Topic starter
10/06/2026 12:51 am
TL;DR: Mergers and acquisitions create identity visibility, access management, privilege, and compliance problems that can delay integrations and expose sensitive systems, according to Zluri. The core issue is that identity programmes assume one operating model, while M&A forces two or more to coexist long enough for gaps to become exploitable.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “5 Identity Challenges in M&A To Address in 2026”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when identity governance is not unified in an M&A deal?
A: Duplicate accounts, conflicting roles, and inconsistent entitlement rules make it hard to know who should have access after the merger.
Q: Why do M&A integrations create so much access risk for IAM teams?
A: Because two organisations often bring different access models, revocation cadences, and approval paths into one estate.
Q: What are the main signs that M&A identity cleanup is failing?
A: Look for duplicate identities, delayed access requests, orphaned accounts, repeated manual overrides, and unresolved role conflicts between the two organisations.
Practitioner guidance
- Consolidate identity data before integration Build a unified inventory of users, roles, groups, and linked applications across both organisations before merging access policies.
- Map application identity dependencies Document which apps depend on which identity providers, directory attributes, licences, and entitlement rules before any migration begins.
- Rationalise privileged access early Review admin accounts, broad grants, and manual exceptions first, then remove standing privileges that no longer match business need.
Bottom line: M&A exposes identity fragmentation because two operating models are forced to coexist before access can be rationalised.
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 9:57 pm
M&A is really an identity normalisation problem. The article is correct to frame mergers as an access governance issue rather than a pure integration exercise. Until identity stores, role models, and entitlement rules are reconciled, every downstream project inherits ambiguity about who should have access and why. The practitioner takeaway is that identity normalisation has to precede broad integration work.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should teams do when access decisions differ between two merging organisations?
A: Use one governing access model for the combined estate, then map exceptions explicitly until the old policies are retired. If teams leave both models in place, they create ambiguity over who can approve, provision, and revoke access.
👉 Read our full editorial: Identity challenges in M&A are now an access governance problem
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group