Compliance leaders in the U.S. are operating in a storm. From state-level privacy laws like the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) to sector-specific rules such as HIPAA in healthcare and the SEC’s expanded cybersecurity disclosure requirements, the regulatory environment is becoming more fragmented and unforgiving. Global frameworks like the EU’s NIS 2 Directive and DORA are adding cross-border demands for multinational firms. Audits are also becoming more forensic, with regulators asking for detailed, traceable evidence rather than static point-in-time assurances. Against this backdrop, compliance teams are stretched thin, and automation is moving quickly from “nice to have” to “non-negotiable.”
Where Automation Adds Real Value
Automation already touches much of today’s compliance practice. Instead of compliance officers manually capturing screenshots or downloading logs, evidence can now be pulled directly from access records and system configurations. Automated tools scan for vulnerabilities, flagging when encryption is disabled or password policies fall out of line. Platforms send reminders for recurring obligations – policy reviews, training acknowledgements, or risk assessments – ensuring nothing is missed.
Also Read: CIO Influence Interview with Liav Caspi, Co-Founder & CTO at Legit Security
In a large enterprise, one compliance officer can oversee controls across multiple regions without duplicating work. Automation can also map overlapping requirements between frameworks like ISO 27001, SOC 2, and NIS 2 to reduce redundancy. For organizations constantly onboarding new obligations, this efficiency makes the difference between keeping pace with regulators and falling behind.
Why Human Oversight Still Matters
Yet as powerful as automation has become, it is not a silver bullet. There are moments when only human oversight can provide the necessary interpretation, context, and accountability.
Consider the gray areas of new regulation: a machine can flag a rule, but it cannot decide whether the EU AI Act applies to a company’s specific product line. If a supplier breach is detected, automation may surface it, but people must weigh the reputational, contractual, and legal ramifications. Even with technical issues, automation may highlight missing patches, but humans are the ones who must prioritize fixes, coordinate remediation, and validate that vulnerabilities are closed.
Audits highlight this divide even more clearly. Regulators rarely accept a data dump without explanation. Compliance officers must be able to explain how controls work, why exceptions exist, and what is being done to address them. Without human review, automated alerts risk creating false positives, blind spots, or alert fatigue. Perhaps most critically, over-dependence on automation can erode institutional knowledge, leaving teams unprepared to interpret risk independently.
Designing a Balanced Ecosystem
The real challenge for CIOs is not deciding whether to automate but determining how to create a balanced ecosystem where humans and automation complement one another.
The best programs push automation toward low-value, repeatable tasks while inserting human oversight at critical decision points. For example, reminders about training completions or annual risk reviews can be fully automated, freeing staff from tedious follow-up. But decisions such as whether to accept the risk of a high-exposure vendor should always require a human sign-off. Many organizations are now pairing automated dashboards with governance forums, such as monthly risk committee reviews, so that automation provides the raw intelligence while people guide the strategic response.
By eliminating repetitive evidence collection, teams gain the capacity to analyze training effectiveness, scenario-plan future threats, and interpret regulatory changes. Automation becomes not a replacement for people, but a multiplier of their impact.
Guarding Against Over-Reliance
Over-reliance on automation carries its own risks. A clean dashboard may mask legacy systems still in production or system blind spots if a monitoring tool goes down. Without active oversight, teams may not discover gaps until the next audit. There’s also the danger of compliance becoming a “black box,” where staff interact with dashboards but never learn how to evaluate risk themselves. CIOs need to actively design against these vulnerabilities.
Practical Next Steps for CIOs
Building a resilient compliance function means treating automation as a partner, not a panacea. CIOs and compliance leaders can:
- Conduct a “task audit” to classify activities as automated, human-led, or hybrid
- Define accountability so high-risk decisions always require human review
- Foster collaboration between compliance and IT to refine workflows
- Commit to continuous review, especially as new standards such as ISO 42001 for AI emerge
Automation is reshaping compliance in the same way cloud reshaped infrastructure: enabling scalability, speeding up delivery, and raising the baseline of capability across the enterprise. But automation’s greatest value lies in what it unlocks for people. Machines can surface risks, but only humans can decide what to do about them. Automating the mundane frees compliance professionals to focus on the meaningful, from interpreting regulation to shaping ethical responses in moments of crisis.
For CIOs and compliance leaders, the question is no longer whether automation belongs in compliance programs. The real question is how to ensure automation and human judgment reinforce one another, creating a compliance function that is not only efficient, but also resilient, adaptable, and accountable in an era of accelerating regulatory change.
Catch more CIO Insights: DORA Has Been a Wake-up Call for Financial Services. Here’s How.
[To share your insights with us, please write to psen@itechseries.com ]
