Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
24/06/2026 6:59 pm
TL;DR: Introducing privileged access management without workflow mapping and team consultation can disrupt IT operations and alienate administrators, according to Netwrix's on-demand webinar on PAM roadmap strategies. The practical lesson is that PAM fails as a governance change programme when teams treat it as a tooling rollout rather than an operating-model shift.
NHIMG editorial — here’s why we think this discussion matters
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations introduce PAM without disrupting operations?
A: Start by mapping the privileged workflows that keep systems running, including approvals, escalation paths, and break-glass processes.
Q: Why do PAM programmes sometimes create resistance from administrators?
A: They often change how administrators do their work without showing that their existing responsibilities were understood.
Practitioner guidance
- Map privileged workflows before enforcement Document the real approval paths, break-glass steps, maintenance tasks, and exception cases that administrators rely on before changing entitlements or session controls.
- Engage administrators during design, not after rollout Run working sessions with the teams that hold privileged access so they can identify operational dependencies, likely friction points, and necessary exceptions early.
- Phase PAM by risk and operational criticality Start with the highest-risk privileged accounts and the least disruptive use cases, then expand once session workflows and support processes are stable.
What to expect at the briefing
Netwrix's full on-demand webinar covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A practical walk-through of workflow mapping for privileged access rollout decisions.
- Comparative deployment strategies for introducing PAM to IT teams with different operational profiles.
- Guidance on engagement methods that reduce resistance from administrative staff.
- Discussion of new methodologies that can make PAM transition easier in practice.
👉 Watch Netwrix's on-demand webinar on PAM roadmap strategies and team engagement →
PAM deployment and team engagement: what usually goes wrong?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:03 am
PAM deployment fails most often as an operating-model problem, not a control problem. The article's core warning is that introduction and implementation can disrupt IT operations and alienate administrative staff if the change is not planned carefully. That reflects a familiar identity governance pattern: controls are introduced before the organisation has mapped how privilege is actually used. The implication is that PAM should be treated as process redesign, not just product deployment.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should be involved when planning privileged access changes?
A: Security, IAM, infrastructure, and the administrators who use privileged access every day should all be involved. If the people operating the environment are absent from planning, the programme will usually miss the practical steps that determine whether PAM works in production.
👉 Read our full editorial: PAM deployment risk is often a team-engagement problem
