Topic starter
12/06/2026 1:22 am
TL;DR: Traditional software asset management struggles with SaaS discovery, usage control, renewal tracking, and offboarding, while SaaS management platforms are built for those workflows, according to Zluri. The governance shift is from license administration to continuous SaaS visibility, cost control, and access lifecycle management.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “SAM vs. SMP: Why SMP is a Better Option for SaaS Management”.
Key questions
Q: How should teams govern SaaS subscriptions when legacy SAM is not enough?
A: Teams should treat SaaS governance as a live service-management problem, not a periodic asset-audit exercise.
Q: Why does SaaS sprawl create security risk as well as cost pressure?
A: SaaS sprawl increases the number of accounts, roles, permissions, and integrations that must be governed.
Q: What signals show that SaaS governance is not working?
A: Look for delayed offboarding, repeated manual exports, inconsistent access review responses, and inactive accounts that still carry paid licenses.
Practitioner guidance
- Build continuous SaaS discovery Correlate SSO, expense, directory, direct integration, and browser-based signals so application discovery reflects actual usage rather than procurement records.
- Assign accountable app owners Require a named business owner for each SaaS application so renewals, access decisions, and offboarding actions have an explicit decision-maker.
- Align renewal review with usage data Review subscription tiers, duplicate apps, and dormant licences before auto-renewal so the contract decision reflects current adoption.
Bottom line: Legacy SAM does not cover the full SaaS control problem because discovery, renewals, and offboarding now happen continuously across many access paths.
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 11:15 am
Legacy SAM is structurally misaligned with SaaS governance: The control model was built for installed software, not continuously changing SaaS usage patterns, subscription states, and delegated access paths. That means inventory, usage, and lifecycle data live in different places unless the governance model is rebuilt around SaaS reality. Practitioners should treat this as a category mismatch, not a tooling preference.
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: Should organisations use SAM, SMP, or both for SaaS control?
A: Use both only if roles are clearly separated. SAM still has value for traditional software estates, but SaaS control needs a platform and workflow built around subscription visibility, usage analytics, and access lifecycle management. If one tool is expected to cover both worlds equally, SaaS controls will usually be under-governed.
👉 Read our full editorial: SaaS management platforms expose the limits of legacy SAM
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group