Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
10/06/2026 12:29 am
TL;DR: IT governance is increasingly defined by access control, lifecycle management, and auditability as organisations face expanding compliance burdens and security risk, according to Zluri’s guide. The governance gap is no longer about policy design alone; it is whether access decisions, reviews, and offboarding can keep pace with real operational change.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Access Management IT Governance in 2026, a comprehensive guide to IT governance
By the numbers:
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations align IT governance with access control in practice?
A: Start by making access ownership part of governance, not just IAM operations.
Q: Why do lifecycle controls matter so much in IT governance?
A: Because governance fails when access remains in place after the business reason disappears.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about governance metrics?
A: They often measure policy completion instead of control effectiveness.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory access ownership across every actor type Create a single register for human accounts, service accounts, API keys, certificates, and delegated application access.
- Tie reviews to access change events Do not rely only on quarterly certification cycles.
- Measure entitlement drift as a governance KPI Track the age of access, the time from request to removal, and the percentage of privileged entitlements that no longer match current business need.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full guide covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step governance framework selection criteria for different enterprise sizes and compliance profiles.
- Practical examples of aligning access reviews, onboarding, and offboarding to business processes.
- Operational guidance on automation, monitoring, and KPI selection for IT governance programmes.
- Implementation detail on how the platform supports access review and lifecycle workflows.
👉 Read Zluri's guide to IT governance in 2026 and access control →
IT governance in 2026: are access controls keeping up?
Explore further
10/06/2026 9:35 pm
IT governance fails first at the identity layer. The article presents governance as a coordination problem across strategy, risk, and compliance, but the real enforcement point is access. If an organisation cannot explain who has access, who approved it, and when it will be removed, governance is already degraded. In NIST CSF terms, the issue is not the absence of a framework, it is the absence of control evidence. Practitioners should treat identity proof as the operational test of governance.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 91.6% of secrets remain valid five days after the targeted organisation is notified, showing a critical gap in remediation procedures, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which is why access governance cannot rely on periodic manual review alone.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can teams reduce entitlement drift across human and non-human identities?
A: Use the same governance spine for both, then adapt controls by actor type. Humans need certification and strong account lifecycle handling. Non-human identities need ownership, rotation, and offboarding. The shared objective is to keep granted access tightly matched to current purpose.
👉 Read our full editorial: IT governance in 2026: why access control is the fault line
