Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:18 am
TL;DR: Six common SaaS management mistakes, from spreadsheet tracking and legacy SAM reliance to manual provisioning, weaken visibility, compliance, and access control in environments averaging 1,250 SaaS applications, according to Zluri. The real risk is not spend inefficiency but unmanaged identity and governance drift across apps and users.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “6 SaaS Management Mistakes to Avoid”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when SaaS access reviews rely on spreadsheets?
A: Spreadsheets freeze access data in time, so reviewers work from stale exports while roles, teams, and app usage keep changing.
Q: Why do manual SaaS provisioning and deprovisioning increase governance risk?
A: Manual provisioning and deprovisioning create gaps between the recorded identity state and the real one.
Q: How should organisations control SaaS spend without losing governance over access?
A: They should treat SaaS spend as part of identity and lifecycle governance, not just procurement.
Practitioner guidance
- Implement governed SaaS discovery Build an authoritative inventory of cloud applications, owners, and access paths so governance starts from current data rather than manual tracking.
- Separate software metering from access governance Use SAM for licence accounting and dedicated IAM or IGA controls for entitlement review, approval, and access removal.
- Automate joiner-mover-leaver workflows for SaaS Connect provisioning and deprovisioning to identity lifecycle events so new hires, movers, and leavers are reflected across SaaS apps without manual delay.
Bottom line: SaaS management shortcuts create visibility and governance gaps that directly weaken identity control.
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
12/06/2026 11:08 am
SaaS governance fails first as an inventory problem, then as an identity problem. The article shows that when organisations rely on spreadsheets, they stop governing SaaS as a living access surface and start managing it as a static list. That breaks visibility, recertification, and ownership assignment at the same time. For IAM and IGA teams, the operational conclusion is simple: discovery quality determines governance quality.
A few things that frame the scale:
- The average enterprise SaaS platform connects to 42 or more third-party applications through OAuth tokens, API keys, webhooks and automation platforms.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Why do SaaS expenses become an IAM issue instead of just a procurement issue?
A: Because SaaS costs follow active services, and active services usually carry user access, data exposure, and lifecycle obligations. When procurement, IT, and identity teams work from different records, services can renew even when usage has dropped or ownership is unclear. IAM teams need spend visibility so lifecycle decisions stay aligned with access governance.
👉 Read our full editorial: SaaS management mistakes expose identity and governance blind spots
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group