Topic starter
11/06/2026 11:32 pm
TL;DR: Cross-functional buy-in is the difference between an IGA programme that scales and one that stalls, because teams adopt access controls only when they see reduced workload, clearer auditability, and faster lifecycle handling, according to Zluri. The hard part is not platform deployment but aligning security, IT, HR, and business owners around shared accountability.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “Getting Everyone on Board: Guide to IGA Buy-In”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when IGA is treated as an IT-only project?
A: Access governance loses the business context needed to sustain reviews, approvals, and lifecycle changes.
Q: Why do IGA programmes need cross-functional buy-in?
A: Because the access decisions themselves are distributed across multiple teams.
Q: How should teams start an IGA rollout without overcommitting?
A: Start with one high-value access path where the risk and benefit are easy to measure, such as offboarding, privileged access, or sensitive app reviews.
Practitioner guidance
- Define access ownership by workflow Map who approves, reviews, remediates, and escalates access for each system and business unit before expanding the programme.
- Translate IGA value into stakeholder pain points Build a stakeholder map that links security, IT, HR, and app owner concerns to specific access outcomes such as auditability, workload reduction, and faster revocation.
- Start with a narrow pilot Choose one high-value access path, such as offboarding, sensitive app reviews, or privileged SaaS access, and measure orphaned accounts, review completion, and revocation time.
Bottom line: IGA buy-in fails when access governance is owned by IT alone, because lifecycle decisions require business, HR, and security participation to be sustainable.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
12/06/2026 8:15 am
IGA buy-in fails when governance ownership is treated as an IT function. Access governance only scales when the business, HR, security, and app owners share accountability for decisions that shape access. If those groups see IGA as someone else's project, the programme may automate tasks but will not create durable governance.
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: Who should be accountable for access reviews and revocation outcomes?
A: HR should own the lifecycle event that starts the change, application owners should define what correct access looks like, IT and security should automate the enforcement, and audit or compliance should verify that reviews produced real action. Accountability fails when any one of those groups assumes the handoff is someone else’s problem.
👉 Read our full editorial: IGA buy-in fails when access governance stays an IT-only project
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group