Identity-centric UEM works because it collapses endpoint control into the same governance plane as identity, but that consolidation also exposes the quality of the directory itself. Once device access, local login, and network authentication share a control surface, stale identities and excessive privileges stop being separate problems. The field should treat UEM migration as a directory governance event, not a device project. Practitioners need to measure whether the directory can safely absorb endpoint authority.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 67% of organisations still rely heavily on static credentials despite the risks they pose to agentic AI deployments, according to The 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- That same survey found that only 13% of security leaders feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI, which shows how fast governance is lagging behind operational adoption.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own identity-centric endpoint governance?
A: Ownership should sit across identity, endpoint, and network teams with one accountable control owner. If those functions stay siloed, no one can reliably manage the lifecycle of directory objects, certificates, agents, and local access together.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity-centric UEM after Meraki SM sunset changes endpoint governance
Identity-centric UEM works because it collapses endpoint control into the same governance plane as identity, but that consolidation also exposes the quality of the directory itself. Once device access, local login, and network authentication share a control surface, stale identities and excessive privileges stop being separate problems. The field should treat UEM migration as a directory governance event, not a device project. Practitioners need to measure whether the directory can safely absorb endpoint authority.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 67% of organisations still rely heavily on static credentials despite the risks they pose to agentic AI deployments, according to The 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- That same survey found that only 13% of security leaders feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI, which shows how fast governance is lagging behind operational adoption.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own identity-centric endpoint governance?
A: Ownership should sit across identity, endpoint, and network teams with one accountable control owner. If those functions stay siloed, no one can reliably manage the lifecycle of directory objects, certificates, agents, and local access together.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity-centric UEM after Meraki SM sunset changes endpoint governance
Identity-centric UEM works because it collapses endpoint control into the same governance plane as identity, but that consolidation also exposes the quality of the directory itself. Once device access, local login, and network authentication share a control surface, stale identities and excessive privileges stop being separate problems. The field should treat UEM migration as a directory governance event, not a device project. Practitioners need to measure whether the directory can safely absorb endpoint authority.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 67% of organisations still rely heavily on static credentials despite the risks they pose to agentic AI deployments, according to The 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- That same survey found that only 13% of security leaders feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI, which shows how fast governance is lagging behind operational adoption.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own identity-centric endpoint governance?
A: Ownership should sit across identity, endpoint, and network teams with one accountable control owner. If those functions stay siloed, no one can reliably manage the lifecycle of directory objects, certificates, agents, and local access together.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity-centric UEM after Meraki SM sunset changes endpoint governance