Topic starter
09/06/2026 11:48 pm
TL;DR: IT asset management software centralises inventory, lifecycle tracking, and audit preparation, but Zluri’s roundup also shows how identity data, entitlement visibility, and access lifecycle control now sit inside the same operational problem space. The governance question is no longer asset tracking alone, but whether identity programmes can keep pace with every asset, app, and access path it touches.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “Top 20 IT Asset Management Software - 2026”.
Key questions
Q: How should teams connect IT asset management with identity governance?
A: Teams should connect asset records to ownership, entitlement, and approval data so they can see who can actually act through each asset.
Q: When does asset inventory stop being enough for access governance?
A: Asset inventory stops being enough when the asset record no longer explains who can use the asset, what they can do with it, or whether that access was reviewed.
Q: What breaks when access reviews are not tied to lifecycle management?
A: Access reviews become paperwork instead of control enforcement.
Practitioner guidance
- Integrate asset and identity records Join ITAM inventory data to IAM and IGA records so each app, device, and license is mapped to the identities and entitlements that can use it.
- Tie offboarding to asset retirement Require access removal, license revocation, and device decommissioning to move together when an employee, contractor, or workload leaves scope.
- Add access reviews to asset governance Use periodic reviews to confirm that the identities associated with each asset still need the permissions recorded against it.
Bottom line: IT asset management now intersects with identity governance because assets carry entitlements, ownership, and lifecycle states that affect access.
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 2:18 am
IT asset management is becoming an identity control plane, not a record-keeping function. The article’s strongest signal is that asset inventory, access lifecycle, and audit readiness are converging into one governance problem. Once an asset can host software, expose data, or carry identity-linked access, the value of ITAM depends on whether it can inform IAM and NHI decisions in real time. Practitioners should treat ITAM as an upstream control source for identity governance, not a parallel administrative system.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 70% of organisations grant AI systems more access than they would give a human employee performing the exact same job, according to The 2026 Infrastructure Identity Survey.
- That same survey found that only 44% of organisations have implemented any policies to manage their AI agents, despite 92% agreeing that governing AI agents is critical to enterprise security.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations treat IT asset management as part of zero trust?
A: Yes, if they want zero trust to reflect reality. Zero trust depends on accurate asset context, continuous verification, and least privilege. If ITAM cannot tell identity systems what exists, who owns it, and whether it is still active, then access decisions will be made against stale assumptions.
👉 Read our full editorial: IT asset management software exposes the identity governance gap
10/06/2026 9:26 pm
ITAM is no longer a standalone operations layer when assets carry identity relationships. The article shows how asset inventory, licensing, and lifecycle management now overlap with entitlement visibility and access governance. That convergence means the asset record has become a governance object, not just a register. Practitioners should treat every asset as a potential access boundary.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How can organisations tell whether ITAM supports audit readiness or only record keeping?
A: Audit readiness exists when the asset record is backed by approval trails, review outcomes, and remediation evidence. If the system only shows inventory, contract dates, and locations, it is still a records tool, not a governance tool. Practitioners should look for traceability from asset existence to access authority and cleanup.
👉 Read our full editorial: IT asset management software exposes the identity governance gap
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group