Managing Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) internally is no small task, and many IT teams consider it the most cumbersome aspect of Identity and Access Management (IAM). As identity environments grow and compliance requirements become more demanding, organizations must work harder to validate user access, document reviews, and support auditors—all while minimizing risk. While other IAM capabilities center on access provisioning and authentication, identity governance requires consistent oversight, policy enforcement, and stakeholder participation.
In this article, we’ll explore why more organizations are choosing to outsource identity governance and how this shift helps reduce internal burden, improve audit readiness, and deliver long-term cost efficiency. If you're looking for a foundational overview of identity governance concepts and strategy, start with our guide: Identity Governance 101: Getting Started.
Unlike other IAM initiatives such as Single Sign-On (SSO) or automated provisioning, both of which improve user experience, identity governance typically introduces new responsibilities, particularly for business managers. Instead of working behind the scenes, governance demands broad participation across departments, often pulling hundreds of managers into regular access review cycles. And when those managers are asked to review users they don’t recognize, navigate unclear group names, or respond to review requests from internal IT, it creates confusion, friction and, eventually, fatigue.
Without the right structure and support, identity governance programs risk becoming check-the-box exercises rather than effective security controls. Over time, this undermines both security posture and compliance confidence, making it harder for organizations to demonstrate governance maturity. These challenges are common in early-stage IGA implementation efforts, especially when organizations lack centralized tooling or policy clarity.
Implementing and maintaining an effective identity governance program can be deceptively complex. Even with the right intentions, many organizations run into obstacles that stall progress, frustrate stakeholders, and create audit risk.
Common challenges include:
Managers are often asked to certify access for users they don’t directly oversee or recognize, especially in large or matrixed organizations. Without proper context or ownership, they may rubber-stamp requests or delay responses, undermining the integrity of the review process. This not only weakens the reliability of access controls but can introduce audit findings that are costly to resolve.
One of the biggest barriers to effective access review automation is the inability to translate group names into meaningful business context. Many group names or entitlement descriptions are vague, outdated, or technical in nature (e.g., "AD-GRP-FN-RO-L3"). This lack of clarity makes it difficult for reviewers to understand what level of access they’re approving, increasing the risk of excessive or inappropriate permissions.
When internal IT teams lead governance efforts, access reviews can feel like internal audits or blame exercises. This often leads to defensiveness, pushback, or apathy, especially if the IT team lacks the authority or neutrality to enforce compliance. Without the right change management approach, governance becomes a cultural hurdle rather than a strategic advantage.
Preparing for access-related audits is a heavy lift when organizations rely on spreadsheets, screenshots, or email trails to track certifications. Compliance teams spend countless hours gathering fragmented data and chasing down approvals—often right before deadlines. This reactive posture drives up labor costs and increases the likelihood of audit delays or penalties. Many organizations seek identity governance audit support to reduce the operational burden of proving access control effectiveness.
Identity data is frequently spread across multiple directories, SaaS platforms, and business applications. Without centralized reporting, it’s nearly impossible to get a full picture of who has access to what, which roles need recertification, and where risk is concentrated. Without central visibility, organizations miss opportunities to enforce least privilege and proactively reduce risk.
Many organizations struggle to define and enforce standardized governance policies across business units. With unclear accountability, inconsistent review cadences, and varying expectations, access certifications become a check-the-box activity rather than a meaningful control.
To reduce internal burden, many organizations are turning to expert partners for outsourced identity governance services or Compliance-as-a-Service (CaaS) offerings. While many organizations fully outsource identity governance, others adopt hybrid models, partnering with experts for tooling and oversight while retaining internal ownership of key policies.
The benefits of outsourcing IGA include: