Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 6:53 pm
TL;DR: Identity Governance and Administration is being pushed to replace fragmented, manual access processes with lifecycle automation, policy-based access, attestation, delegation, and time-bound controls, according to Netwrix. The underlying problem is not just operational inefficiency but an identity programme that cannot reliably explain who has access, why it exists, or who approved it.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams replace manual access requests with governed IGA workflows?
A: Start by centralising request, approval, provisioning, and removal into one governed process so every entitlement has a clear owner and audit trail.
Q: When should organisations prioritise access reviews over new access automation?
A: Prioritise access reviews when the main risk is accumulated privilege, orphaned access, or unclear ownership.
Practitioner guidance
- Define the access questions your programme must answer Make every access path answer who approved it, why it exists, when it expires, and which lifecycle event will remove it.
- Automate joiner, mover, and leaver workflows Map JML events to provisioning and deprovisioning logic so role changes remove old rights as reliably as they add new ones.
- Use certification campaigns to remove outdated access Run access reviews on a fixed schedule for sensitive applications, privileged roles, and delegated entitlements.
What to expect at the briefing
Netwrix's full on-demand webinar covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Recorded demonstration of identity governance workflows across joiner, mover, and leaver events
- Practical examples of policy-based access and delegation in live administration scenarios
- How attestation and certification campaigns are used to remove unnecessary permissions
- Where time-bound access controls fit into day-to-day audit and compliance work
👉 Watch Netwrix's on-demand webinar on modern identity governance →
Identity governance and access reviews: what teams are missing?
Explore further
25/06/2026 3:53 am
Identity governance is no longer an administrative layer, it is the control plane for access legitimacy. When organisations cannot explain who has access, why it exists, or who approved it, they do not have governance, they have recordkeeping. The article reflects a familiar pattern across human and non-human identities: manual processes scale badly once the environment spans cloud, SaaS, and on-premises systems. Practitioners should treat IGA as the mechanism that restores answerability, not as a reporting add-on.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 44% of organisations have implemented any policies to manage their AI agents, despite 92% agreeing that governing AI agents is critical to enterprise security, according to the 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- Only 13% of organisations feel extremely prepared for the reality of agentic AI despite the majority racing toward autonomous adoption.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between delegated access and time-bound access?
A: Delegated access assigns decision-making to a business owner or approver, while time-bound access limits how long the permission can exist. Delegation answers who can authorise access, but expiry answers when that access must be revalidated. Mature governance needs both, otherwise delegated approvals can turn into standing privilege.
👉 Read our full editorial: IGA in action: why identity governance is breaking down
