Topic starter
10/06/2026 12:31 am
TL;DR: Tighter oversight, clearer accountability, and continuous access control now underpin IT governance as digital operations, compliance demands, and security risk converge, according to Zluri’s 2026 best-practices article. The underlying shift is that governance models built for static, human-paced IT no longer fit modern access patterns or identity sprawl.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “8 IT Governance Best Practices in 2026”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams implement identity governance in SaaS-heavy environments?
A: Start with a complete inventory of users, service accounts, integrations, and privileged entitlements across all major applications.
Q: Why do IT governance frameworks fail when access reviews are treated as a separate process?
A: Because governance only works when the people who approve IT decisions also own the controls that prove those decisions were enforced.
Q: What breaks when governance committees do not define access ownership clearly?
A: Decision making slows, exceptions linger, and accountability becomes hard to prove.
Practitioner guidance
- Define governance decisions at the access layer Map each governance decision to a concrete identity event such as request, approval, certification, modification, or revocation.
- Assign explicit approver accountability Separate app owner, manager, and IT admin responsibilities so that every access decision has one primary owner and one escalation path.
- Run access certification on a fixed cadence Use scheduled access reviews for applications and privileged roles, then measure completion, exception volume, and remediation outcomes.
Bottom line: IT governance is no longer effective when it sits above identity as a periodic review layer; it has to shape access decisions directly.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
10/06/2026 9:38 pm
Identity-first governance is now the operating model, not an IGA add-on: The article reflects a broader shift in which governance can no longer sit above identity activity as a periodic oversight function. When access is distributed across SaaS applications, approval chains, and continuous change, governance has to be embedded where entitlements are granted and reviewed. The practitioner conclusion is that IT governance and IAM are converging into the same control plane.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between access certification and access approval in governance?
A: Access approval authorises a new or changed entitlement, while access certification confirms that existing access still matches business need. Approval is forward-looking and tied to request handling. Certification is verification and remediation focused, which makes it the stronger control for catching privilege drift after access has already been granted.
👉 Read our full editorial: IT governance best practices in 2026 need identity-first control
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group