✳ Security Fit Map / IAM / Protocol v1.0

Workforce access with a clear lifecycle

Employees and contractors using a defined SaaS application set, with phishing-resistant sign-in and timely access removal.

UNASSESSED · RESEARCH PROTOCOL · 2026-09-19

This edition publishes the evaluation question and work still required. It contains no scored vendor points.

What must be true

  • Required applications and authentication methods work.
  • Termination removes access within the declared objective.
  • Emergency access and recovery can be controlled and audited.

Candidate scope

Two publicly documented offerings form a small pilot. Inclusion is for methodology development, not a claim that these are the only or best choices. Exact tiers and test configurations must be frozen before scoring.

OfferingScopeStatus
Microsoft Entra IDThis profile covers Entra ID workforce authentication, Conditional Access, and hybrid directory sync. It does not cover customer identity, identity governance add-ons, or privileged access unless those SKUs are licensed separately.Unassessed
Capability: null
Operating: null
Okta Workforce IdentityThis profile covers the workforce identity suite. Auth0 customer identity is a related but separately scoped product. Single sign-on, adaptive multifactor authentication, identity governance, and privileged access are distinct SKUs.Unassessed
Capability: null
Operating: null

Evidence still needed

  • The exact app roster and selected editions
  • Lifecycle, session revocation, and recovery tests
  • Implementation effort and complete commercial assumptions

How the evaluation will work

  1. Fix the workload, organizational assumptions, product editions, and mandatory requirements.
  2. Publish criterion-specific 0–5 anchors before collecting results.
  3. Collect reproducible observations, source dates, and operating measurements. Preserve contradictory evidence.
  4. Use the rubric below without filling unknowns with estimates.
  5. Have a second reviewer reproduce results. Publish only after both axes reach 80% coverage and critical requirements have explicit results.
AxisCriterionWeight
capabilityRequired functions40%
capabilityRepresentative effectiveness30%
capabilityEvidence and explainability15%
capabilityRequired data exchange15%
operatingStaffing and administration30%
operatingEnvironment and deployment25%
operatingIntegration maintenance20%
operatingPortability and exit15%
operatingCost predictability10%

Threshold: 70/100 on each axis. A missing-evidence interval that spans 70 prevents a definitive quadrant label. A critical failure blocks a shortlist recommendation.

Download this research protocol ↓

Find your next idea.

Tip: press / to open search. Escape closes this window.