Oracle Identity Governance Reviews

I supported the product, and the customers using it globally. I was the technical support for it.

The most important feature is the connectors. Without the connectors, it can do nothing.

Also, auditing is a very good feature.

One of the areas that need some improvement with Oracle specifically is the ease of implementation. That is what is complicated.

The stability could be better.

I've been working with the Oracle identity management products for a very long time, and I started with Governance many years ago. It was Oracle Identity Manager then, and now it's Oracle Identity Governance. I was also managing the support team for the cloud services for IDCS.

We are using the latest version, I believe it is version 12.2.04.

I have been using them since the very beginning.

Once it is up and running it's okay, but it has many bumps.

They are always putting out fixes, but it's hard to get implemented without patching, so it's not great.

It's a scalable solution and it can easily be scaled.

The size of our customers' companies varies. 

I was the technical support.

I managed the entire team globally, along with other managers.

I was the global lead for Identity Governance.

The initial setup is complex.

It's a multi-tenant system integrated into a customer's environment. The entire process is more difficult than it needs to be. They have made improvements but it is still complex.

The number of people required for the deployment and implementation varies based on the size of the implementation. The implementations go from very small up to both wide enterprise-wide and serving external customers.

We have had customers who required a couple of people up to an entire team supporting them.

It really does depend on the size of the implementation but it does take more than a couple to manage it. It is not just the Governance, it's the setup of the app and the integration with all of the other applications with the directory. 

It requires a few people to keep it up and running.

My advice is to train the teams on identity management concepts and the Oracle solution specifically. Have them take advantage of all the training that's available, and plan the implementation in phases.

It has good features but it's complicated. I would rate Oracle Identity Governance a seven out of ten.

Our use cases are based on CIM to connect different applications. It's centralization identity for the use of the servers to give the passwords.

In the case of enterprise identity for the employee, the most important thing is the consolidation of access to the application no matter what the channel is that uses the application. It unifies the way we do authorization. 

For big companies, that is a nightmare to administrate because we have a lot of security problems. With CIM, we connect the customers to a channel to using different portals and with that approach, we can understand the behavior of the customer.

The centralization of IDs and passwords is the most valuable feature. They provide different applications to use the authorization.  

CIM is the most used feature. Customer Identity Management is a challenge that we are working on in our company and I think it's the star of the Identity Management space. With CIM we are using the same process in order to implement it to the customer.

Understanding what a customer is using, what they are looking for, and allowing permissions is a challenge. We use the information we get in order to understand the behavior of the customer beyond the security and to understand what they have been doing in the last month. It's a nice way to understand what is attracting the customer and what they are clicking. That could be implemented by using this kind of application.

Our issues with the solution have to do with the integration with different applications. It's not easy to connect ICAO to this kind of product. It would be better to work on the extensions of the adapters for this kind of identity management solution in order to not put in the code in the product.

I have the same problem every time I implement it. It's challenging to connect different applications that are not perfect or modern. It's important to connect everything. This is an area for improvement.

Synchronizing passwords between Active Directory and Oracle is very complex because the process is not so easy. I have a lot of problems.

I have been using Oracle Identity Governance for ten years. 

The stability is not a challenge. It depends on the size of the company. If we have one million users, it could be a challenge. But if you have up to 10,000 users, it's not a problem at all. 

You need to tune a lot because it's not a simple task. The product is not for everybody.I

When you get people from San Francisco, the support is okay. The problem is with the partners. In Latam, the support isn't so good. 

It could certainly be less expensive. There are a lot of components. Normal licensing is a real nightmare. Oracle should make things easier for the customer to understand.

With Oracle, you could do something for a million people but you need to make sure to do it right which isn't so easy. You need people and partners from Oracle for help. It's a good product but even good products need people to implement and maintain them especially during migration. You need senior people to help. 

I would recommend Oracle for a large implementation. 

My advice would be to solve the integration problem. Solve the way they interact when information is distributed. Properly distribute the customer's information. Understand that it is very difficult to implement. Make sure to understand the application and understand the legalities of the country that you're working in.

Most people start in the last stage. They pay a lot of money and the process could take three to four years. They pay a lot of money but don't use the product as a service. The problem is inexperience. 

I would rate Oracle Identity Governance a six out of ten. There is a lot missing. If it's not missing, it's complex. If you want to implement something, you won't end up doing it because it's too complex or expensive. 

We are a solution provider and we help customers migrate to different platforms integrated with multi-factor authentication.

This product is used for the provisioning of devices that are used for different applications and users inside the enterprise.

This solution offers multiple features that are valuable. 

The most valuable feature is the set of out-of-the-box connectors. The connectors can be customized, and we do make use of several custom ones.

The cost of this product needs to be reduced. There are other modern IAM solutions that are available at a better price, and the use cases are very easy. It is cloud-based and it caters to the needs of an enterprise. For example, there are some features that we do not use, yet we still pay for them. In the past, there was no choice, but many options are now offered. 

Customization is not easy to do. For example, additional reports or modules are difficult to create in a timely manner.

We would like to see more support for public cloud services. 

We have been using this solution for approximately five years.

This is a stable product.

There is no doubt that this product scales well. It is a well-established product for enterprise users. One of our customers has an employee base of almost 30,000 people.

Technical support differs depending on the region. We have found that the turnaround time can be high, depending on what regional support we are dealing with. 

I have experience with several similar solutions, including Centrify.

We are currently exploring SailPoint and Saviynt and although no decision has been made as of yet, we might move to another platform.

In the past, I also worked with SiteMinder, but it did not have this level of depth.

The initial setup is complex and for a larger, enterprise-level customer, it becomes very complex.

The cost of support and upgrading to the next release are both expensive. We have an annual maintenance contract.

The suitability of this product depends on the organizational budget and plan, which includes the roadmap to having an IAM solution.

In summary, they are not great, but not poor either. My biggest complaint is about the costs.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We are using the on-premise deployment model of this solution. We chose this solution because we have a lot of Oracle products and other Oracle products aren't compatible with Active Directory. 

It has a very good response time but on the other hand, we have experienced a number of bugs. It responds fast but because of the bugs, we have already had some major incidents and complete unavailability. That's why we are not happy with the current version and we decided to upgrade it. We also tried to change the architecture setup to have less of an impact when the bugs occur and to have more availability. Oracle helped us to design the new architecture. 

We didn't make concrete plans yet about when to switch because we are still working on the high availability setup path. It will be a high availability setup, each data center with an active process failover in case something blocks it.

The reason we are upgrading to the next version is because today we have stretched clusters across data centers. We experienced major problems with the cluster software and the product, which is coherence. In the next version, that part will be handled by the database. We hope that we will get rid of those stability problems because of the bugs that are in there.

I have been using this solution for the past seven years but it has been deployed at my company for longer.

It's not so stable in our environment. It might have something to do with our old network. We're replacing the network now but it's very latency-sensitive.

There are quite some setbacks and I think Oracle is very well aware of them. There is no real service level management on the contract side. When you log something, you do get priority, but in general, you need to escalate something for them to look into it. The quality of their answers are often not so splendid either. We already had some commercial discussions with them on how we could improve it, but it's so expensive that while it's not affordable for a company like ours, you can hire a technical account manager for products, which isn't something we can do. 

It is a complex product. There are not a lot of engineers with knowledge about it. That's the first problem. I think it's a general problem. We do have one consultant and one internal person just for the line support and installations. We know from experience from a consultant that worked with different customers that they all have the same problem.

We have one consultant working on this product and it's a full-time job here.

The hardware and the operating system obviously cost money. With Oracle, you have the product itself and the management product which might be expensive sometimes as well.

As a customer, it's not okay that the salespeople sell you a product that they don't tell you all the ins and outs about and you are expected to manage it. You discover all of these things afterward if you don't ask the right questions.

In the current setup, within our network, I would not rate it too high. It's maybe a six or a seven out of ten. Although, it might be related to the performance of our network.

It's a good product as such, but you need to be aware that you need some people who are having the knowledge.

Our primary use case for this solution is for internal employee user lifecycle management and the automation of access provision for target systems. This IAM solution is implemented on-premise with complete high-availability and a separate DR site.

This solution has improved the organization in several ways, including saving many help-desk password-reset calls, IT staff productivity, and quicker user on-boarding.

The features that we find most valuable are:

• Trusted reconciliation with target systems helps eliminate orphan accounts and alert administrators if unauthorized account detected.
• Segregation of duties and role mapping helps streamline organization application efficiency and access certification for higher management
• Workflow capabilities with customization help to achieve expected multi-level approvals with email/SMS alerts during access and account creation to responsible parties.

The improvements we feel are currently needed are:

• Immediate IAM product certification to new version 12c with other Oracle products such as CRM/ERP and SAP etc.
• Simplify and add more functionality to Identity Cloud Service (IDCS)

Features that we would like to see in the next release are:

• Introduce a matured Privileged Access Management solution to make the IAM stack fully compliant with any customer environment.
• Provide a solid roadmap to Oracle PAM or similar product under Oracle IAM umbrella.

Good!

Excellent!

Technical Support - Overall Good

Vendor

Rate - Excellent

Efficiency and we save a lot of time and money.

Get the right product which you can customize as per your business needs. IAM is a journey and you cannot switch products after 2-3 years; hence consider strong roadmap of the product.

Yes, CA and IBM products.

Our primary use case for this product is user access attestations management, from initial user account creation to privileged accounts management, including user provisioning, and self-service access. The complete lifecycle management tool enables accurate and efficient account provision. 

In the past, we had to manually create user accounts. Now, our identity management system automatically manages users' access privileges. All we need to do is send the orders through.

The most valuable feature is the flexible automation functionality which has optimized our user access privilege management. This has allowed us to create and delete user accounts more accurately and efficiently. This feature has enabled us to save time and resources needed to perform mundane manual tasks.

We are happy with the platform. We haven't identified a need or a specific point to be improved. As a matter of fact, we are looking at more creative ways to use the system for our identity management needs. I'm looking to purchase additional modules for our system.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable. We currently have around 200 or so users.

In my opinion, our experience with technical support has been a positive one so far.

The initial setup was a bit complex primarily because you have to create a connector for every system enabling connections across the network. This is not an observation in regards to the platform itself.

The full deployment took about a year and we only require two people for maintenance.

We implemented through a vendor. We hired a consultancy company to do the initial setup and implementation.

After purchasing the solution we only needed to pay for the implementation phase to build the connectors etc. and the annual standard licensing fee for support.

We are very happy with the performance of the platform.

My advice for anyone thinking about implementing this solution is to first consider the scope and make sure it's clear; the scope and the features that you want to implement. You need full visibility because the suite of features are complex and you have to be clear on what you want to implement.

On a scale of one to ten, ten being the best, I'd rate the product an 8 out of 10.

Scalability.

• Ease of use (updating entries)
• Backup strategy

Based on what I have read in its OIM Service Manual and seen as a user with admin rights, the product certainly has a lot of capabilities and promise on identity and access management. However, I have yet to see its full functionality exercised in my organization.

It has improved my organization tremendously. When compared to its introduction five years ago, OIM in my organization has improved its use and dependability, allowing us to pass audit each time.

The proactive controls which can be configured to a granular level allowing the organization the flexibility to meet the changing demands of the workforce.

Reconciliation exceptions. Automation of validation exercises performed by humans over Recon Exceptions generated as a result of an access synchronization event over a user's need for access or not.

• The automatic user management lifecycle with role-based features is great.
• It is also an application that makes it easy for on-boarding, automatic access privilege, and single sign-on with internal as well as external applications.
• It also has enough flexibility to unify the access management needs of any organization into one place.

It has allowed us to integrate multiple applications in one place. From there, we can manage all application access controls with many available features.

There were issues when we deployed it, though Oracle helped us resolve them. Also, there can be stability issues if the requirements are not all integrated appropriately.

We have been using this for the last five years.

We had issues that Oracle helped us to resolve.

No, we did not have any issues with stability, but it depends on how your system is integrated. If all requirements are integrated correctly, there should not be any issues with stability.

We have had no issues scaling it for our needs.

In our experience, I would rate customer service as a seven out of 10.

In our experience, I would rate technical support as an eight out of 10.

The ability to customize operations, unlike other products like Tivoli and, perhaps, NetIQ. I think Oracle Identity Manager provides a lot of flexibility to customize solutions, especially in the field of organizations, where you have X amount of applications to manage.

It basically manages the identity and lifecycle of every user in the organization. It helps provision the required accesses through policies, approvals, and whatever would be the business requirement. That's the most beneficial feature of this tool.

I would like to see more segregation managed through Oracle Identity Manager.

Yes. Every product has its drawbacks, and this one too has some stability issues. For these, either you could follow regular performance tuning, patch a bridge, or maybe use ESLs with Oracle.

It seems scalable. My client has 30,000 applications and I think a lot of them are already using this tool. I remember putting in an application where 20,000 entities needed to be onboarded and it managed itself.

My contacts with them have been very poor in terms of resolution and complication. I would not give them more than a five out of 10.

No, I did not.

It was straightforward. One or two complications. Some were resolved, some were not resolved, and some were self-resolved. So I would not say I'm entirely happy.

Not really. I did not evaluate other options.

If you have a large scale organization, then this is the right product because it gives you a lot of opportunities to do customization and custom development. These are very much required when you have a big organization with different kinds of applications; some which are outdated, some which may not get the required support in the market.

I think their latest version has actually improved this product a lot in terms of functionality, performance, and features. There are some features the new release has which our old customers were looking forward to.