Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
27/06/2026 1:00 pm
TL;DR: Access reviews only work when governance is continuous, accountable, and operationalised inside the business as Nexis and TEC360 partner to deliver identity governance, access analytics, and lifecycle automation to organisations across Mexico’s banking, fintech, retail, and manufacturing sectors, with the managed service model intended to embed governance into operations rather than leave it as a one-time deployment, according to Nexis.
NHIMG editorial — what this means for NHI practitioners
By the numbers:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should IAM teams operationalise identity governance across multiple business units?
A: They should treat governance as a repeatable operating model, not a one-time implementation.
Q: Why do recertification programmes fail when they are only run periodically?
A: Periodic reviews often trail the pace of entitlement change, so access drift builds up between cycles.
Q: What breaks when workforce, PAM, and customer identity are governed separately?
A: Review quality drops because no single team can see the full access picture.
Practitioner guidance
- Implement continuous recertification cycles Move away from annual clean-up exercises and tie review cadence to entitlement change, business risk, and audit deadlines so revocation follows access drift more quickly.
- Build a single governance view across identity domains Unify workforce, privileged, and customer identity visibility so reviewers can see where access lives, who owns it, and what evidence supports retention.
- Use role mining before access reviews Compare real access patterns to assigned roles before certification begins so reviewers assess current behaviour instead of inherited entitlements.
What's in the full announcement
Nexis's full partnership announcement covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How the TEC360 managed service model is expected to embed governance into day-to-day delivery
- The role mining, recertification, and documentation workflow the partnership highlights for enterprise rollout
- How Nexis positions identity visibility and intelligence as a complement to existing IGA investments
- The Mexico and Latin America customer context behind the partnership and go-to-market focus
👉 Read Nexis's partnership announcement with TEC360 on identity governance in Mexico →
Identity governance in Mexico: what Nexis and TEC360 change?
Explore further
27/06/2026 2:08 pm
Managed identity services are becoming the missing operating layer in IAM programmes. The partnership highlights a structural reality: many organisations can buy governance tooling, but they still lack the operational capacity to run it continuously. A managed service model closes that gap by embedding role review, analytics, and documentation into day-to-day delivery. For practitioners, the lesson is that governance maturity is increasingly an operating model problem, not just a product selection problem.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when identity governance is delivered through a managed service?
A: The service provider may operate the process, but the customer organisation remains accountable for access decisions, review outcomes, and audit evidence. Governance ownership cannot be outsourced. Teams should define decision rights, escalation paths, and evidence retention requirements before relying on a managed identity model.
👉 Read our full editorial: Nexis and TEC360 partnership expands identity governance in Mexico
