Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 2:47 pm
TL;DR: Manufacturers are struggling to balance legacy systems, shared devices, contractors, and frontline access, with IDC reporting that 80% of manufacturers now need more IAM capability and 32% struggle with contractor and third-party access. The access problem is operational, but the governance failure is identity control that is too rigid for the plant and too loose for auditors.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Imprivata: manufacturing access governance and operational security in factory environments
By the numbers:
- 80% of manufacturers report increased demand for IAM solutions.
- 32% struggle with managing contractors and third-party access.
- Leading manufacturers are 58% more likely than peers to use user and device authentication solutions.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams govern access in shared manufacturing environments?
A: Start with task-based entitlement design, not generic role labels.
Q: Why do contractors and vendors create such a large access governance problem in factories?
A: Because third parties often need short, specific access to sensitive systems, but operational pressure makes it tempting to reuse staff accounts or leave permissions open too long.
Q: What do manufacturing teams get wrong about least privilege?
A: They often define least privilege at provisioning time and then treat it as permanent.
Practitioner guidance
- Map roles to tasks and systems Build a living catalogue of job roles, production tasks, and the exact applications, devices, and control interfaces each task requires.
- Standardise shared-device authentication Use a consistent sign-in and sign-out pattern for shared workstations, with fast re-authentication, offline support where needed, and clear session end behaviour.
- Isolate contractor and vendor sessions Give third parties secure remote access that is approved, recorded, time-limited, and bound to specific systems.
What's in the full article
Imprivata's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Step-by-step access patterns for frontline workers, maintenance staff, supervisors, and IT across shared manufacturing environments.
- Specific deployment guidance for secure remote vendor access, session monitoring, and automatic expiration.
- Practical examples of access hygiene, recertification timing, and change-triggered review in plant operations.
- The product framing for Imprivata Enterprise Access Management, Vendor Privileged Access Management, and Privileged Access Management.
👉 Read Imprivata's analysis of manufacturing access governance and operational security →
Manufacturing access governance: what IAM teams need to fix now?
Explore further
25/06/2026 3:55 pm
Manufacturing access governance fails when the programme treats operational convenience as an exception instead of the design constraint. Shared devices, rotating crews, and contractor access are not edge cases in a plant. They are the normal operating environment. Frameworks such as OWASP Non-Human Identity Top 10 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 become relevant here because identity controls have to survive constant context switching, not just tidy office workflows. Practitioners should treat the plant floor as a governance stress test, not a special case.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 72% of organisations have experienced or suspect they have experienced a breach of non-human identities, according to The 2024 ESG Report: Managing Non-Human Identities.
- Enterprises that have experienced a compromised NHI averaged 2.7 separate incidents in the past 12 months, which shows how quickly one identity failure can compound into repeated exposure.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when a vendor’s access causes a third-party breach in manufacturing?
A: Accountability sits with the organisation that granted the access, because the identity, scope, approval, and review process were under its control. Vendor access must be sponsored, recorded, time-bound, and recertified. If those controls are missing, the breach is a governance failure, not only a vendor failure.
👉 Read our full editorial: Manufacturing access governance is now an uptime issue
