Topic starter
08/06/2026 4:29 pm
TL;DR: 80% now report to business leaders demanding them, and teams that prove IT value secure 60% more funding while invisible lifecycle work can consume 30% to 40% of IT capacity, according to Lumos. Productivity metrics that ignore joiner-mover-leaver work and manual access handling understate the real governance cost of IT operations.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Lumos: “How to Boost IT Productivity: Strategies, Metrics, and Common Pitfalls (with Help from Lumos)”.
By the numbers:
- 80% of CIOs now report to business leaders demanding visible results.
- CIOs who can effectively demonstrate the business value of IT secure 60% more funding than those who cannot.
- Invisible work like incident response, ad hoc troubleshooting, and maintaining legacy systems can consume 30% to 40% of IT capacity.
Key questions
Q: How should teams measure IT productivity when lifecycle automation is in scope?
A: Measure the speed and quality of access changes, not just the number of tickets closed.
Q: Why do manual joiner-mover-leaver processes distort productivity reporting?
A: Manual joiner-mover-leaver processes hide the real work inside approvals, handoffs, and rework.
Q: What are the signs that identity lifecycle automation is improving governance?
A: Look for shorter onboarding times, faster role-change updates, lower access-related ticket volumes, reduced stale access, and fewer audit findings tied to entitlements.
Practitioner guidance
- Define lifecycle productivity KPIs Track time-to-access, deprovisioning latency, access-related ticket deflection, and review completion instead of raw ticket closure counts.
- Map every joiner-mover-leaver workflow Identify where onboarding, role changes, and exits still depend on manual approvals, then measure the delay and rework each step creates.
- Use policy-based access controls Tie access grants and updates to RBAC and ABAC rules so lifecycle changes are enforced consistently rather than negotiated request by request.
Bottom line: Manual lifecycle work distorts IT productivity reporting because the business impact sits in access governance rather than ticket counts.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
08/06/2026 6:09 pm
Identity productivity is a governance problem before it is an efficiency problem: The article shows that ticket counts and approval throughput are poor proxies for real IT value because they ignore lifecycle execution quality. In identity programmes, the control question is whether access changes happen correctly and on time across HR, IT, and app systems. The practitioner conclusion is that productivity metrics must be built around governed outcomes, not activity volume.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should IT, HR, and security share responsibility for lifecycle automation?
A: They should operate from shared workflows with clear ownership for provisioning, approval, and deprovisioning decisions. IT should manage execution, HR should trigger authoritative employee changes, and security should govern policy and exceptions. The goal is a single lifecycle process with multiple accountable owners, not separate queues that duplicate work.
👉 Read our full editorial: IT productivity and identity lifecycle automation: what changes
This post was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group