Topic starter
10/06/2026 9:14 pm
TL;DR: Software asset management service providers now sit across discovery, licence optimisation, monitoring, procurement and retirement for sprawling SaaS estates, according to Zluri, but the governance lesson is that usage, contractual ownership and access ownership are increasingly misaligned. That makes software lifecycle control an identity problem as much as a cost problem: ungoverned apps, stale licences and shadow IT all expand access surface and weaken accountability.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Zluri: “Top 10 Software Asset Management Service Providers in 2026”.
Key questions
Q: How should teams govern SaaS access when the application estate keeps changing?
A: Start with discovery, not policy.
Q: Why do software asset management tools matter to IAM and IGA programmes?
A: They matter because software inventory only becomes usable when it informs entitlement decisions.
Q: What breaks when software retirement is not tied to access offboarding?
A: The application may disappear while its credentials, integrations, or delegated access remain live.
Practitioner guidance
- Map software ownership to application ownership Assign a named business and technical owner for each SaaS application, then require that owner to participate in access review and retirement decisions.
- Use discovery data to find hidden access paths Combine SSO, expense, API, and endpoint discovery signals to identify software that exists outside approved procurement or IAM workflows.
- Tie renewals to entitlement recertification Review user assignments, licence tiers, and renewal dates together so that dormant subscriptions are removed before contract renewal and over-assigned entitlements are corrected at the same time.
Bottom line: Software asset management now sits inside the identity governance problem because software discovery, access visibility, and application ownership are inseparable in SaaS-heavy estates.
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 5:29 am
Software asset management is now part of identity governance, not a separate cost function. The article shows that discovery, licence use, renewal, and retirement all depend on knowing which users and workflows actually touch an application. That means SAM is increasingly a control plane for access visibility, not merely a procurement support function. IAM leaders should treat SaaS ownership as part of the identity estate.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise software discovery or licence optimisation first?
A: Discovery should come first because licence optimisation depends on knowing what is actually present. If the inventory is incomplete, cost saving efforts will miss shadow IT, duplicate applications, and hidden entitlements, which means the organisation optimises the wrong estate.
👉 Read our full editorial: Software asset management and identity governance in 2026
This post was modified 4 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group