Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 2:50 pm
TL;DR: As budgets tighten and cyber insurance premiums rise 15% to 20% year over year, boards are pushing CISOs to prove measurable security and productivity outcomes from access analytics and identity intelligence, according to Imprivata. The case for access data is now about operational proof, not reporting cadence, because security controls that cannot show risk reduction or workflow impact will struggle to survive scrutiny.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Imprivata: Boards demand measurable outcomes from cybersecurity investments amid shrinking budgets and resources
By the numbers:
- global cyber insurance premiums increasing by 15-20% year-over-year
- CIOs who implement ongoing strategic cost optimisation will be 65% more successful in elevating their contribution to the organisation's mission.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations prove the value of access analytics to leadership?
A: They should tie access analytics to outcomes leadership already recognises: reduced privilege, fewer exceptions, lower support load, and faster workflows.
Q: Why do identity and access metrics matter when budgets are tight?
A: Because budgets force prioritisation, and identity metrics show whether controls reduce risk efficiently or create hidden overhead.
Q: What gets missed when teams treat access data as a reporting exercise?
A: They miss the operational signals that show whether controls are helping or hindering the business.
Practitioner guidance
- Define outcome metrics for identity controls Tie access analytics to a small set of board-visible measures, such as privilege reduction, workflow latency, exception volume, and support burden.
- Use access data to identify privilege sprawl Review dormant accounts, duplicate entitlements, and broad roles across human, NHI, and service access.
- Correlate security friction with business friction Measure where access controls create delays, exceptions, or workarounds, then compare those points with risk reduction outcomes.
What's in the full article
Imprivata's full analysis covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Examples of how organisations are using access analytics to quantify productivity gains and workflow friction
- Discussion of how identity and access intelligence can be applied to operational health, not only compliance
- The vendor's framing of how boards are evaluating security spend under tighter budget conditions
- Additional context on how access ecosystems can be treated as intelligence sources for workforce decisions
👉 Read Imprivata's analysis of board pressure for measurable cybersecurity outcomes →
Access analytics and ROI pressure: what IAM teams need now?
Explore further
25/06/2026 4:00 pm
Access data is becoming a board-level proof point, not an operational afterthought. Security leaders are being asked to show that controls reduce risk, improve productivity, and justify spend in the same conversation. That raises the evidentiary burden on IAM and NHI programmes, because anecdotal value no longer survives budget review. The implication is that identity teams must think like outcome teams, not just control owners.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1 in 4 organisations are already investing in dedicated NHI security capabilities, with an additional 60% planning to do so within the next twelve months, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Only 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared with nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own identity analytics outcomes inside the organisation?
A: Ownership should sit with security, but the outcomes need input from IAM, operations, finance, and business leaders. If the data is only reviewed inside the security team, it will rarely influence spending or process redesign. Broader ownership turns access analytics into a management discipline rather than a narrow compliance function.
👉 Read our full editorial: Boards demand measurable cybersecurity outcomes from access data
