Topic starter
27/06/2026 1:01 pm
TL;DR: Nexis argues that many IAM and IGA programmes still lack an accurate, actionable view of how identities, roles, and entitlements behave across the enterprise, leaving hybrid RBAC and ABAC governance too static for changing access patterns. Static review cycles no longer match operational reality, so visibility and continuous optimization become the control plane, not periodic cleanup.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Nexis: “Unique Capabilities of the NEXIS Platform”.
Key questions
Q: How should IAM teams govern hybrid RBAC and ABAC models?
A: They should govern both models through the same approval, versioning, and evidence process.
Q: What breaks when identity visibility is too weak for modern authorization?
A: Teams end up certifying snapshots instead of governing live access behaviour.
Q: How can organisations tell whether entitlement governance is actually working?
A: Look for fewer unexplained overlaps, faster identification of redundant entitlements, and cleaner alignment between defined rules and actual assignments.
Practitioner guidance
- Establish a single identity visibility model Map identities, roles, entitlements, and application relationships into one operating view so governance decisions are based on live structure rather than disconnected reports.
- Govern RBAC and ABAC together Define how role logic and attribute logic interact, then test whether policy changes remain explainable when both are applied to the same access path.
- Replace periodic cleanup with continuous optimisation Use usage, anomaly, and redundancy signals to flag roles or entitlements that no longer match current business structure.
Bottom line: Many IAM programmes still lack a reliable view of how roles and entitlements behave across the enterprise, which weakens authorization governance.
What's in the full article
Nexis's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Identity visibility features such as grids, filtering, grouping, and drill-down views used to expose role and entitlement patterns
- Workflow design details for no-code lifecycle, review, and approval processes that reduce maintenance overhead
- Examples of preventive compliance checks, including separation-of-duties detection before assignment
- Data quality and connector considerations for harmonising legacy systems and attribute sets across heterogeneous environments
👉 Read Nexis's analysis of identity visibility gaps in modern IAM and authorization →
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
27/06/2026 2:10 pm
Identity visibility is now a governance requirement, not a reporting feature. When organisations cannot see how entitlements behave across systems, they cannot govern access with confidence. That problem is bigger than audit readiness because it affects every downstream decision about role design, entitlement risk, and recertification quality. The practical conclusion is that visibility must be treated as an operational control, not a dashboard accessory.
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: When should teams prioritise continuous optimisation over periodic access cleanup?
A: Prioritise continuous optimisation when identity, role, and application changes happen faster than scheduled reviews can absorb. In that environment, cleanup is too slow to prevent drift, so governance must react to live usage and structural signals instead of waiting for the next campaign.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity governance visibility gaps shape modern IAM and authorization