Topic starter
17/05/2026 9:55 am
TL;DR: Pathlock’s June 9 event will discuss modern IAM and GRC in hybrid environments, including cross-application access governance, continuous controls monitoring, and how organisations can reduce manual overhead while standardising compliance across SAP and adjacent enterprise systems. The practical question is how far IAM and GRC can be automated before hybrid governance still depends on human control and process discipline.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Pathlock: “Governance in Motion Lab: A Helicopter View on IAM and GRC in Hybrid Environments”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams govern access across SAP and business applications?
A: Security teams should govern access by linking identity, entitlement, and activity data across systems instead of certifying each application separately.
Q: Why do periodic access reviews miss enterprise risk in hybrid environments?
A: Because they only capture a point in time.
Practitioner guidance
- Map high-risk business transactions across systems Identify the transactions that actually create compliance or fraud exposure, then trace which entitlements and roles can execute them across SAP and adjacent enterprise applications.
- Align IAM controls with GRC evidence flows Design review, approval, and remediation steps so that access decisions produce audit-ready evidence without manual reconstruction after the fact.
- Use continuous monitoring for entitlement drift Watch for role changes, exceptions, and indirect access paths that alter the control posture between formal certification cycles.
Bottom line: Hybrid IAM and GRC programmes fail when access is still governed application by application instead of around shared business processes.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
17/05/2026 9:55 am
Hybrid governance fails when access control is still organised by application boundary. The article points to a common enterprise problem: IAM and GRC teams often inherit control models built for single systems, then try to extend them across SAP and adjacent platforms. That approach creates blind spots in segregation of duties, evidence collection, and remediation because the business process does not stop at the application boundary. The practitioner conclusion is that governance has to follow the workflow, not the product stack.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between role-based control and transaction-based governance?
A: Role-based control asks who should have a role. Transaction-based governance asks whether that role can perform a specific risky business action. In complex hybrid environments, transaction-based control is often more useful because it reflects how access is actually exercised across applications and delegated workflows.
👉 Read our full editorial: Governance in Motion Lab: IAM and GRC in hybrid environments