Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
10/06/2026 12:23 am
TL;DR: Manual provisioning, deprovisioning, license cleanup, and scope selection become error-prone as app usage grows, creating avoidable access and compliance risk for IT teams, according to Zluri. The core issue is not automation itself but the governance assumption that human-paced user lifecycle management can still keep up with modern application sprawl.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Automation How You Can Get More Out of Insightly in 2026?
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams automate SaaS user provisioning without creating privilege drift?
A: Use a governed workflow tied to the identity source of truth, not manual application admin steps.
Q: Why do inactive SaaS accounts increase governance risk?
A: Inactive accounts are not just wasted licenses.
Q: What breaks when deprovisioning does not reach connected apps?
A: The user may appear removed in one system while still holding access elsewhere.
Practitioner guidance
- Centralise SaaS provisioning workflows Route account creation and role assignment through a governed workflow so the application admin console is not the primary control point.
- Test deprovisioning against connected-app paths Validate that a user removal event revokes access in Insightly and any adjacent applications that share identity, token, or workflow dependencies.
- Treat inactive licenses as reclaimable access Review dormant user accounts and unused licenses together, then feed the findings into access review and recertification cycles.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step Insightly workflow setup for provisioning and deprovisioning
- Detailed scope selection guidance for the Insightly integration
- Practical examples of license discovery and inactive-user cleanup
- Dashboard-based removal flow for connected app access
👉 Read Zluri’s automation guide for Insightly provisioning and deprovisioning →
Insightly access automation: what changes for IAM teams?
Explore further
10/06/2026 9:31 pm
Manual lifecycle handling is the control failure this article exposes. The post is framed as automation advice, but the real governance issue is that provisioning and deprovisioning depend on human execution across a growing SaaS footprint. That creates delay, inconsistency, and residual access, which are the exact conditions that lifecycle governance is supposed to eliminate. The practitioner conclusion is straightforward: if access changes are still handled by hand, the programme is already behind.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1 in 4 organisations are already investing in dedicated NHI security capabilities, with an additional 60% planning to do so within the next twelve months, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities, according to the same study.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How do security teams know if lifecycle automation is actually working?
A: Measure removal completeness, not just provisioning speed. If leaver events are consistently cleared from roles, licenses, and adjacent app access without manual recovery, the lifecycle process is doing real control work. If audit evidence is reconstructed after the fact, the programme is still too dependent on people.
👉 Read our full editorial: Insightly lifecycle automation exposes the limits of manual access control
