To improve their competitiveness, organizations must simultaneously minimize their costs and maximize their added value. Hence, the cost of IAM is a fundamental component of IAM performance measurement. TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) is a measurement of the overall cost of an activity, from acquisition to maintenance. In consequence, the TCO of IAM is a natural measurement of IAM overall cost.
Organizations use the methods of centralization and standardization to reduce TCO (David et al., 2002). This indicator over time should reflect the performance of these efforts (see § Benchmarking for limitations).
Since TCO is thought to be directly proportional to service levels, it is critical to interpret this indicator in conjunction with the indicators that reflect the service levels delivered by the IAM processes (see § Negative Effects).
Because IAM is composed of process clusters, it is interesting to allocate costs at both the global and cluster levels (providing that the organization does manage these clusters). The IAM TCO is composed of the following series:
Currency This indicator is expressed in the organization’s reference currency.
Benchmarking
This indicator is not comparable between organizations. See Core Identity Average TCO (Indicator - IAM) for a distinct flavor of this indicator that is adequate for benchmarking purposes.
This indicator may not be comparable over a long period of time, because the organization evolves and the volumes of identities it manages change. Also, if TCO consolidates costs in multiple currencies, the effect of foreign exchange rates may be significant. See Core Identity Average TCO (Indicator - IAM) for a distinct flavor of this indicator that is more adequate for historical comparisons.
In large organizations where IAM is organized for example in regions, the indicator may be measured at both levels.
Negative Effects
TCO is thought as being directly proportional to service levels, hence organizations should strive to simultaneously reduce their TCO while maintaining or improving their service levels (David et al., 2002). This indicator may induce a focus on costs to the detriment of service levels.