What is our primary use case?
The primary use cases are identity lifecycle, provisioning, and authorizations to our IT infrastructure. We use it for provisioning to our SAP platform. We also need it to make a survey of the IT authorizations. We need to make sure that our managers can review the authorizations of the employees in our company.
We have a couple of secondary use cases as well, such as segregation of duties on provisionings to make sure that we have correct approval flows for authorizations.
How has it helped my organization?
The automatic provisioning of a lot of authorizations has definitely lightened the load on the manual part of authorization management. It has not directly caused savings in our operations, but our administrators have seen a dip in the number of manual tasks they had to do. So, that's a direct business value for us from the platform.
It has helped in reducing the number of helpdesk tickets and requests by at least 30%.
What is most valuable?
The identity lifecycle support is definitely valuable because we are a complex organization, and there is a lot of onboarding, movement, and offboarding in our organization. We have 31,000 users, and there are a lot of users who are constantly onboarding, offboarding, and moving. So, we need to make sure that these activities are supported. In old times, we used to do everything manually. Everyone was onboarded, offboarded, or moved manually. So, from a business point of view and an economics point of view, identity lifecycle is most valuable. From a security point of view, access review is the most important feature for us.
Our internal customers are quite happy with the product, and we receive a lot of positive feedback. Its identity-governance and administration features are very broad. It can support a lot of use cases. I don't think we use a broad part of the product, but it is a very broad platform that can be used for a lot of different things.
It provides a lot of flexibility for our security operations. We can combine the security operations of the product with other security operations, such as logging, surveillance of our infrastructures, and things like that. I sit in the security office primarily, and identity governance is a part of our operations in security. So, it provides a lot of flexibility for a lot of different use cases.
What needs improvement?
Error handling can be improved. From an on-premise perspective, internal support can be improved. It is quite a technical and difficult application to maintain. A very specialized skill set is required to operate and maintain it, which is the most difficult part. The process to upgrade versions is also quite tricky.
One thing that we are not so happy about is the user interface. It is a bit dated. I know that they are working on that, but the user interface is quite dated. Currently, it is a little bit difficult to customize the user interface to the need of the business, which is a little bit disappointing. It needs it to be a little bit easier to operate, and it should have a better user interface.
Their technical support is good, but there is room for improvement. It is not an easy product to support. They helped us set it up a little bit, but it gets difficult for them to handle more complex problems.
For how long have I used the solution?
I have been using this solution for the last year.
What do I think about the stability of the solution?
The product itself is quite stable. The problem is that it is quite complex with all the integrations, which is applicable to all IGA solutions. There is a lot of need for surveillance on the solution itself, but it is not because of the solution itself. It is because of all the integrations. So, the solution itself is quite stable, but the integrations make it quite vulnerable to all kinds of stuff.
What do I think about the scalability of the solution?
It seems quite scalable in terms of performance and in terms of the ability to scale itself.
How are customer service and technical support?
Their technical support is good, but there is room for improvement. One problem that we have discussed with Omada several times is their handling of a customer-specific problem and a solution-specific problem. The coordination between their technical support and their backend developers can be better. It becomes an issue when a problem is more complex. It is not an easy product to support. They helped us set it up a little bit, but it gets difficult for them to handle more complex problems.
Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?
It was an internally developed solution. We switched to Omada because our previous solution didn't support governance. It was only for ordering new authorizations, and the level of automation was limited.
How was the initial setup?
It was a complex process in terms of technicality and the amount of effort needed for setting it up from Omada's point of view.
We started in August 2018, and we finally deployed the solution and were ready for production in June 2020. So, it took 18 months.
We had to deploy or onboard a part of our infrastructure at once. We onboarded a couple of applications and our SAP solution on day one. Omada would probably call it the big bang, but it was definitely not the big bang. We deployed a lot of functionalities at once, but it was a very limited part of our total application portfolio that we deployed with Omada. It is not yet done. The first one and a half or two years will go into implementing the rest of our application portfolio in the solution.
What about the implementation team?
We used Omada itself as an implementation partner. The consultants themselves were quite adept at handling the product. From a technical standpoint, they were definitely above average. From a project management point of view, we would have liked to see some improvements. This is from the perspective of a very large customer. The problem for us was handling an organization of our size. If I have to choose again, instead of Omada, I would choose an implementation partner who is more used to handling large enterprises. That was definitely a pain point for us.
It is quite a technical and difficult application to maintain. It is a standard solution, but some parts of the solution make it difficult to upgrade and maintain the solution. A very specialized skill set is required to operate and maintain it. You should either pay Omada or another consultancy firm to maintain the solution, or you should have internal resources for maintaining the solution.
We have around 10 people who are directly involved in its maintenance. They are on the business side, such as for onboarding new applications, front-end problem-solving, and incident-handling, as well as on the operations side, such as for ensuring data validation, handling integrations, and things like that.
What was our ROI?
It is very difficult to say at this point. We are a municipal organization, and we do not, as such, do a very systematic review on the return on investment. I would say we have seen a positive ROI, but I'm not sure.
It is also very difficult to say whether it has reduced the total cost of ownership. My gut feeling is that it has, but we have not made a precise estimate of what economic impact it has had on us.
Our business is regulated and subject to audit fines, but again, it is too difficult to estimate whether it has reduced the number of audit fines we have received. It is too early to estimate that, but I would guess it has.
What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?
From an on-prem point of view, the cost is quite transparent and reasonable. The direct cost is primarily for licenses and maintenance on licenses.
Which other solutions did I evaluate?
We evaluated other solutions. I don't remember them all. We did a market analysis where we considered SailPoint. We definitely reached out to Microsoft as well but not for their identity solution as such. We reached out to them for their future solutions in this environment.
We only did a market analysis. Being in the public sector, we have a very strictly EU-regulated process for procurement. So, it is quite difficult to do a look-and-feel kind of selection of tools.
I was not directly involved in the market analysis. As far as I know, our tender showed that from a technical standpoint, all evaluated solutions were comparable in functions and features for our intent and purpose. They were not identical, but they were comparable in functions and features.
What other advice do I have?
Any business interested in using this product needs to make sure that they are ready to either pay Omada or another consultancy firm to maintain the solution, or they should have the internal resources for maintaining the solution. It is quite a difficult solution in terms of maintenance.
It is very important to make sure that the master data is correct and is controlled by processes rather than humans. This is very important. We thought that we had a very good understanding of our master data, and it was mostly supported by processes and not by people, but we certainly were caught a bit by some of the things. So, having control over your master data is the most important thing.
If you are a reasonable-sized organization, you should be very careful and make sure that the implementation partner has the correct implementation model that suits your need. You need to make sure that you have the correct support, or the means to find the correct support, for the application itself when you go live. These are definitely the three most important things.
I would rate Omada Identity a seven out of 10. There is definitely room for improvement, but it is not a bad product. It is a good product, and seven, in my book, is for a good product.
Which deployment model are you using for this solution?