This template comes with the file: a six-tab workbook covering setup, review, remediation, summary, and sign-off, ready to run a real review cycle. Below is exactly what's in it, why each field exists, and the honest note on where spreadsheet-based reviews stop scaling.
New to user access reviews as a practice? Start with the complete guide; this article assumes you're ready to run one.
Download the template (.xlsx), then use this article as the walkthrough. It covers the six tabs, the field-by-field reasoning, the workflow for running a cycle on it, and the point at which a template stops being enough.
What's in the Template
Yellow cells are fill-ins, white bordered columns take your access data, and each sheet carries one grey italic example row showing the expected format.
The Access Review Sheet, Field by Field
The core worksheet is where the review actually happens, and every column earns its place. Here's the full set and the reasoning:
Two design choices are deliberate and worth defending. One row per user-application pair, not per user, because a person with twelve apps needs twelve decisions, and collapsing them into one row forces one decision to cover twelve different risk levels. And the decision column is a dropdown, not free text, because the summary tab's counts, and any auditor's confidence, depend on decisions being one of exactly four values.
Running a Review Cycle on the Template
The template maps onto a five-step cycle, the same sequence our user access review process guide covers in full, and the tabs follow it.
Step 1: Charter the review on the Setup tab. Name the review, assign the owner, define what's in scope and, just as important, what's out of scope and why, then set three dates: start, reviewer deadline, and remediation deadline. The out-of-scope line matters more than it looks: an auditor who finds an application missing from the review needs to see it was excluded deliberately, not forgotten.
Step 2: Load the data. Export user-access data from your identity provider and application admin consoles, and paste it into the white columns of the Access Review Sheet. Record the extraction date on the Setup tab, because access data goes stale fast, and a review executed in August on data pulled in May is reviewing a company that no longer exists.
Step 3: Assign reviewers and execute. The right reviewer is whoever has the context to judge the access, typically the direct manager for role-appropriateness and the app owner for permission levels. One hard rule the template's instructions enforce: nobody reviews their own access. Reviewers work their rows, choose a decision from the dropdown, and write the mandatory comment on every Revoke and Modify.
Step 4: Remediate from the tracker. Every Revoke and Modify row moves to the Remediation Tracker with a required action, an owner, and a ticket reference, and stays open until its status reads Completed and a second person verifies it. This tab exists because the most common failure in spreadsheet reviews isn't bad decisions, it's decisions that never became actions: the review "completed," the revocations sat in a column, and the access survived. Closing that gap between decision and executed change is exactly what closed-loop remediation means; the tracker is the manual version of it.
Step 5: Sign off and freeze. Each reviewer attests on the Sign-Off Log that their records are complete, with a date. Then the file gets locked or exported to PDF, because a spreadsheet that keeps changing after sign-off isn't evidence of anything. What auditors test against this frozen record, framework by framework, is covered in our user access review audit guide. The Review Summary tab gives whoever owns the review the live numbers along the way: completion percentage, decision breakdown, and the remediation-completed count against what Revoke and Modify generated.
Three ground rules are baked into the template, and a review can follow every other step and still fail an audit on any one of them:
- Comments are mandatory on every Revoke and Modify
- Self-review is prohibited
- The file freezes at sign-off
How Often to Run It
The template is cycle-agnostic, but the cadence should follow risk rather than a single calendar rule:
Most compliance frameworks, SOC 2, SOX ITGC, ISO 27001, expect periodic review without mandating a specific interval, so the defensible position is a documented cadence per application tier, applied consistently. Duplicate the workbook per cycle, date each copy, and keep the archive: the sequence of completed, frozen reviews is itself the evidence that reviews are periodic rather than occasional.
Where the Template Stops Working
An honest note, because it's the part template articles skip: this workbook runs a real review, and spreadsheet-based reviews have a ceiling that has nothing to do with the template's design.
Four things break down as the review grows past a few hundred rows:
- Data gathering is manual: exporting users, roles, and last-login data from every in-scope application, redone every cycle
- Reviewer follow-up runs on nagging: no automatic reminders, no escalation, no reassignment when a reviewer leaves mid-cycle
- Remediation is a to-do list, not an action: a "Revoke" decision changes nothing until someone manually goes and executes it
- Scale multiplies all three: the overhead grows until the review consumes more time than the risk it reduces
The data gathering is manual, and it's most of the work. Exporting users, roles, and last-login data from every in-scope application, normalizing the formats, and pasting it in takes longer than the review itself, and it has to be redone every cycle. The template organizes that data; it can't fetch it.
What Breaks as the Review Grows
The other three limits show up together, and a platform closes all three the same way: by turning a manual step into an automated one.
The survey numbers show where that ceiling sits: in our research across 215 security and IT leaders, fully manual reviews average 149 person-days per cycle against 55 for fully automated ones, and 38% of organizations spend five to seven days of elapsed time on every cycle.
When to Move Off the Template
Use the template if you're running your first cycles or your scope is small. Move on once any of these start showing up:
- Data gathering alone is eating multiple days per cycle
- Reviewer chasing has become someone's part-time job
- Revoke decisions are piling up faster than anyone executes them
None of that is a failure of the template, it's the point at which spreadsheets stop being the right tool. Run each cycle against the user access review checklist as well; the template captures the review, the checklist keeps the execution from going wrong.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a user access review template?
It's the structured document an access review runs on: the fields describing each user-application pair (role, status, last login), the reviewer's decision and justification, and the surrounding tracking, scope, remediation, sign-off, that turns decisions into completed actions and audit evidence. The template in this article covers all of it across six tabs.
What fields are essential in an access review template?
The minimum defensible set: user identity, department, employment status, application, the specific role or permission level (not just app name), last login, an assigned reviewer, a constrained decision field, a comment required for revocations and modifications, and a decision date. Everything else, license type, grant date, account status, strengthens the review but those ten make it auditable.
Who should be the reviewer in the template?
Whoever has real context on whether the access is appropriate: typically the direct manager for role-fit and the application owner for permission levels. The one absolute rule is no self-review, a reviewer who appears as a user in their own scope gets that row reassigned.
How often should the template be used?
Match cadence to risk tier: quarterly for regulated, financial, and admin-level access; semi-annually or annually for standard applications. Frameworks like SOC 2 and ISO 27001 require periodic reviews without fixing an interval, so a documented, consistently applied cadence per tier is the defensible position.
Is a spreadsheet template enough for compliance?
For small scopes, yes, provided the review is actually completed, remediated, signed off, and frozen as point-in-time evidence. What auditors reject isn't the spreadsheet format; it's incomplete cycles, revocations that never executed, and files that kept changing after sign-off. The template's remediation tracker and sign-off log exist specifically to prevent those three findings.
When should we move from a template to an access review tool?
When the manual overhead outgrows the template: data gathering across a large SaaS stack taking days per cycle, reviewer chasing consuming the review owner's time, or Revoke decisions piling up in the tracker faster than anyone executes them. The structure stays the same in a platform; the manual steps around it are what automation removes.
.svg)
