognize that modern IAM requires a thoughtful combination of both approaches. Organizations that try to automate everything will find themselves exposed to new categories of risk. Organizations that resist automation entirely will find themselves unable to keep pace with the scale and complexity of modern identity management.
The future of IAM lies not in replacing human judgment with automation, but in creating systems that amplify human judgment by automating routine decisions and surfacing the contextual decisions where human insight adds the most value.
For organizations still struggling with this balance, the time to act is now. The complexity of identity management isn’t decreasing, and the consequences of getting it wrong continue to escalate. The question isn’t whether to embrace IAM automation—it’s how to do so in a way that enhances rather than undermines your security posture.
And if you’re struggling to strategically plan and execute toward modern IAM automation, Plurilock can help—give us a call. ■
