Topic starter
10/06/2026 12:23 am
TL;DR: IT asset management best practices in 2026 emphasise visibility, lifecycle control, automation, and cross-team process discipline across hardware, software, and SaaS, according to Zluri. The identity gap is that asset management only becomes security-relevant when it is tied to entitlement, offboarding, and renewal governance, not inventory alone.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “IT Asset Management (ITAM) Best Practices in 2026 Across the Globe”.
Key questions
Q: When does IT asset management fail as a security control?
A: IT asset management fails as a security control when it stops at inventory and never reaches entitlement, offboarding, or renewal decisions.
Q: Why does renewal governance matter for identity security?
A: Renewal governance matters because it is often the last checkpoint before access, spend, and ownership are extended for another cycle.
Q: What do security teams get wrong about ITAM automation?
A: Security teams often assume automation is a substitute for governance, when it is really a way to enforce governance faster.
Practitioner guidance
- Link asset records to entitlement reviews Map SaaS subscriptions, software licences, and device records to the identities that use them so access reviews can validate whether the asset is still justified.
- Tie renewal approvals to ownership checks Require a business owner or system owner to confirm continued need before renewing software or subscription commitments, especially where access and spend are coupled.
- Automate onboarding and offboarding triggers Use lifecycle workflows so new assets create controlled access paths and leavers or movers trigger removal, reassignment, or recertification without manual delay.
Bottom line: ITAM is no longer just a tracking exercise when organisations use asset data to govern who still needs access and which licences should be renewed.
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
10/06/2026 9:32 pm
ITAM becomes an identity control only when it is tied to entitlement state: Asset visibility by itself does not reduce access risk. The governance break happens when organisations treat discovery, procurement, and renewal as separate from who still has access or who should lose it. That creates a control blind spot across SaaS, software, and device lifecycles, and practitioners should treat asset records as inputs to identity governance rather than as an end state.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should organisations connect ITAM to access reviews?
A: Organisations should use ITAM data to trigger access reviews for software, SaaS, and device-related access that no longer matches business need. The review should verify asset ownership, current usage, and whether the entitlement is still justified. This works best when procurement, IAM, and service owners share the same lifecycle evidence.
👉 Read our full editorial: ITAM best practices in 2026 expose the identity gap
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group