Topic starter
24/06/2026 7:02 pm
TL;DR: Identity governance and administration 2.0 is a maturity question for organisations that need broader visibility, stronger lifecycle control, and better governance across identities and access, according to Netwrix. The strategic issue is not tooling breadth alone, but whether governance can keep pace with expanding identity populations and modern access patterns.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Netwrix: “Révolutionner la gouvernance des identités à l'ère numérique : l'IGA 2.0”.
Key questions
Q: How should enterprises modernize identity governance for SaaS, cloud, and AI-driven access models?
A: Enterprises should move from periodic, compliance-only governance to continuous, automated identity control.
Q: Why does identity governance fail when it only covers employee accounts?
A: Because sensitive access is often held by service accounts, application credentials, and delegated entitlements that never pass through employee-centric review paths.
Practitioner guidance
- Map all identity types to one governance model Inventory employees, contractors, service accounts, tokens, and application credentials in the same governance workflow so certification and ownership are not limited to human users.
- Tie access reviews to lifecycle events Trigger recertification when a user changes role, a service account changes ownership, or a non-human credential is created, rotated, or retired.
- Define clear owners for every entitlement Require business or technical ownership for privileged access, delegated access, and non-human identities so revocation and exception handling have an accountable decision maker.
Bottom line: Identity governance maturity now depends on whether access can be explained, reviewed, and removed across the full identity estate.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
25/06/2026 4:08 am
Identity governance 2.0 is less about more features and more about control coherence. The article points to a familiar pattern: organisations keep adding visibility and lifecycle tools, but the real benchmark is whether those controls work together across the full identity estate. That is why governance maturity is now measured by whether access can be explained, certified, and removed across human and non-human identities without relying on manual exception handling.
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 should security teams do when governance and access ownership are split across teams?
A: They should define one accountable owner for each access class and require that owner to approve exceptions, review entitlements, and validate revocation. Split ownership creates gaps between policy, administration, and business accountability, which is where stale access usually persists.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity governance 2.0 is the new benchmark for digital access
This post was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group