Topic starter
06/06/2026 1:40 am
TL;DR: Gartner’s October 2025 report says 70% of CISOs will be using an identity visibility and intelligence platform by 2028, as organisations seek a single view of IAM data, activity, relationships, and posture across fragmented tools, according to Axiad’s analysis of the category. The key issue is not more dashboards, but the intelligence layer that connects human, non-human, and machine identities into one risk picture.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Axiad: “A CISO Called Us an ISPM Vendor. Here's What We Told Him.”.
Key questions
Q: How should security teams build an IAM programme if identity visibility is incomplete?
A: Start by creating a unified inventory of users, service accounts, credentials, and privileged entitlements across all major environments.
Q: Why do fragmented tools increase identity governance risk?
A: Because policy and enforcement stop moving together.
Q: What are the signs that identity posture management is not working?
A: Common warning signs include unknown identities, inconsistent ownership, privileges that survive role changes, and federation paths that nobody can explain.
Practitioner guidance
- Define the identity correlation layer Map which identity systems must feed a single risk model, including directories, IGA, PAM, ITDR, ISPM, SaaS platforms, and machine identity sources.
- Bring machine identities into the same governance workflow Inventory service accounts, API keys, OAuth tokens, certificates, cloud roles, and AI agents alongside workforce identities.
- Translate identity exposure into board-readable terms Use quantified scoring to express likely blast radius, risk severity, and financial exposure in a way risk committees can compare with other enterprise priorities.
Bottom line: Identity visibility and intelligence sits above ISPM because organisations need correlated context, not just more posture findings.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
06/06/2026 2:55 am
Identity visibility is the missing layer between posture findings and governance action: ISPM can tell you where identity hygiene is weak, but it does not by itself reconcile the data needed to understand systemic exposure. The market problem is no longer lack of findings, but lack of correlation across identity domains. Practitioners should treat unified identity intelligence as the control plane that turns scattered alerts into governance decisions.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams reduce identity hygiene risk across human and non-human accounts?
A: Start by cleaning the identity foundation before expanding controls. Remove stale groups, assign clear ownership to every account, and make reviews broad enough to cover the access users and systems actually use. Identity hygiene fails when governance is fragmented, so the best programmes treat human and non-human access as one lifecycle discipline.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity visibility and intelligence is wider than ISPM alone