Topic starter
22/01/2026 5:13 pm
TL;DR: 56% of surveyed IT teams attempted to deploy PAM, but 92% of those efforts were not fully implemented because complexity, integration friction and usability issues made rollout harder than procurement, according to Keeper Security research. The real problem is not PAM intent, but whether governance, systems and users can absorb it.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Keeper Security: “What Are the Common Challenges of Implementing PAM?”.
By the numbers:
- 56% of surveyed IT teams reported they attempted to deploy their organization’s PAM solution, but 92% did not fully implement it because of its complexity.
- 87% of respondents said they preferred using a PAM solution that is easier to deploy and manage.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when PAM is implemented without a clear strategy?
A: Without a clear strategy, PAM tends to protect only the accounts teams already know about while missing hidden privileged paths, shadow administration and high-risk exceptions.
Q: Why do integration gaps make PAM harder to operationalise?
A: Integration gaps matter because PAM only works when policy can follow privileged access across directories, applications and infrastructure.
Q: What usually causes PAM deployments to fail in practice?
A: PAM deployments usually fail when teams treat them as a technical rollout instead of an operating-model change.
Practitioner guidance
- Build a privileged access inventory first Map every privileged account, shared admin path, service account and break-glass credential before deciding on controls or rollout sequence.
- Pilot against the hardest systems Test integration with legacy applications, directories and hybrid platforms that lack clean APIs, because those systems reveal where policy enforcement will fail.
- Design the workflow around user behaviour Validate request, approval and session flows with real administrators and operators so the control reduces friction instead of creating bypass pressure.
Bottom line: PAM implementation often fails because strategy, integration and usability are treated as secondary to the tool itself.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 7 hours ago by NHI Mgmt Group
11/10/2026 2:09 am
Implementation failure is a governance failure before it is a tooling failure. PAM programmes do not collapse because the objective is wrong. They collapse when discovery, scoping and operating ownership are not defined well enough to survive contact with real environments. The practical consequence is that organisations buy control capability before they have a workable privileged access model.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 49% of IT professionals would prioritise improving privileged access management if the decision were theirs alone, according to Netwrix's 2023 Hybrid Security Trends Report.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise user experience or tighter access controls in PAM?
A: They need both, because controls that are too hard to use invite bypasses while controls that are too loose fail to protect privilege. The practical balance is a workflow that is easy enough for administrators to follow but strict enough to preserve session oversight, least privilege and auditability.
👉 Read our full editorial: PAM implementation fails when strategy, scale and UX collide