Naveen Kumar Yeliyyur Rudraradhya has spent more than two decades at the intersection of information security, identity access management (IAM), and enterprise operations. With an MBA in Information Technology Business Management and extensive experience leading IAM implementations for global organizations, Naveen has designed automated systems that streamline onboarding, role changes, and offboarding across continents while embedding compliance and auditability into every workflow. From multinational corporations to complex service integrations, his work demonstrates not only technical mastery but also exceptional leadership in aligning teams, processes, and stakeholders to achieve measurable business impact. In this interview, Naveen shares insights into the challenges of scaling IAM globally, the operational and compliance benefits of automation, and lessons learned from leading high-performing teams in diverse, high-stakes environments.
ELLEN WARREN: Naveen, your experience includes leading IAM programs across multiple industries and regions. Can you describe a situation where you had to standardize identity management across geographies while balancing local business requirements, and what leadership strategies made that successful?
NAVEEN RUDRARADHYA: In my last role, I led a project to bring our identity and access management under one approach across several regions, each with different local rules. To make this work, I set up a global structure with clear standards, but I involved regional leaders so they could adapt those standards to their local needs. I kept communication open, asked for feedback often, and focused on influence and collaboration instead of forcing decisions. In the end, we rolled out a single IAM framework that improved security for the whole company, while still respecting regional regulations and ways of working.
EW: Many organizations struggle with manual and inconsistent IAM processes. How have you approached identifying structural inefficiencies, and what innovative solutions have you implemented to transform those processes?
NR: Access requests used to come in through emails and chats, which made the process slow, messy, and inconsistent. To remedy this persistent inefficiency, I worked with IT, business stakeholders, HR, and security to create one simple place where people submit access requests with clear options and required details. This meant every request was complete and went straight to the right decision-maker. As a result, access management became more predictable and controlled, requests were of higher quality, delivery was faster, and we had full visibility into every access decision for security and compliance. The big lesson for me was that organizations don’t always need perfect automation; they need a clear process. When you remove confusion and give people one straightforward way to request access, speed, better decisions, and stronger security follow naturally.
EW: Automation is central to your IAM philosophy. Can you walk us through a complex workflow you designed—such as onboarding, role change, or offboarding—that significantly improved compliance and operational efficiency?
NR: I designed an end-to-end automation that connects HR directly to access provisioning—onboarding, role changes, and offboarding all flow seamlessly with no manual steps. The moment someone joins the organization, moves roles, or leaves, access is granted or revoked instantly across every system. I strengthened this by integrating SAP provisioning with built-in Segregation of Duties validation(SoD), ensuring conflicting roles are flagged and prevented before access is granted, thus keeping our financials and controls intact. Every action gets logged and audited, so we can remain compliant while freeing the team from repetitive work.
What differentiates this process improvement is that I did not just automate tasks, I redesigned the entire journey around trust and transparency. Managers now see their team’s access in real time, auditors have a clear trail of every change, and employees experience seamless access on day one. This approach cut provisioning time from days to minutes, eliminated SoD violations, and significantly reduced compliance risk results that resonate across any SAP dependent organization. I have fundamentally shifted how we think about access management from a reactive bottleneck to a proactive, predictable business capability.
EW: Integrating IAM systems with HR platforms, network directories, and downstream applications is a technical challenge. What frameworks or principles guide your approach to ensuring data integrity, seamless propagation of changes, and minimal disruption to users?
NR: In this project, the focus was on building a long-term partnership with IT, HR, and business teams, not just delivering a one-off project. Instead of trying to keep every system perfectly in sync at all times, HR was treated as the single source of truth, and all other systems pulled from there, so everyone worked from one shared version of reality. The integrations were designed for shared experiences–meaning small timing gaps in syncs were acceptable in exchange for a more stable, reliable setup.
To keep things simple and scalable, standard connectors and APIs were used instead of custom builds, which made the solution faster to implement and easier to maintain over time. Clear documentation and transparency were priorities, so people could see what was syncing, what was queued, and where issues appeared, without needing constant explanation. By keeping the approach methodical and straightforward, changes could flow smoothly from HR into directories and applications with minimal disruption, and the organization was able to own and improve the solution themselves.
EW: Leadership is critical in implementing global security programs. How do you cultivate collaboration among regional IT teams, auditors, and business stakeholders to ensure IAM policies are followed consistently worldwide?
NR:I built global IAM policies by listening first to regional teams, auditors, and business leaders, instead of pushing rules down from the top. I focused on explaining the real risks we were managing: critical issues such as breaches and compliance fines, so people understood why the controls mattered, and felt ownership instead of resistance.
Regions had flexibility in how they implemented controls, but the outcomes were consistent, and we kept everything visible with simple dashboards so gaps became shared problems to solve. That approach gave us one global standard that teams actually followed, and security ended up enabling the business instead of blocking it.
EW: Compliance and audit readiness are recurring pain points for enterprises. How have you embedded controls and evidence collection into IAM processes so that audits are proactive rather than reactive?
NR: My approach to IAM compliance is to bake it into daily work instead of treating it like a last‑minute scramble. I do this through three main channels. First, I bring in HR, Legal, Finance, and IT so everyone knows who owns which access risks, and I use RBAC and least privilege so we are basically compliant by default. Next, I use tools like Entra ID to automate approvals, changes, and logging, which gives us a clean audit trail and cuts out a lot of manual effort. Finally, I rely on ongoing monitoring and just‑in‑time access so we can spot issues like orphaned accounts early, before they turn into audit problems. My guidance to anyone seeking to improve IAM compliance would be to focus on direction and ownership, designing a smarter automated process, and building a culture of compliance.
EW: With vendor tools such as Microsoft Entra ID, Saviynt, and Fortra’s Access Assurance Suite, how do you decide which technology to use versus designing custom processes to meet unique organizational needs?
NR: When I had to choose between platforms like Entra ID, Saviynt, and Fortra versus more custom-built options, I focused on three things: first, picking a tool that would grow with us globally instead of just matching today’s feature list. Second was getting regional stakeholders on board by agreeing on the security and compliance outcomes, while giving them some flexibility in how they work. Lastly, I made sure we had the internal skills to actually run the tool without creating a lot of extra operational burden with associated cost and time impacts.
EW: IAM projects often face resistance due to changes in workflows or approvals. What approaches have you found effective in change management, particularly in global teams, to secure adoption and maintain operational discipline?
NR: With the global IAM projects, I have found that early clarity and alignment are essential. I always start by giving teams a simple, high‑level view of the new workflow so they understand the purpose behind the change. This helps reduce resistance and sets the right expectations from the beginning.
I also make sure the tools we introduce are easy to use. When people can quickly navigate approvals or access steps, adoption improves naturally. To support them, I provide clear help guides and training before rollout so users feel prepared rather than surprised.
From a leadership perspective, I focus on listening, communicating openly, and involving key stakeholders early. Showing empathy for different regional needs and encouraging feedback helps build trust and maintain operational discipline across global teams.
EW: Looking at metrics and outcomes, which measurable improvements in security, efficiency, or compliance are you most proud of from your IAM initiatives, and how did your leadership contribute to achieving them?
NR: I believe that one of my greatest career achievements was leading the transition from a paper-based IAM process to a fully automated and integrated system. I am particularly proud that this shift delivered measurable improvements, such as faster provisioning times, fewer approver delays, and strong compliance through the consistent audit tracks.
From a leadership perspective, I drove this change by setting a clear vision, creating phased enhancements, and ensuring the team stayed aligned with the goal throughout the journey. I pushed communication with stakeholders in early and regular updates and ensured understanding of the real value so adoption remained high. I also encouraged continuous receptive feedback, which helped me to refine the system and process and maintain consistency across operations. The combination of measurable improvement and strong collaborative leadership qualities is what made this project successful.
EW: Across your career, how has your MBA in IT Business Management informed your ability to lead complex IAM programs, bridge technology and business objectives, and make strategic decisions that benefit the organization at scale?
NR: My MBA in IT Business Management has played a key role in shaping how I lead large IAM programs. The blend of core business disciplines with specialized IT subjects helped me bridge technical requirements like cybersecurity, forensics, and multifactor authentication with clear business values such as reduced risk and improved operational efficiency. The program’s focus on strategic and data‑driven decision‑making also enabled me to evaluate IAM solutions not just by features, but with a focus on long‑term ROI, scalability, and alignment with organizational goals.
In addition, the curriculum strengthened my ability to lead complex, cross‑functional initiatives. Skills in project management and organizational behavior have helped me manage diverse teams, drive effective change management, and secure stakeholder buy‑in across the organization. The insistence on governance, ethics, and compliance provided the foundation I use to ensure IAM programs meet regulatory requirements, while still supporting agile, modern security practices. Overall, the MBA IT in Business Management has equipped me to connect business and technology objectives and make tactical decisions that deliver value at scale.
