IAM: David versus Goliath

Towards the end of 2010, Gartner published its ‘Magic Quadrant for User Provisioning’ report. In it, Gartner outlines its vision for Identity & Access Management (IAM) for the near future as well as associated trends

But does this mean you should do business with them?. The Magic Quadrant draws a distinction between leaders, challengers, visionaries and niche players. In the User Provisioning quadrant, the market leaders tower above all other players. These leaders include global giants such as Oracle, IBM, Novell and CA, yet other vendors are closely grouped inside other quadrants. This seems to suggest that this elite group have a clear monopoly in this sector.

I have noticed more often than not, that when companies start IAM projects with solutions from elite vendors, they use a high-grade product as the centrepiece, and build an IAM solution around it. They often try to create a utopia that requires intensive modification of the IAM solution. They start by automating organisational processes (workflow management and RBAC) and then automate IT procedures for user account management across the network. The problem with this is that automating organisational processes is very difficult, and imputing the required authorisation information in an RBAC system is even more daunting. Also, organisational changes are bound to occur during the course of the project due to long lead times. As a result, these projects are often abandoned after a substantial investment has been made, or are only partly taken into production.

Therefore selecting a vendor belonging to this ‘elite group’ does not necessarily lead to a successful IAM project –something Gartner acknowledges in its report.  Elite vendors often use heavyweight project structures and impose a large number of conditions. Gartner notes that far too complex approaches tend to run IAM projects aground.

Gartner also highlights various issues, scenarios and requirements that an IAM vendor should cater for. Going against the norm, niche player Tools4ever, meets all these requirements. Its success can be attributed primarily to the following aspects, which correspond to the key factors identified by Gartner:

• The responsibility for the implementation is not divided between the vendor and implementation partner. For years Tools4ever has maintained that the success of an IAM implementation is determined by the skills and expertise of the IAM consultants involved and cannot be left to the implementation partner.

• A phased approach: One of the key elements of Tool4ever’s methodology.  By splitting up IAM projects into various smaller subprojects, slow progress can be prevented and solutions can be provided in number of days as opposed to the industry norm of weeks. IAM cycles can often be split up into steps, each of which will yield tangible results.

• Modularity: The technical solutions have a modular set-up that simplifies further development. This means preliminary results are achieved rather than endpoints.

• Flexibility: The IAM cycle usually starts with streamlining the current operation. Optimising existing processes will free up time and resources to focus on the next steps.

• An end-to-end portfolio: Tools4ever offers customers an end-to-end portfolio of solutions that have proven their worth in our customers’ production environments. Tools4ever is also just as proficient in the role of part supplier.

Thanks to Tools4Ever’s approach, virtually all projects are successful. Customers now find themselves in a situation where they can easily cater for future IAM trends or the next phase in current trends.

So, just like the age-old fable of David and Goliath- the underdog can come out on top. As long as they’ve got the right tools.