Topic starter
25/10/2026 11:02 am
TL;DR: More than 3,100 enterprises run identity governance on SailPoint, yet the same governance controls often stop at digital access while badge systems remain outside certification, lifecycle review, and compliance reporting, according to AlertEnterprise. Physical access becomes part of the identity estate only when the same governance model is applied consistently.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by AlertEnterprise: “Extending SailPoint Identity Governance to Physical Access: One Framework for Every Access Point”.
By the numbers:
- More than 3,100 enterprises run identity governance on SailPoint.
Key questions
Q: How should identity governance teams include physical access in certification programmes?
A: Treat physical access as another governed entitlement, not a separate facilities process.
Q: Why do simple automation tools create governance risk in IAM and IGA programmes?
A: Simple automation tools reduce the barrier to entry, which often spreads workflow creation beyond central IT.
Q: What is the biggest mistake teams make when governing physical access?
A: The common mistake is treating physical access as a facilities problem instead of an identity problem.
Practitioner guidance
- Extend access certification to physical entitlements Include badge holders in the same review cadence, evidence model, and approval workflow used for application access.
- Link physical access to identity lifecycle events Trigger badge provisioning and revocation from joiner, mover, and leaver changes so physical access does not drift from HR status.
- Unify audit evidence across access types Make the identity platform the source of truth for who approved access, when it was last reviewed, and when it was removed.
Bottom line: Physical access is part of the identity governance problem, not an adjacent facilities-only concern.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →