Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
30/07/2026 9:42 am
TL;DR: Traditional PAM programmes often fail at the implementation layer, where integration effort, specialist administration, and long rollout cycles delay risk reduction, according to Securden’s analysis. The real differentiator is no longer feature depth alone, but whether privileged access controls can be deployed incrementally without creating a new operational burden.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Securden: Bridging the Gap, Simplifying Privileged Access Management with the Easiest-to-Implement Solutions
By the numbers:
- Securden says its approach enables 80% faster deployment, with value realized in weeks rather than months or years.
- Securden says lower total cost of ownership by up to 60% compared to fragmented legacy systems.
Questions worth separating out
Q: What do security teams get wrong about PAM deployment choices?
A: Teams often treat PAM as a technology preference instead of an operating model decision.
Q: Why do complex PAM programmes often fail to reduce risk quickly?
A: They fail because implementation work crowds out control enforcement.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about modern PAM?
A: They often treat PAM as a specialised enterprise add-on rather than a baseline identity control.
Practitioner guidance
- Define a first-control scope for PAM Start with the highest-risk privileged accounts, the smallest workable policy set, and the fewest integrations needed to enforce session control or vaulting.
- Test deployment friction before broad selection Run a proof of concept against real directories, cloud accounts, and ITSM workflows to see whether onboarding, policy setup, and audit logging work without heavy vendor intervention.
- Validate JIT and ZSP operational fit Check whether just-in-time access and zero standing privilege can be used without exceptions, bypass scripts, or manual ticket handling that recreates standing access in practice.
What's in the full article
Securden's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Deployment comparisons across PASM, EPM, secrets management, and vendor access workflows.
- Vendor-reviewed feature matrices showing how implementation effort varies by platform model.
- Practitioner questions around phased rollout, integration scope, and time-to-first-value.
- Examples of deployment scenarios that reduce reliance on specialist administrators.
👉 Read Securden's analysis of easier-to-implement PAM for modern identity teams →
Easier PAM implementation: what should IAM teams prioritise now?
Explore further
30/07/2026 10:54 pm
Implementation friction is now an identity control issue, not a procurement annoyance. When privileged access projects stall, organisations keep running with the same standing privilege and unmanaged admin pathways they were trying to eliminate. That means the business impact is not only delayed value, but prolonged exposure across the exact accounts PAM is meant to constrain. Practitioners should treat deployability as a control acceptance criterion, not a convenience factor.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 71% of NHIs are not rotated within recommended time frames, increasing the risk of compromise over time, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which shows how often privileged access programmes still start from incomplete inventory.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can teams tell whether PAM is delivering real value?
A: Look at time to first enforced control over the accounts that matter most. If weeks pass before vaulting, session control, or privilege elevation is active for critical admins, the programme may be impressive on paper but weak in operational security.
👉 Read our full editorial: Easier PAM implementation is now a selection criterion, not a bonus
