Periodic User Access Review: Process, Benefits & Templates (2025)

A periodic user access review is a recurring, scheduled activity to confirm every user's proper system and data access. Periodic user access reviews are a systematic process to review and confirm user access to important systems, applications, and data stores. Periodic user access reviews conducted at regular intervals assure compliance with regulation-based policies, while helping to reduce general access risk and safeguard classified information.

Iteratively reviewing access routinely evaluates and adjusts permissions to strengthen security, measure compliance against regulations like SOX, PCI DSS and ISO 27001, and to mitigate risks including privilege creep and insider threats. Periodic user access reviews conducted regularly ensure appropriate access to business resources and efforts to protect classified information from abuse.

Manual spreadsheet-based processes become untenable as organizations grow, resulting in incomplete assessment and remediation delays. Modern identity governance applications provide automated data collection with workflows for rapid approvals and feed live dashboards to view access trends.

According to the Verizon DBIR 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report, 68% of breaches involved a non-malicious human element, highlighting why access reviews represent fundamental security controls rather than mere Compliance exercises.

Key takeaways:

• What periodic access reviews are and why they matter
• Step-by-step process for conducting reviews
• Compliance requirements and regulatory mandates
• Business benefits and cost savings
• Common challenges and how to avoid them
• Automation tools and downloadable resources

What Is a Periodic User Access Review?

A periodic user access review is a systematic assessment of user access rights across systems within an enterprise at regular intervals in order to confirm appropriate access based on current job responsibilities and organizational policy.

Periodic access reviews are a planned cycle of assessing and validating user access within the organization. Periodic reviews may occur quarterly, semi-annually, or annually, and help determine if the access rights are aligned with business needs and regulatory requirements. The goal is to retain a current and accurate record of user entitlements, reduce the likelihood of unauthorized access, and deter data breaches.

The systematic approach differentiates these reviews from an ad-hoc Security Audit. Organizations will set a regular cadence, usually quarterly for higher-risk systems containing financial data and annually for standard business applications. The SANS Institute's 2024 Human Risk Report highlights that 28% of breaches now result from human error, underscoring the importance of structured reviews in identifying access misconfigurations before they lead to security vulnerabilities.

Why Periodic User Access Reviews Are Important

The importance of Periodic Access Reviews stems from their role as proactive security controls that prevent unauthorized access, ensure regulatory Compliance, and maintain operational efficiency.

• Avoid unauthorized access and privilege creep. Privilege creep happens when employees keep access from a previous role while being given new permissions. If you don’t perform regular access reviews, users will collect excessive permissions that create security risks and increase the likelihood of a data breach.
• Ensure compliance with SOX, PCI DSS, HIPAA, and ISO 27001. SOX section 404 requires system reviews of financial systems on a quarterly basis. PCI DSS requirement 7.2.3 requires access reviews at least once every 6 months. HIPAA’s Security Rule requires access to information is evaluated on a periodic basis and ISO 27001 control A.9.2.6 also requires regular reviews of access rights.
• Mitigate insider threats and data breaches. The Ponemon Cost of Insider Risks Report of 2025 notes that organizations are spending $17.4 million dollars annually dealing with an incident involving an insider threat (Ponemon 2025). Conducting regular access reviews can uncover suspicious and worrisome incidents of access, including access to system not commonly used or having excessive permissions to data or systems.
• Ensure users access reflects business needs and their role. Organizations change through restructuring and digital transformation and access permissions change as well. As a result, it is essential to perform regular access reviews to avoid security risk and operational inefficiencies.

Step-by-Step Periodic User Access Review Process

The Regular User Access Review is a systematic process that turns complicated enterprise access verification into simple, repeatable processes that are thorough and audit compliant.

1. Plan review objectives and scope

Be clear about what measurable objectives you wish to achieve, for example, a "25% reduction in administrative access" or "100% documentation of approvals reached in 45 days." Determine the best type of review for your organization. Define time frames, make firm commitments to business, and assign necessary IT functions. Define scope by determining the specific systems and user groups to be reviewed, ideally starting with the highest risk systems, such as financial applications.

2. Assign review owners

Determine clear ownership for each responsibility along with ownership of access per user. In many organizations, there can be very complex ownership issues to disentangle, especially when a responsibility/role is being used across multiple divisions with groups of users assigned to different owners. Establish clear accountability structures: HR is verifying employment, IT administrators are pulling access, business managers are making decisions on approval, and compliance officials are ensuring documentation is in order.

3. Identify users and systems

Develop comprehensive inventories including employees, contractors, service accounts, and federated access. CyberSeek data shows 67% of organizations discover previously unknown accounts during thorough inventories.

4. Generate access reports

Obtain the latest permission data that reflects the actual net impact of access controls in place. All ERP systems are unique, and in addition to their quirks, they each approach multiple roles in different ways, and they all approach menu exclusion in different ways to control access. The reports should be practical and focused on providing meaningful data and analysis because if they do not provide the actionable data and information all respect for the process will be lost. Rather than getting into a myriad of detail, the focus should always be on user identities, roles assigned, high-risk permissions, and the dates that they last performed an activity. For a complex system, the three areas to focus on are administrative access, permissions to execute financial transactions, and access to sensitive data.

5. Validate permissions with stakeholders

Show access information utilizing business-friendly formats, when possible, explaining what is functionally able versus the technical permission name. Use risk scoring to prioritize review work on concerning access combinations.

6. Revoke unnecessary access

Implement changes via authorized means and as planned, beginning with the highest-risk permissions. Create detailed logs of changes and follow change management processes to avoid causing operational disruption.

7. Document all actions

Generate complete documentation for both operational and audit-related purposes. Documentation should reflect the entire decision-making process: what access was reviewed; who made the approval decisions; what criteria were used; and what remediation actions were taken. Make sure to document the date and time when the access was reviewed, who was responsible for the review, and the business rationale for all changes. This documentation creates an audit history that establishes good faith compliance effort and supports any incident investigation, should the access be abused at some later time.

8. Obtain approvals

Obtain formal sign-offs from business owners indicating that access reviews are finished and accurate for their areas of responsibility. These approvals should be specific and not blanket approvals; each business owner must indicate they reviewed access to their users and they concur with the documented access decisions.

Approval provides multiple benefits: It provides evidence of business involvement in Security governance; it provides a layer of legal protection if future security incidents arise; and it establishes accountability for decisions made about access among the business leaders.

9. Schedule next review

Establish sustainable cycles aligning with business rhythms and regulatory requirements. Configure automated reminders and assign responsibilities for subsequent cycles.

Key Components of Periodic User Access Reviews

Key components are critical building blocks that allow ad hoc access verification to scale to full governance frameworks across enterprise environments.

• The first step is to identify all users with access to resources, applications, and data repositories within the organization, including current employees and external users, such as contractors or vendors, as well as inventorying all access methods – employees, contractors, service accounts for applications, shared admin accounts, and federated accounts from business partners. Gartner Identity and Access Management Research indicates organizations typically discover 20-30% more accounts than initially estimated.
• Assess permission appropriateness: After identifying users, permissions are evaluated against the predetermined standards and policies. This evaluation determines if the user has appropriate permissions or access levels to effectively perform their job duties. Check that permissions continue to remain appropriate for the user's current job functions within business context and prioritize examining permissions for higher risk use cases such as administrative permissions, modifying financial records, and accessing personal information of customers.
• Define frequency and ownership: Establish how often access reviews should occur and who is responsible for the review. Frequency is based on the sensitivity of the system; systems with higher sensitivity such as financial applications, should have access reviews quarterly (every 3 months) versus lower sensitivity business applications can be reviewed annually (once every year). Defining ownership, i.e. who will have review responsibility, and making that ownership clear so a specific person or team conducts review for each system/user group, approves permission changes, and makes permission changes, is an important aspect of the access review process.
• Document and track changes: Thorough documentation of the access review process needs to take place for audit preparedness and regulatory compliance. Organizations must document detailed information on access reviews, such as the participants, access rights reviewed, changes made, and rationale for changes. Multiple stakeholders rely on access review documentation for various reasons. Operations teams may need a change history when troubleshooting any problems, compliance or legal teams will require the business justification for the auditors, and security teams may need the historical data to identify trends to support risk identification.
• Remediate access violations: Access reviews often reveal problems related to excessive permissions, dormant accounts, and unauthorized access; remediating access violations provides the opportunity to resolve access issues promptly, revoke unnecessary access, assign roles, and enhance security. Develop processes for a distinct type of violation requiring immediate remediation versus addressing in a timely manner: for example, a critical violation of unauthorized administrator access versus a lower risk violation of unused application access.
• Improve process with feedback: Establish mechanisms to capture lessons learned from each review cycle and incorporate improvements into subsequent rounds. Collect feedback from review participants about process pain points, unclear procedures, and suggestions for streamlining workflows. Analyze trends in access violations to identify root causes, if similar inappropriate access appears repeatedly across reviews, the underlying provisioning or role management processes may need adjustment. Use insights from completed reviews to refine approval workflows, update documentation templates, enhance training materials, and optimize review schedules for better business alignment.

What is the value of a good Periodic Review process?

The benefits of systematic review processes go beyond compliance obligations to achieve quantifiable business results such as risk mitigation and operational efficiencies.

Be sure IT general controls pertaining to access are authorized, reviewed and approved. IT general controls underlie the trustworthy financial reporting demanded by SOX compliance. Effective review processes create a documented trail of evidence that access decisions may be supported and made on the basis of established authorization process.

Contribute to management's confidence in internal controls such as Segregation of Duties. Segregation of duties principles identify that a single person may not complete all steps of a business process alone. Reviews effectively identify and address conflict situations where individuals accumulate incompatible responsibilities.

Engage the Business: committing them to take ownership of the problems and solutions. Effective processes ensure business managers actively participate in access decisions, so security governance becomes an accountability shared across the business, rather than the sole responsibility of IT.

Assist you in developing a prioritized remediation plan. Systematic reviews provide data that shows violation patterns and areas needing immediate remediation consideration for solutions based on evidence for addressing identified violations.

Benefits of Periodic User Access Reviews

Programmatic access review processes yield measurable security benefits, effective efficiencies, and risk management capabilities that provide a return on governance process investment.

1. Improved security posture by minimizing the risk of unauthorized access and potential breaches

Organizations can adopt regular access reviews to decrease the attack surface in their organization by ensuring permissions and accounts do not remain unnecessarily. The review process establishes an ongoing way to address privilege creep, where employees may have ongoing access through role changes without access being removed.

2. Enhanced Compliance with industry regulations and internal policies

Formal review processes can provide documented evidence of the due diligence required by regulatory obligations. SOX compliance requires evidence of proper internal controls through documented approval and remediation processes.

3. Efficient resource allocation by eliminating unnecessary access privileges

Removing unused software licenses reduces operational costs while simplifying administrative overhead. The Flexera 2024 State of ITAM Report reveals organizations waste between 20-30% of their IT spending, much stemming from access permissions persisting after users no longer need specific applications.

4. Prevention of insider threats and potential misuse of privileges

Ongoing access validation may also identify employees that have more permissions than necessary, which may result in insider threat risk. By verifying employees' access, organizations can minimize both intentional and unintentional data misuse, while establishing a deterrent element.

Factors to Consider When Conducting Periodic User Access Reviews

Critical factors encompass operational, technical, and organizational elements determining whether review programs deliver intended security and compliance outcomes.

1. Complete User List – Include all employees, contractors, and anyone with system access.

• A complete inventory of users enables efficient access reviews. This inventory must include all forms of account access to organizational resources, including contractors provided by third-party organizations, temporary workers with project-related access, service accounts for application-to-application access, shared accounts for emergencies, and federated accounts from business partners needing system access for work required to meet a contract.
• Automate discovery tools to scan network segments and application databases for user accounts, but do not simply rely on the technology. A manual process will often find things that others may have forgotten, including systems, applications related to shadow IT, and local accounts that automation cannot discover. Create centralized registries that link user identities across systems so user access profiles can be fully understood. Having a centralized view will also clarify any potential privilege escalation risks when users may have low-level access has too many disparate systems adding up to relatively high permissions.

2. Real-time Employment Status sync – Remove or adjust access promptly after role changes or departures.

• To maintain security, it is important to routinely check and modify authorization based upon employment changes. The ability to minimize the manual changes through integration (between HR systems and identity management systems) allows for authorization to be modified upon employment status change; however, the integration to address all employment changes requires some purposeful contemplation.
• For example, contracts typically have end dates that do not always offer notice, or an employee may go on extended leave and, therefore, should not have authorization while away, or temporary workers may have authorization based on project engagement, or an employee may change roles and require the removal of old role authorizations at the same time as new role authorizations need to be added; a sophisticated automated provisioning must allow the organization to develop a plan and take action on whether and how to change access based on employment changes. A balance between speed and accuracy is important in these scenario; while swift response to termination of employment significantly mitigates security exposure, ensuring the accurate provisioning is consistent permits the organization to continue forward business and operations without interruption.

3. Role-based permission mapping – Ensure permissions match current job duties to avoid over- or under-access.

• To have effective role-based access control, it is important to clarify what access needs to be assigned to every job function; however, to maintain compliance with changing business requirements, these definitions will need to be revised. Develop role definitions which outline what access will be required for each job position type with an understanding that roles change over time and if strictly defined may create dated definitions.
• Utilize role mining techniques that collect and analyze all access patterns relevant to existing permission assignments to the job function in order to define what users need access to in relation to their job functions rather than being solely reliant on an initial role definition which may not be representative of your organizations business need. Regular validations to these role baselines and continued monitoring for any permission drift should be practiced to ensure cross-consistency among similar job roles. These validation efforts should also ensure consideration for legitimate business purposes; just because two individuals have the same job title at two different departments it does not automatically mean the two individuals should have the same access due different needs associated with the systems and data their department utilizes. Document these distinctions as approved variation or exceptions rather than creating unnatural standardization that does not contribute to the organizations business need.

4. Access necessity checks – Grant only what's needed for critical tasks; avoid excessive privileges.

• Access decisions should be based on the principle of least privilege, while being practical in delivery to ensure that access does not come with an operationally prohibitive barrier. The principle should be applied uniformly across all systems and applications, but only consider necessity to the fullest degree for high-risk permissions that propose the highest level of security threat.
• When considering permissions, focus on reviewing administrative access that affects the ability to change system configurations, the ability to change financial records or approve financial transactions, access to customer PII and sensitive data, as well as permissions that override basic operational controls and would allow for fraud-like behavior. When considering operational permissions that are low-risk, it may be more feasible to consider a balance between the overall principle and not prioritizing absolute minimize. Consider applying just-in-time administrative access, whereby elevated permissions can last only as long as there is a justified need, and just-in-time is systematically revoked after a defined period. The same rationale can be employed for time-limited permissions for project-time based work, and allows for the optimization of permissions of low operational risk. This allows for relative security while not becoming overly invasive towards the user experience or productivity.

5. Review cycle Consistency – Align reviews with existing provisioning policies and handle exceptions.

• Effective scheduling for access reviews requires you to think strategically to get the most out of your operational time. Synchronize your review schedule to align with business cycles, regulatory and compliance requirements, and organization change patterns. Avoid scheduling any significant access reviews during busy times, such as month-end financial closing, annual budget planning, or peak sales seasons, so business managers will have time to prepare thoughtful access recommendations.
• Consistent review activities create predictable processes to which teams can plan, but allow for documented process exceptions for legitimate business purposes. Not every situation will fall neatly into an established policy or process and urgent business needs may require a legitimate deviation from the normal access approval process altogether. Clear escalation procedures for resolving disputes between a security need and a business need will allow you to make sure you don't stall the completion of the review because of sometimes conflicting interests. When it is possible that a decision on high-risk access might require a consideration of the business reality, or devolving to a Senior Leader, that is where it makes sense to have Executive Sponsorship. Often, Senior Leadership has a perspective on security needs in relation to business needs that a blocked operational team does not..

6. Audit-ready Documentation – Keep detailed, approved records for audits and investigations.

• Comprehensive documentation acts as proof of due diligence in fulfilling regulatory examinations and illustrates an organization’s ability to comply with varying frameworks. Maintain documentation that describes the review scope (which indicates what you reviewed), the methodology (what reviews were performed), as well as detailed findings (what issues were discovered), business justifications (why you approved access in some instances while denying in others), and remediation actions (what actions were taken to mitigate the issues).
• Most importantly, document these reports in a tamper-evident way that prohibits unauthorized changes and preserves the integrity of the audit trail. Hold these records for as long as required by any applicable regulatory standards, but generally speaking retain records of data 3 years (SOX compliance), 6 years (HIPAA), but it depends on the organization and the circumstance of the regulation to determine their retention. Documentation that clearly describes business justifications for access decisions is very important, but also retaining the chain of approvals demonstrating the appropriate segregation of duties in the review process itself is imperative. The segregation of duties should ensure that it was never the same person who generated the access report, approved the access decision, and implemented the access changes, which is critical to audit evidence of sufficient internal controls.

7. Right Tools – Use platforms like TechPrescient to centralize, automate, and streamline reviews.

• Modern identity governance platforms change how access reviews are accomplished in organizations by automating and scaling what used to be a heavily manual process. Manual processes using spreadsheets can lead to data entry errors, are difficult to track, and cannot scale for large organizations with thousands of users and hundreds of applications.
• TechPrescient’s Identity Confluence solution mitigates some of the commonly faced obstacles to access reviews in organizations by automating data collection for disparate systems, eliminating the requirement for IT teams to manually access reports for each application and provide the information to managers. Approval workflows built into the platform offer managers simple and streamlined processes to review access, while illustrating access histories in a business-friendly way. Managers can accept or reject access without any technical knowledge, as the information is presented in a way that is easy to comprehend. Security teams can view access patterns in real time and understand patterns prior to access reviews, rather than discovering by chance access problems or issues.
• Other advanced features enhance the security posture of organizations too, like risk scoring on potential access combinations as a prioritization mechanism for reviewing access. Anomaly detection can also detect patterns that might indicate potential access issues. Predictive analytics can also forecast potential access violations, facilitating pre-emptive action on violations rather than waiting to address them as remediation once accessed. All of this helps reduce the administrative burden, while simultaneously improving accuracy, consistency, and audit trail, changing access governance from a compliance headache, into a security capability.

Common Challenges to Avoid

Common challenges represent predictable operational obstacles that can undermine program effectiveness or generate unsustainable administrative overhead.

1. Complex multi-site system:

Large organizations face implementation challenges across multiple sites with different IT infrastructures, varying local regulations, and diverse operational practices. Successful approaches involve establishing common governance frameworks while allowing necessary local variations.

2. Role shifts and employee exits:

Organizations with high turnover face challenges in maintaining current access permissions reflecting actual business needs. Manual termination processes create security windows where departing employees retain system access. Effective approaches include implementing automated provisioning synchronized with HR databases.

3. Manual efforts and resource drain:

Traditional spreadsheet-based processes consume hundreds of person-hours per cycle, creating unsustainable administrative burdens. Organizations can address these through identity governance platforms, automating routine tasks and streamlined approval workflows.

Quick Checklist for Periodic User Access Reviews

This checklist provides a practical framework ensuring comprehensive coverage of essential review activities while maintaining focus on critical elements.

☑ Define scope & frequency: Establish which systems, applications, and user populations require review based on risk levels and regulatory requirements.

☑ Gather current access inventory: Extract comprehensive user access reports from all in-scope systems, including identities, roles, and high-risk permissions.

☑ Validate access with relevant owners: Present access reports to business managers for approval decisions based on current job responsibilities.

☑ Revoke unnecessary permissions: Remove inappropriate access, disable dormant accounts, and adjust over-privileged users to appropriate levels.

☑ Document findings and actions: Maintain detailed records of review results, approval decisions, and remediation actions for audit purposes.

☑ Schedule next periodic review: Establish calendar reminders and assign responsibilities for subsequent cycles, ensuring continuous governance.

Top Tools to Automate Periodic User Access Reviews in 2025

Automation tools consist of identity governance solutions that mitigate manual processes and give you a live view of access patterns while providing complete audit trails.

Modern identity governance solutions addresses key concerns with myriad issues when access reviews are done manually and at enterprise scale. These solutions connect to enterprise applications, do the access timestamping automatically, and do the approval process to completion.

TechPrescient’s Identity Confluence solution represents next generation automation by connecting to more than 50 enterprise applications including Salesforce, Azure AD, Google Workspace and SAP allowing access visibility in a unified context across complex IT environments.

Key automation capabilities include:

• Intelligent data collection across cloud and on-premises systems automatically discovers user accounts and permissions
• Risk-based prioritization using machine learning algorithms, analyzing access patterns, and flagging high-risk accounts
• Streamlined approval workflows with mobile-friendly interfaces, enabling business managers to review and approve access efficiently
• Automated remediation with rollback capabilities, implementing approved access changes systematically
• Compliance reporting with pre-built templates for SOX, HIPAA, and PCI DSS, generating audit-ready documentation automatically

Future of Periodic Access Management

Access management has evolved from static review processes to dynamic, continuous governance practices that leverage artificial intelligence and adaptive security models.

Periodic access reviews will become intelligent and automated. Adaptive security models will replace the traditional fixed review schedule with monitoring activities and review cycles that respond to user behaviour. These models will continuously assess user behaviours and identify involuntary inconsistent access permissions based on identified patterns. AI-based access risk scoring will be used to analyze access patterns and inform a dynamic risk score to help prioritize review efforts on accounts with the highest risk while reducing overhead. All role changes will take place seamlessly without administrator involvement in the access update process. Policy engines will facilitate situational awareness to trigger routine access adaptations automatically and flag unusual requests for administrator review. This change will represent a shift from snapshot-based methodology (instanced patterns) for review to continuous, intelligent access governance methodology that will automatically adjust to the organizational context.

Final Thoughts

Regular User Access Reviews are unlikely to become less important in enterprise security programs extending beyond regulatory Compliance in 2025. Evidence suggests that organizations that focus on consistent and systematic review processes will have improved security posture, reduced Compliance costs, and more efficient operations.

Technology platforms increasingly play an important role in making access reviews possible at enterprise scale. Modern identity governance will remove unnecessary administrative burden while increasing consistency and quality of the audit trail.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What is the User Access Review process?

The User Access Review process is a systematic methodology for validating that user permissions remain appropriate based on current job responsibilities. The process involves collecting access data, presenting information to business owners for approval decisions, implementing approved changes, and documenting all decisions for audit purposes.

2. How often should User Access Reviews be performed?

Review frequency should align with system risk levels and regulatory requirements. High-risk systems containing financial data typically require quarterly reviews to meet SOX, PCI DSS requirements. Standard business applications may only need annual reviews unless Compliance obligations dictate otherwise.

3. What's the difference between a User Access Review and an audit?

User Access Reviews are ongoing governance activities conducted by internal teams to proactively manage access permissions. Audits are formal examinations conducted by external parties to verify Compliance with specific standards at particular points in time.

4. What tools can help automate the process?

Tech Prescient's Identity Confluence platform, Microsoft Entra ID Governance, SailPoint IdentityNow, and Okta Identity Governance provide comprehensive automation capabilities. These platforms integrate with multiple systems to streamline data collection, approval workflows, and remediation tracking.