Topic starter
05/10/2026 6:49 pm
TL;DR: Identity Connectivity extends existing IGA by automating provisioning and reconciliation for disconnected applications that native connectors cannot reach, reducing manual tickets, copy-paste errors, and blind spots in termination workflows, according to StackBob. The key shift is not replacing IGA but expanding governance to access that previously sat outside the control plane.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by StackBob: “Identity Connectivity: Extending Your IGA Platform Beyond Its Native Reach”.
Questions worth separating out
Q: What breaks when access sits outside the IGA connector path?
A: The control breaks at the point where the IGA platform can no longer confirm what was actually provisioned or removed.
Q: Why do disconnected applications create termination risk?
A: Because deprovisioning only removes access the governance system originally knows about.
Q: How should teams decide between extending IGA and replacing it?
A: Start by measuring whether the problem is connector coverage or governance design.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory disconnected applications and informal access paths Classify every application or process that still depends on tickets, email approvals, or direct admin action instead of native IGA fulfilment.
- Replace flat-file reconciliation where drift matters most Prioritise systems with termination risk or sensitive entitlements and move them from batch imports to continuous or near-real-time status reconciliation.
- Extend JML coverage to residual access outside the IGA scope Review leaver workflows for access granted through managers, application owners, or other informal channels.
Disconnected apps: what identity connectivity means for IGA teams?
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services →
05/10/2026 6:49 pm
Disconnected access creates a governance blind spot, not just an integration inconvenience. The article is really about the boundary where connector-based IGA stops and unmanaged access begins. When access is granted through tickets, emails, or local admin action, the governance layer can no longer prove what changed or whether removal occurred. Practitioners should treat that boundary as a control gap in the identity architecture, not as an operational nuisance.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of IT leaders cite restrictive cost and complexity as a weakness of legacy identity governance, according to the 2025 State of Identity Governance Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What is the difference between native connectors and identity connectivity?
A: Native connectors govern applications already supported by the IGA platform, while identity connectivity extends fulfilment and reconciliation into systems that sit outside that native coverage. The distinction is architectural: one is built in, the other is added to close reach gaps.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity connectivity extends IGA reach into disconnected apps