Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 2:50 pm
TL;DR: Boards are demanding measurable cybersecurity outcomes as budgets tighten, and Imprivata argues that access and identity analytics are becoming the evidence layer for proving risk reduction, productivity gains, and workflow friction. The real shift is that security programmes are now judged by operational impact, not promise or posture alone.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Imprivata: Boards demand measurable outcomes from cybersecurity investments
By the numbers:
- Cyber insurance premiums are increasing by 15-20% year-over-year.
- Gartner predicts that CIOs who implement ongoing strategic cost optimization will be 65% more successful in elevating their contribution to the organization’s mission.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams prove that access controls are delivering value?
A: They should connect identity telemetry to operational outcomes such as reduced approval time, lower privilege sprawl, fewer exceptions, and better workflow adoption.
Q: Why do boards care about access analytics in cybersecurity programmes?
A: Boards care because access analytics shows whether security spend reduces friction, improves productivity, and limits unnecessary privilege.
Q: What is the difference between compliance reporting and identity intelligence?
A: Compliance reporting shows whether controls or policies exist.
Practitioner guidance
- Build access analytics into governance reporting Use login, logout, access request, and privilege-use patterns to show how controls affect workflow efficiency, entitlement drift, and security outcomes.
- Measure privilege sprawl against actual usage Compare active access with observed need, then remove standing entitlements that persist without evidence of use.
- Tie identity metrics to business outcomes Report identity governance results alongside productivity and cost indicators, such as approval delays, secure workflow adoption, and exceptions avoided.
What's in the full article
Imprivata's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Examples of how access analytics can be used to validate security ROI in day-to-day operations.
- Discussion of how user behaviour and access data can be linked to productivity and risk-reduction outcomes.
- Context around how organisations are using identity and access intelligence to monitor workflow adoption and privilege sprawl.
- The article's framing on how boards are pressuring security leaders to demonstrate measurable returns.
👉 Read Imprivata's analysis of access analytics and measurable cybersecurity ROI →
Access analytics and measurable security ROI: what teams need now?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:01 pm
Access analytics has become the proof layer for identity governance. As budgets tighten, the programmes that survive scrutiny will be the ones that can show how identity controls affect productivity, privilege use, and risk reduction in the same dataset. That makes access telemetry central to governance across human IAM, NHI oversight, and workload access. Practitioners should treat measurement as a control function, 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.
- A further 47% have only partial visibility, showing that access intelligence gaps are already widespread across delegated identity ecosystems.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can IAM teams reduce privilege sprawl without harming productivity?
A: They should use usage evidence to separate required access from inherited access, then remove or recertify entitlements that no longer match behaviour. The goal is not restriction for its own sake. It is to preserve necessary access while eliminating unused privilege that adds cost and risk.
👉 Read our full editorial: Boards want measurable cybersecurity outcomes, not security theater
