The Death of IGA: Rethinking Identity Governance for the Future

Learn AI in 5 Minutes a Day

AI Tool Report is one of the fastest-growing and most respected newsletters in the world, with over 550,000 readers from companies like OpenAI, Nvidia, Meta, Microsoft, and more.

Our research team spends hundreds of hours a week summarizing the latest news, and finding you the best opportunities to save time and earn more using AI.

Sign up with 1-Click

Identity Governance and Administration (IGA) has been the cornerstone of IAM programs for decades. It’s given us structure, control, and a way to prove to auditors that we’re doing our job. But let’s face it—the world of identity security is changing. Rapidly. We’re no longer in a world where threats are static, predictable, or slow-moving. Attack surfaces have expanded with interconnected systems, cloud migrations, and the explosion of remote work. This new frontier demands security models that are dynamic, context-aware, and real-time. Yet, IGA, as we know it, often lags behind, operating on cycles better suited for the compliance era of the early 2000s.

The identity landscape today is dominated by three trends:

1. The commoditization of authentication technologies has made basic security table stakes, raising expectations for more sophisticated solutions.

2. The shift to real-time detection and prevention demands platforms that think and respond in the moment, not after the fact.

3. Dynamic access models like just-in-time provisioning and continuous policy enforcement are replacing static role-based systems.

So, where does that leave IGA? Still focused on quarterly access reviews and provisioning cycles? Without evolution, traditional IGA risks becoming obsolete.

Let’s break down why this is happening and what needs to change.

1. What Is an IGA Platform Without a Front Door?

IGA platforms are fantastic at what they were designed for: managing lifecycles, provisioning, and access reviews. They promise to bring order to the chaos of identity sprawl by offering a centralized hub to manage users and their access rights. But here’s the thing: if there’s no strong front-door control, no intelligent layer actively preventing unauthorized access, these platforms feel incomplete.

The current race among identity vendors is to build all-in-one platforms that can do everything—IGA, identity orchestration, threat detection, and even privileged access management. But without addressing the front door (i.e., authentication and adaptive access controls), these platforms often fail to deliver meaningful security outcomes. They become backend-centric, administrative tools, while attackers exploit the entry points.

The challenge here is clear: the commoditization of authentication technologies like MFA and single sign-on (SSO) has made basic front-door protection ubiquitous. Organizations now expect these features to “just work.” But basic isn’t enough anymore. Without adaptive, risk-based authentication or behavioral analytics layered in, attackers will still find gaps to exploit.

So, while vendors scramble to claim the title of “complete identity security platform,” those without a robust front-door story risk falling behind. A locked door at the back of the house is useless if the front door is wide open.

2. The Age of Real-Time Detection: Does After-the-Fact Governance Hold Up?

The identity security landscape is increasingly dominated by platforms focused on real-time detection and response. From behavioral analytics to continuous authentication, the emphasis has shifted from governance after the fact to prevention in the moment. And for good reason—attackers don’t wait for your next access review to exploit a vulnerability.

Traditional IGA operates on the premise that administrative controls like certification campaigns and manual provisioning/deprovisioning are sufficient to protect the organization. But in a world where threats evolve by the second, these after-the-fact measures are a liability. By the time an overprivileged account is flagged in a quarterly review, the damage could already be done.

Here’s the disconnect: real-time detection platforms are constantly monitoring and adjusting access in response to dynamic conditions, while IGA is still working on scheduled cycles. This creates a gap in coverage that attackers can exploit.

The solution isn’t to abandon governance altogether but to rethink how it’s implemented. Continuous governance—where policies are enforced dynamically and access is adjusted in real time—is the future. Platforms need to integrate governance into the flow of identity management, not treat it as a separate, administrative process.

After-the-fact controls may satisfy auditors, but they won’t satisfy a CISO dealing with a live attack.

3. Do Access Reviews Still Matter?

Access reviews have long been the cornerstone of IGA programs. They’re the process by which organizations ensure users have the right level of access at the right time. But let’s be honest: in their current form, access reviews are more about checking a compliance box than actually improving security.

The problem with traditional access reviews is twofold:

• They’re reactive. By the time you identify an issue, it’s often too late.

• They’re inefficient. Manual reviews create fatigue and often miss the forest for the trees.

In a future where interconnected systems and just-in-time access models dominate, traditional access reviews start to feel like a relic. Why spend weeks reviewing access spreadsheets when AI-driven solutions can analyze patterns and flag anomalies in real time? Why rely on static roles and entitlements when dynamic policy enforcement can ensure users have exactly what they need, when they need it—and nothing more?

This doesn’t mean access reviews are irrelevant. But they need to evolve. Instead of being periodic, static exercises, access reviews should be continuous, automated, and context-aware. Think of it as moving from a snapshot to a live stream.

For example:

• AI can analyze access patterns across systems, flagging anomalies before they become problems.

• Dynamic policies can grant and revoke access automatically, reducing the need for human intervention.

• Continuous monitoring can provide real-time insights into who has access to what, and why.

In this model, access reviews become a safety net, not the primary line of defense. They complement real-time controls, ensuring the system works as intended without relying solely on manual oversight.

The Future of IGA: Adapt or Die

So, is IGA dead? Not quite. But the version of IGA we’ve relied on for decades is on life support. To remain relevant, IGA needs to evolve into something more dynamic, integrated, and real-time. Here’s what that looks like:

• Real-Time Controls: Proactive measures like adaptive authentication, behavioral analytics, and continuous monitoring must become core to any identity platform.

• Dynamic Access Models: Just-in-time provisioning and context-aware policies should replace static roles and periodic reviews.

• Continuous Governance: Governance needs to happen seamlessly, in real time, as part of the natural flow of access management.

The death of IGA isn’t the end of identity governance—it’s a call to rethink it. To move from a world of delayed, administrative controls to one where identity governance is baked into every access decision, every moment, in real time.

The question isn’t whether IGA will die. It’s whether we’re ready to evolve it fast enough to meet the demands of the future.

The clock is ticking.