Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 10:30 pm
TL;DR: Identity and access challenges across enterprise access management, mobile access, privileged access, and vendor access are being positioned in Imprivata Connect as a briefing on access governance, according to Imprivata. The signal for practitioners is that access governance is being pulled together across human, device, and third-party pathways rather than treated as separate control planes.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations govern access when IAM, PAM, and mobile access are split across teams?
A: They should build one governance model for all access pathways, with shared ownership for approval, review, and removal.
Q: Why do vendor and privileged access often create the same governance problem?
A: Both introduce identities that can reach sensitive systems outside ordinary employee workflows, so lifecycle discipline matters as much as access level.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory high-risk access pathways Map employee, vendor, privileged, and mobile access pathways in one register so ownership, approval, and review are visible across the full lifecycle.
- Unify lifecycle controls for external identities Apply onboarding, certification, and removal rules to vendor access with the same rigor used for internal privileged accounts.
- Tie device context to authorisation decisions Require device posture and authentication context to be evaluated before access is granted in mobile and clinical access scenarios.
What to expect at the briefing
Imprivata's full briefing covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Role-specific access workflows for enterprise, vendor, and mobile contexts
- Practical examples of how privileged access and device access are handled in real environments
- Briefing materials that show how practitioners can align access governance across separate teams
- Product and deployment detail relevant to organisations already planning implementation
👉 Read Imprivata's briefing on mobile device access and identity governance →
Imprivata Connect: what it means for identity and access teams?
Explore further
25/06/2026 11:03 pm
Identity governance fails fastest when access pathways are managed as separate products instead of one control plane. The article signals a familiar enterprise pattern: organisations accumulate point solutions for access, privileged access, and device access, then expect policy continuity to emerge on its own. It does not. The result is inconsistent lifecycle treatment, duplicated approvals, and weak accountability at the handoff points between systems. Practitioners should read this as a governance integration problem, not a tooling shortlist problem.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 43% of security professionals are concerned about AI systems learning and reproducing sensitive information patterns from codebases, according to The State of Secrets in AppSec.
- Only 44% of developers are reported to follow security best practices for secrets management, according to The State of Secrets in AppSec.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should IAM teams look for in a shared access governance programme?
A: They should look for one control trail that connects provisioning, elevated access, vendor access, device posture, and removal. If those steps live in different systems without a shared review model, accountability weakens quickly. A coherent programme produces consistent evidence, faster decisions, and fewer unresolved exceptions.
👉 Read our full editorial: Imprivata Connect frames identity and access governance as a shared problem
