Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:06 am
TL;DR: IT asset management metrics help organisations measure utilisation, compliance, and lifecycle control across hardware and software, while highlighting how shadow IT and unused licences undermine governance, according to Zluri. The real test is whether ITAM data is wired into identity, onboarding, offboarding, and renewal decisions rather than treated as a reporting exercise.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: IT Teams Key Metrics Every IT Asset Manager Should Track (ITAM KPIs)
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should teams use ITAM metrics to improve identity governance?
A: Teams should connect asset utilisation, ownership, and renewal data to access decisions so that dormant software, devices, and cloud resources are challenged before they become control gaps.
Q: What breaks when software inventory is not tied to lifecycle management?
A: When inventory is disconnected from lifecycle management, organisations lose the ability to reclaim unused licences, remove stale assignments, and prove that offboarding actually closed access.
Q: How do you know if SaaS compliance reporting is actually working?
A: SaaS compliance reporting is working when it can show active licences, expired licences, unauthorized software, and renewal decisions in one record that owners can act on.
Practitioner guidance
- Link asset records to identity ownership Require every software, device, and cloud asset to carry a business owner, technical owner, and review date so inactive items can be challenged during access and renewal cycles.
- Measure lifecycle closure, not just inventory size Track onboarding completion, offboarding closure, renewal exceptions, and reclaim time as control metrics, then review them alongside utilisation and compliance reports.
- Consolidate SaaS and access data into one governance view Use a single control set to compare licences in use, duplicate applications, and active user assignments so finance, IT, and IAM teams act from the same record.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Detailed breakdowns of each ITAM KPI and how to calculate it in practice.
- Examples of software licence compliance checks across entitlements, renewals, and expired applications.
- Operational guidance on using SaaS discovery data for budgeting and vendor lifecycle management.
- Feature-level explanation of Zluri's onboarding and offboarding automation workflow.
👉 Read Zluri's ITAM KPI guidance for software, hardware, and SaaS lifecycle control →
ITAM KPIs and SaaS sprawl: what identity teams should track?
Explore further
12/06/2026 10:48 am
Asset governance without lifecycle closure is just inventory management. Zluri’s framing is useful because it shows how utilisation, compliance, and renewals only matter when they are tied to real lifecycle action. The governance failure is not knowing that assets exist, but failing to retire, reassign, or reconcile them when business conditions change. Practitioners should treat lifecycle closure as the control objective, not the spreadsheet.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1 in 4 organisations are already investing in dedicated NHI security capabilities, with an additional 60% planning to do so within the next twelve months, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- A separate finding shows that 85% of organisations lack full visibility into third-party vendors connected via OAuth apps, a gap that maps directly to shadow access and unmanaged lifecycle risk.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own decisions about unused assets and licences?
A: Ownership should sit with the business or process owner who can validate the asset’s purpose, while IT and security enforce the control. That split prevents orphaned tools from lingering after role changes and ensures unused assets are challenged during reviews rather than left to accumulate.
👉 Read our full editorial: IT asset lifecycle metrics expose the governance gap in SaaS control
