Here’s an excerpt from my latest blog post, written in my role as Director of Identity and Access Management at KuppingerCole Analysts.

The Manager of Your Agent: Governance Does Not End at the Control Plane

Organizations investing in identity and access controls for AI agents must also make the decisions those controls are supposed to enforce:

why an agent exists,
within which bounds it may act,
and who answers for it.

Technology can register, authorize, audit, and stop agents with increasing reliability. It cannot decide who is accountable for them. Organizations that stop at the technical layer will end up with excellent enforcement of decisions that nobody can explain or defend.

[..]

A policy engine can enforce a boundary. It cannot decide who is accountable for setting it.

Closing the gap is organizational work, and none of it requires a new product category:

A business-side owner who accepts responsibility for how an agent, or a class of identical agents, is used. One owner per class is sufficient only where the instances share purpose, authority, and risk. The same agent deployed in two business contexts may well need two owners.
Purpose and bounds defined before the first credential is issued. Provisioning either establishes accountability or skips it, and retrofitting it later is considerably harder.
A lifecycle tied to purpose. Nobody resigns on an agent’s behalf. The end of an agent’s purpose has to become the offboarding trigger, and the control plane has to enforce it through to delegated credentials, child agents, and queued actions.

Read my full blog post over here.