Topic starter
25/06/2026 5:11 pm
TL;DR: Hershey modernised identity security after its legacy IGA system, built in 2004, became maintenance-heavy, ticket-driven, and unable to keep pace with more than 45,000 identities, 230 applications, and deprovisioning demands, according to SailPoint. The case shows that identity programmes fail when governance, HR data quality, and lifecycle execution are allowed to drift apart.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SailPoint: “Sweet success: How Hershey modernized its identity security with SailPoint”.
By the numbers:
- The company had over 230 applications to support during the migration.
- Hershey’s three-person team received over 50 tickets daily and often faced backlogs of 400 to 600 tickets.
Key questions
Q: Why do legacy IGA platforms break down as identity estates grow?
A: Legacy IGA platforms usually fail when they depend on manual tickets, unstable connectors, and clean-up work that does not scale with the number of applications and identities.
Q: What is the biggest governance risk when deprovisioning is slow?
A: Slow deprovisioning leaves access active after the business need has ended, which is one of the clearest ways lifecycle controls fail in practice.
Q: How can identity teams tell whether JML is actually working?
A: The best signal is whether joiner-mover-leaver events complete cleanly without repeated tickets, reboots, or manual follow-up.
Practitioner guidance
- Audit lifecycle execution debt Measure where joiner-mover-leaver tasks still depend on tickets, reboots, or manual intervention, then map those steps to the applications and teams creating the most delay.
- Clean source data before expanding automation Standardise identity nomenclature, correct HR source records, and define ownership for fields that drive provisioning and deprovisioning decisions.
- Replace CSV and manual fulfillment paths Use directory groups or API-based connectors for provisioning and deprovisioning so application owners are not maintaining bespoke identity workflows.
Bottom line: Hershey’s migration shows that legacy IGA fails when it turns identity governance into ticket processing, reboot maintenance, and manual exception handling.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
25/06/2026 5:44 pm
Legacy IGA fails first as an operating model, not a feature set. Hershey’s experience shows that the real limit of older governance platforms is not one missing function but the accumulation of operational drag: reboots, ticket queues, password synchronisation failures, and manual deprovisioning. Those symptoms matter because they turn identity governance into exception handling. The implication for the field is that IGA must be judged on execution reliability, not on whether it still nominally covers joiner-mover-leaver.
A few things that frame the scale:
- NHIs outnumber human identities by 25x to 50x in modern enterprises, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should teams do when identity processes depend on manual fulfillment?
A: Teams should standardise the underlying process first, then move fulfillment to directory groups or API-based connectors where possible. Manual fulfillment is usually a sign that application ownership, naming, or integration logic has not been disciplined enough to support reliable lifecycle governance.
👉 Read our full editorial: Hershey’s identity security migration shows the limits of legacy IGA