Topic starter
24/06/2026 7:02 pm
TL;DR: Identity governance and administration maturity remains a broad programme question, not a tool feature comparison, and maturity still needs to be measured across human, non-human, and privileged access, according to Netwrix’s page, which points readers toward identity governance and administration maturity but provides little operational detail beyond platform navigation and a webinar entry point.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Netwrix: “Les 10 règles pour réussir votre projet de gestion des identités”.
Key questions
Q: What should IAM teams measure to know whether identity governance is working?
A: They should measure whether every identity type has an owner, a revocation path, and a review cadence that actually removes stale access.
Q: Why do IAM deployments still leave governance gaps?
A: IAM deployments often focus on access delivery, while governance depends on review, evidence, and lifecycle control.
Practitioner guidance
- Define a governance maturity model Score discovery, entitlement ownership, review cadence, offboarding, and evidence quality across human, privileged, and non-human identities.
- Map NHI ownership and lifecycle Require each service account, token, certificate, or API key to have an owner, purpose, expiry, and revocation path.
- Separate access delivery from governance evidence Treat provisioning and sign-in controls as distinct from certification, attestation, and audit-ready reporting.
Bottom line: Identity governance maturity is about whether access can be justified, reviewed, and retired across the full identity estate, not whether IAM tools are present.
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 4:09 am
Identity governance maturity is the control plane that determines whether IAM can prove restraint. Authentication and provisioning are necessary, but they do not show whether access stays justified over time. A mature programme can evidence who has what, why they have it, and when it will be removed, which is the real test practitioners should apply.
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: When should security teams prioritise PAM over broader identity governance?
A: Prioritise PAM when the immediate risk is privileged execution, such as accounts that can modify systems, access production data, or change infrastructure. Prioritise broader identity governance when the larger problem is incomplete inventory, weak ownership, or missing offboarding. For most NHI programmes, both are needed, but the order depends on where the highest blast radius sits.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity governance maturity is still lagging across IAM programmes
This post was modified 3 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group