Automating compliance: the need for human oversight

Sam Peters at ISMS.online argues that compliance still needs human insight in an automated world

 

In today’s fast-paced regulatory environment, compliance professionals face growing challenges. With evolving standards and increasingly thorough audits, many businesses must navigate multiple frameworks such as ISO 27001 and the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Managing tasks like risk assessments, internal audits, and policy updates has become complex and often overwhelming. As a result, automation is no longer a luxury - it’s a practical necessity.

 

Automation can significantly ease the burden of repetitive, time-consuming tasks. It enhances consistency, reduces errors and improves visibility. According to the Thomson Reuters 2023 Risk & Compliance report, 65% of respondents believe automating manual processes would reduce compliance complexity and cost. Additionally, a McKinsey article states that “about 60 per cent of all occupations could see 30 per cent or more of their constituent activities automated.”  

 

However, a major misconception is that automation can replace human oversight. In reality, successful compliance is about aligning the two and not about choosing between people or technology.

 

 

Compliance teams are under pressure

ISMS.online’s State of Information Security report found that nearly 60% of respondents are struggling to keep up with the pace of regulatory change which is making it difficult to comply with information security best practices.

 

With limited time and budget, compliance teams are facing greater expectations and manual tools like spreadsheets and email threads are proving unsustainable. Automation provides a clear path forward, reducing duplication of effort, ensuring consistency and freeing up valuable time that teams can reinvest into more strategic work. Not to mention the reduction in mental load and staff burnout.

 

For example, automated workflows can help manage evidence collection, monitor controls and trigger notifications. These capabilities allow organisations to meet compliance requirements more efficiently and with fewer errors. Yet, automation can only go so far. Without human oversight, there’s a risk of overconfidence in automated systems, which can lead to blind spots and ethical missteps.  Similarly, algorithms can’t interpret context, nuance or evolving risk in the way people can.

 

 

Where automation helps, and where people are essential

When it comes to compliance, there are clear areas where automation delivers value, such as setting up recurring control reminders to ensure that nothing is forgotten or delayed or collecting evidence automatically and speeding up audit preparation. Real-time dashboards also provide visibility across the organisation and support faster decision-making.

 

However, whilst automation can tell you that a control is overdue, it cannot decide whether that control is still relevant, whether the associated risk has changed or how it impacts your wider business objectives. No system, no matter how advanced, can fully replace human insight and experience.

 

Take ISO 27001 as an example. Automation can support task management, policy reviews, and document tracking. But essential tasks like risk assessment and crafting treatment plans still require human insight. In fact, our information security experts estimate that only around 20% of ISO 27001 can be fully automated. These are not theoretical limitations. In practice, failing to apply human oversight to automated processes can introduce real vulnerabilities. A false sense of security, blind reliance on software outputs and the erosion of accountability are all risks when people are taken completely out of the loop.

 

Rather than viewing automation and human oversight as competing forces, organisations should see them as complementary. The most resilient compliance programmes are those where people, process and technology are in sync.

 

 

Accountability in an automated environment

The key is to ensure that automation is implemented with responsibility and transparency. Every automated task should have a clear owner, and every decision point should have a route for escalation if needed.

 

Leaders also need to be aware of what’s happening and why, and who is responsible. This clarity not only ensures accurate compliance but also builds trust among stakeholders, regulators and customers.

 

For example, a scattergun approach using disconnected point solutions can create data silos, increase confusion and ultimately add risk. The most successful organisations take a strategic view, choosing platforms that bring all their compliance activities into a single, transparent environment.

 

Businesses must build tools that support human excellence. The aim is not to replace people, but to remove barriers that prevent them from being productive. Automation is part of that, but it must always be framed within the context of responsibility and governance.

 

 

Compliance as a catalyst for growth

Rather than being a burden, compliance should be a source of strength.  It should support strategic goals, and foster trust with customers and regulators. Automation plays a key role in achieving this by eliminating friction and streamlining operations. But people also need to ensure that compliance efforts stay aligned with business values and remains ethically sound.

 

Organisations looking to adapt their compliance processes should begin by reviewing workflows. They need to identify which tasks are repeatable and rules-based, and therefore are candidates for automation, and which require human insight. From there, businesses can then identify the opportunities to automate and adopt tools that combine transparency and scalability. Businesses should invest in platforms that provide visibility across the compliance lifecycle and ensure that oversight is embedded at key decision points. Crucially, governance frameworks should define responsibilities clearly and promote active accountability.

 

Investing in a single, cohesive platform provides better long-term value than piecemeal tools. It ensures visibility across the compliance lifecycle and supports governance at critical decision points. With clearly defined responsibilities and accountability structures, businesses can build resilient and responsive compliance systems.

 

 

The future of balanced compliance

As more businesses pursue certifications such as ISO 27001, SOC 2 and GDPR readiness, the need to streamline and standardise compliance activities will only grow. Standardisation does not mean removing all nuance or flattening risk decisions into binary outputs. Effective compliance must reflect the complexity of the modern threat landscape, the values of the organisation and the expectations of stakeholders.

 

Automation will be the engine, but people remain the drivers. To succeed, compliance leaders must map out pain points, automate where appropriate and embed governance throughout.

 

This is why the conversation around automation must always come back to balance. Automation offers speed, repeatability and scalability, but these qualities alone cannot guarantee effective security or regulatory alignment. The human contribution, from contextual judgement to moral leadership, ensures that automation serves the right goals and does not drift into “tick-box” territory.

 

By fostering a culture of ownership and accountability, businesses can turn compliance into a strategic asset. When technology and people work together, compliance becomes not only easier, but smarter, stronger and a true catalyst for growth.

 

---

 

Sam Peters is Chief Product Officer at ISMS.online

 

Main image courtesy of iStockPhoto.com and Laurence Dutton