Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
22/06/2026 5:01 pm
TL;DR: Defensible omnichannel authentication business cases need named KPIs, a consistent event taxonomy, before-and-after baselines, and explicit assumptions, with value concentrated in fraud reduction, helpdesk efficiency, and operational reliability according to Scramble ID. The key shift is to measure identity outcomes, not login success alone, because weak instrumentation makes ROI claims easy to overstate.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Scramble ID: Metrics + ROI Playbook
By the numbers:
- 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams measure authentication ROI across multiple channels?
A: Use one event taxonomy across web, voice, desktop, people, and machine-to-machine flows, then compare like with like.
Q: Why do identity programmes need baselines before they claim savings?
A: Because without a pre-deployment baseline, there is no way to show change rather than noise.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about authentication dashboards?
A: They often collapse success rate, fraud reduction, and user experience into one scorecard.
Practitioner guidance
- Standardise the event taxonomy Define one event model for session start, challenge presented, confirmation started, success or fail, and timeout across every channel.
- Split dashboards by outcome type Build separate views for security outcomes, user outcomes, operations outcomes, reliability, and policy outcomes.
- Publish baseline and post-deployment windows Capture 12-month baselines before deployment and repeat the same measurements at 30, 60, and 90 days after rollout.
What's in the full article
Scramble ID's full research covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- The full event taxonomy for auth.session_started, auth.challenge_presented, auth.confirmation_started, auth.confirmation_succeeded, auth.confirmation_failed, and auth.timeout.
- Worked ROI calculations for password reset savings, contact-centre AHT reduction, and conservative annualised savings using the model constants.
- Channel scorecards for web, voice, people, desktop, and M2M flows, including the specific metrics to place on a board-level dashboard.
- The assumptions table and baseline template you can copy into procurement, audit, or board material.
👉 Read Scramble ID's ROI playbook for omnichannel authentication metrics →
Omnichannel authentication ROI: what metrics should teams trust?
Explore further
22/06/2026 5:14 pm
Omnichannel authentication ROI is a governance problem before it is a finance problem. If teams cannot define the same event, identifier, and baseline across channels, they cannot prove whether authentication changed risk or merely shifted user friction. That makes the measurement model itself part of identity control design. Practitioners should treat instrumentation as an operating requirement, not a reporting afterthought.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- That same research found that 45% of organisations cite lack of credential rotation as the top cause of NHI-related attacks, which shows how quickly measurement gaps become control gaps.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own assumptions behind ROI numbers for identity programmes?
A: Security, finance, and operations should own them together. Security validates the control and event data, operations validates the service cost and handle-time inputs, and finance tests the conversion from metric to dollar value. Shared ownership prevents inflated claims and makes the business case reproducible.
👉 Read our full editorial: Omnichannel authentication ROI depends on measurable identity outcomes
