Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 1:15 am
TL;DR: 97% of organisations use at least two eSignature tools, while 63.7% have adopted iPaaS to coordinate integration and automate workflows across fragmented systems, according to OneSpan. That makes integration governance, not just vendor rationalisation, the real control problem for digital agreements.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by OneSpan: Faire passer la signature électronique au niveau supérieur avec iPaaS
By the numbers:
- 97% of organisations use at least two eSignature tools, with some retaining three or four solutions.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations consolidate multiple eSignature tools without disrupting workflows?
A: Start by mapping every signing use case, then group duplicate flows by business outcome rather than by application owner.
Q: Why do fragmented eSignature platforms create governance risk?
A: Fragmentation creates different approval paths, different data handoffs, and different service connections for what should be one controlled process.
Q: How do teams know whether iPaaS is reducing complexity or just adding another layer?
A: Look for fewer point-to-point integrations, one set of connector controls, and consistent logging across all signing workflows.
Practitioner guidance
- Consolidate duplicate eSignature paths Map every business process that invokes signing, then identify where two or more tools are handling the same workflow.
- Govern signing integrations as NHI-enabled workflows Treat connectors, API credentials, and workflow service accounts as governed non-human identities.
- Standardise integration controls through iPaaS Use one managed integration layer for routing, data transformation, and callback handling so signing events follow a single control pattern.
What's in the full article
OneSpan's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The webinar framing and survey context behind the IDC infographic on eSignature consolidation.
- The integration capabilities OneSpan associates with its iPaaS approach for low-code and no-code workflows.
- The list of future platform directions mentioned in the article, including Bring Your Own iPaaS and AI-enabled functions.
- The vendor's examples of ecosystem connectivity that extend beyond the analytical points covered here.
👉 Read OneSpan's analysis of iPaaS for eSignature consolidation →
iPaaS for eSignature consolidation: what IAM teams need to know?
Explore further
25/06/2026 10:33 am
Integration sprawl is now an identity governance problem, not only an application problem. When organisations keep two, three, or four eSignature tools in parallel, they are really multiplying approval paths, service connections, and data handoffs. That fragmentation weakens governance because the enterprise can no longer assume one consistent control plane for signing-related identity activity. Practitioners should treat platform consolidation as a governance design issue, not an IT clean-up task.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 63.7% of enterprises have adopted a solution iPaaS, according to The State of Secrets in AppSec.
- Organisations maintain an average of 6 distinct secrets manager instances, a sign that integration sprawl often persists even when teams believe control is centralised.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own governance for eSignature workflow integrations?
A: Ownership should sit with the identity, platform, or enterprise architecture function that can enforce lifecycle control across connectors, credentials, and workflow exceptions. Business units can define process needs, but central ownership is what keeps automation consistent and reviewable.
👉 Read our full editorial: iPaaS is reshaping enterprise eSignature governance and integration
