One Identity Manager Reviews

As consultants, we use it for provisioning, for access management in SAP, for AD access management. In the future, we may use it for many other applications like SafePoint and Office 365.

It improves organizations because role requests are automated, as are provisioning and deprovisioning; all of that is automated. 

It saves time and improves productivity because otherwise, people would be calling the helpdesk. Productivity is improved because everything is automated. A user makes a request and a workflow is triggered. It sends mails to your manager or to the product owners for approval. If everything is working properly, productivity increases.

Even without any customization, if you install it, configure it, it's ready. We may do some small customizations afterward, but the product is really good as is. It's very powerful. Without any customization, it starts working.

There is also a new feature, the Sync Engine, which is very good. Before, without it, the initial onboarding of HR systems was very difficult.

The policy and role management features are good, but not well-implemented in many companies because it's not that easy. It takes time. We are starting to use attestation in our current project and to follow the company policies. It takes time, but the feature is good. The company policies feature is really good because in workflows you can check whether the policies are all working. It's a good feature, but I don't think it is very common in many companies.

In terms of privileged account governance, in all of our previous projects we created privileged accounts and, again, with the new projects, we are going to start managing privileged accounts through One Identity. This feature is good. The new features are really good.

Finally, the product is flexible. We can easily customize almost any part of the system, such as having logic code inside the templates, inside the tables. And we can create processes as well. The customization makes it really flexible.

One Identity has a self-service portal but many customers need a helpdesk where they can go in and request. To make that happen we need to do a lot of customization. Maybe that could be improved, but it can be implemented.

The current version we have is stable but there are bugs, of course. There are many bugs. Many customers may wait for somebody else to move their systems and after they get the feedback, only then will they move. Each time there is a new release, it takes time to become stable.

It's scalable.

Technical support depends on the level. Level-one is not as knowledgeable as level-two. But, overall, their level of knowledge is good.

For me, the setup is easy, because I have a background in Microsoft technologies. That makes it really easy.

We are currently working on integrating it with SAP, but we are customizing a lot of things to fit with the current company's requirements. Their requirements are quite different from the out-of-the-box settings. Next month is the first SAP system go-live.

After the SAP onboarding, we will look at the cloud. I have fixed some bugs in the code for the Office 365 onboarding earlier. That was a very early version with custom connectors to Office 365, version 6. But in terms of a cloud connector, we have not started to work on it yet, in the latest versions.

We manage companies identities and different legal bodies in it from all over Europe.

With One Identity Manager, we were able to get a lot of processes digital. A few years ago, we started to give all of our colleagues who were working in the retail stores their own smartphones, so they could use some of these processes. For this, it was key to have a good identity management system, where they could do all that. 

Before that, we were using this tool for shared account management. We were able to do that pretty smoothly, and get everyone a personal account, which was pretty impressive.

We have integrated the solution with SAP. All our retailers can order their own goods for their stores and have access rights. Without this, it wouldn't be possible for everyone to manage their own stuff. We are local decentralized. We are only able to do this because we have the role management input and access rights in the SAP systems.

With GDPR, a lot of colleagues in my company were using this product last May. Especially for GDPR, things weren't that clear, so we built stuff that wasn't really necessary. 

This solution has helped reduced help desk calls. We still could get way better; perfect.

It's a huge toolkit, and you can do a lot of stuff with it. You can extend nearly everything, so if you want to build something that may not have been though of by the vendor. You can do this with a partner, as we have done in the past. There is also support for these processes. Compared with other distributors who design their products to certain specification, you can put in your own processes, because not all companies function the same. You can write what you want, and the process should be like that.

The policy and role management features are huge. We have had some problems getting our colleagues onboard using these features. They are used to IT setting up everything. The features in the software are good, but there is a lot of transition you have to do inside a company to get these features working.

The solution is flexible. You can customize everything. You can do what you want in it. Sometimes, it is not unwise to do everything on your own, but you can.

We had to customize some stuff in the SAP system, because over the years there has been a lot of customizing in the Identity Manager. It works well, but some features that we would want or that our colleagues are operating and running with the SAP system, we can't really provide, or we have to develop on our own, with One Identity Manager. SAP works well with it, but it could be better.

I would like them to add some lifecycle management features. 

They could improve the support.

When you look at the connectors to Microsoft Edge, we think that maybe it could work. However, when we build a hybrid environment, you can't really use the tools that One Identity Manager is providing. 

They could make the product more user-friendly. It takes a lot of work to build technical and business cases with the product. The solution is more complex than you think to use.

The API server needs improvement.

The stability is mostly pretty good. Now, we are having some issues with the version 8, where we can get the system to a stage where its not really working anymore. We wonder sometimes, why this box still in the software, and are we the only customers that are using it? Sometimes, we feel as if we are the first one using this product in production. Then, we speak with other customers, and they'll say that they have the same issues. Identity Access Management is middleware and should be top-notch. It can't fail. It has to work on peak performance at the times. When you find errors in the box, then it is a big problem. Even if it's not that important. Our standards are really high for a solution like this.

Before the tooling there were around 80 peoples in IT at the company. Now, we're over 800. In IT and workers everywhere, identities have grown enormously, so there are more help desk calls, but there are now a lot of more identities.

Sometimes, it's really good and fast. Sometimes, you make a service request and don't get an answer. Sometimes, you have to use management to get support for a really urgent problem. So that's not always good. Overall, its pretty good, but when you work with the product, you find bugs, and normally, they're fixed. Sometimes, we don't get a response that we want, and it's frustrating. I also see peak times, where it is pretty slow, then the support is really good and pretty fast.

The initial setup was ten years ago. Back then, we had to do a lot of stuff on our own. Therefore, it was not that easy. I think it never is, because a lot of business policies have to change. 

If you were to take the software, and start with it, in a company where you don't really have anything, then I believe it would be pretty easy.However, in a global company, that is using an SAP system or an AD for around 10 years or longer before you even think about getting One Identity Manager, then it gets really hard.

We have had a lot people over the years, like Computer Center and IGF. Some experienced, and some who were not so experienced.

This solution has helped to increase employee productivity when it comes to provisioning users in our systems. This solution has been really effective with our retail workers. It wouldn't be possible to onboard and manage our 40,000 store employees without it. The management of the solution is pretty automated.

Don't work too much in the beginning. Focus on what's really necessary and important. Forget the luxuries you have. There are old processes that are really great for some people and look like pieces of artwork. However, the maintenance of them is really expensive. So, know what you really need, what is your business case, and what is important for you. Keep it simple and structured. Then, you will be happy with a solution like One Identity Manager. 

You have to understand the concepts of the software. Then, you can be productive and be happy with it.

We were able, with this solution, to go pretty fast from an on-premise AD and Exchange environment to a hybrid setup with a lot of stuff in the cloud. 

Right now, we're not really using the privileged account governance features. It looks promising. In our organization, it looks promising, but we're not going to go there right now because its another responsibility for someone else in the company. So, while it looks good, we don't have the capacity to go there now.

This was for customers identity management, where there were a huge number of domains and the customer had unnecessarily complicated the system with a lot of parameters and attributes. 

Larger customization has made the system complex and confusing. The people who deployed it initially did little to document it. This has had a negative, delayed impact on the overall project and solution. 

The good part is Quest One IDM allows for large customization.

• Separated modules and integration allow for more capabilities 
• Graphical and tabular interfaces
• VB and SQL front-end and back-end

A detailed solution document to registered aspirants and interested people would help them achieve what they require before its tested and pushed to production. Quest Software should provide notes and documents to customers before they buy the product and license.

Everything (location, cost center, department, business role, etc.) is a role.

The Data Importer is a great tool to create an ETL. It generates code which is easy to maintain later without the tool.

The Attestation function lets you easily define grant/deny workflows based on constellations in the database.

We were able to connect 300+ SAP clients who were requesting access to SAP roles with the software. We also established an offboarding/onboarding process for SAP clients, as well as other target systems.

Some internal structures are in place because of already depreciated functions back from the time when the solution was used for software deployment and as a help desk.

Four years.

Versioning requires a lot of customizing effort.

No issues.

Web Designer consumes a lot of memory based on certain queries that could let the IIS run short on memory. This could be mitigated with more memory.

Very good.

Very good.

No.

No, it is wizard driven. If something went wrong we had to restart from the beginning.

The vendor team had a mixed level of experience, but there were enough excellent engineers.

Unmeasured.

Start with an operations team that is motivated to learn a lot in a short period of time. The longer you wait, the more expensive it will be to get the right level of expertise in this area.

I was not involved.

Great product, which I would recommend. It has a huge learning curve, but could solve all your IAM challenges. Make sure to have a good team and support from the vendor.

The data is easy to manipulate using SQL queries and commands.

The product was initially brought in to replace an unsupported solution. Later on, it became a partner self-service portal, reducing service desk calls to create accounts for business partners.

There are too many configuration interfaces. They could simplify the design to not require VB/PS coding to draw the workflows.

I have used this solution for three years.

The initial connection to the domain and LDAP trees was painful. However, once configured, it was stable.

The product scaled well. We had approximately 8000 users at the time of implementation.

There is great technical support. No issues there.

We used Novell's DirXML 1.1a. The client opted to migrate instead of upgrading.

The initial setup was complex due to the customer’s complex environment. A third-party service provider was required for deployment.

Licensing can be high. Quest usually bundles with other products, so you can get a better deal.

We only upgraded from the same vendor, Novell at the time.

The product has its challenges, but when well configured, it can provide good results.

In Q1IM, at least the version I worked with, it wasn't very intuitive to create processes and you need to actually add code to the boxes in order to customize. I always compare with NetIQ/Microfocus as they have the designer which is easier to elaborate rules.

About the interface, they have multiple applications, such as report designer, webdesigner, designer, object browser, import tool, manager, identity manager, jobqueue info. Its a suit of apps. It takes time to get familiar with them and know which does what.

The out-of-the-box connectors (SAP, LDAP, MS Active Directory, CSVs, etc.), and the one-stop-shop portal for user requests and authorizations which can be customized to display corporate logos and color schemes.

Additionally, certain “out-of-the-box” features can be configured to not be displayed or affect specific behaviors through the Project Configurator.

Additional customization requiring coding is possible, but requires additional planning, coding, and testing and is out of scope for this project.

In D1IM there are different ways of connecting with targeted systems. Out-of-the-box Connectors could be with:

• Connected system modules which allow interaction between D1IM and third party systems, with their specific schema extensions, dedicated synchronization templates and business logic. They allow deeper out-of-the-box target system management.
• Connectors which are predefined synchronization interfaces, developed by Dell, and are highly configurable but cannot be customized!

Interfaces are developed during IdM projects as an additional, customer specific feature of D1IM. This enables the connection of more proprietary or less common systems. Interfaces are easily changed in their functional behavior and implementation.

With this tool, you can easily orchestrate automation user access provisioning and implement multiple layers of authorizations (4 eyes or 6 eyes principles).

• Implementation of skip logic in user access request forms - this topic cannot been explained easily because it requires a deep dive within the functionality of the Web Portal.
• Lack of integration with RestAPI - the lack of out-of-the-box RestApi connectors creates some difficulties in integration running infrastructure as code, with DevOps operation (CI, CD, VCS etc.) and managing On Premise and external clouds.

We have been using this solution since 2006.

We have not encountered any stability issues. The system is rock solid.

We have not encountered any scalability issues.

The Dell technical support is good enough.

The D1IM gives a rare opportunity to integrate multiple authorizations and authentication platforms into a single portal.

The configuration is complex and requires a good understanding of your existing infrastructure and related protocols for communications.

We have no specific advice about licensing issues.

We evaluated Ping One Identity, SAP IDM, Oracle Access Manager, Net IQ Identity Manager, and RSA Access Manager.

Clarify what level of automation is needed in a user access request. Authorization and provisioning is achievable while comparing company needs and objectives.

Some valuable features are:

• Easy to configure, as it is mostly UI based
• Reporting
• Dashboard

It has improved the user life cycle operations and IT shop functionalities for our organization.

There is a need to improve the use case documentation and coding templates. This product has some limitations when it comes to use case documentation. Generally, when we have any different scenario, we need to post in the blog and only then we will get answers.

I have been using this product for the last two years. I have been using the Quest One Identity Manager (version 7.0, 7.1), Authentication Services (latest version), Password Manager (version 5.6.3), Privileged Access Management (latest version).

I have not encountered any stability issues.

I have not encountered any scalability issues.

Technical support replies within 1-2 business days. The Quest blog is very useful where the experts will answer the queries mostly on the same day.

Previously, we were using more complicated solutions.

The initial setup, installation and basic configuration are straightforward.

The pricing/licensing policy is less when compare to other leading other solutions.

We evaluated other options such as SailPoint, CA and Oracle.

This product is very effective and has more capabilities than any other.

• The GUI is very impressive and clean (even cleaner and minimalistic in v7).
• JobQueueInfo does an amazing job tracking all processes.
• Synchronizations are easy to set up.
• Reporting capabilities are fantastic once you get the hang of using Report Editor.
• WebDesigner allows a lot of customizations to be added to the web project.
• Schema and table names are very logical. It is very easy to find something in the database just because of the fact that the naming convention in the schema is very logical and consistent.
• It's a feature-rich product: a suite of very powerful tools with a lot of functionalities once you get the knack of them.

• Auditing becomes easier from an admin perspective.
• There is more control over everything.
• Processes are much better defined.
• People tend to take some functional roles much more seriously. There were some roles that were very old in the organization but the legacy implementations did not grant much value to them. Q1IM's implementation of those roles really enhanced the value and the role members had clear responsibilities/tasks defined that they had to abide by.

• DBQueue processes can bottleneck the system at times. In v7, its apparently re-architectured, and is better. There can be too many of them and they process very slowly, causing actual processes to take a lot more time to complete.
• There should be a way to define fail-over job servers in process steps. Job servers can become a single point of failure.
• Better support for Oracle back end databases. SQL support is good and KBs are easy to find. The same level of support should be available for Oracle if the product claims to support it.
• A better migration tool for v6 to v7 upgrade, especially for the Oracle back end.
• There should be a way to separate out the front end (IT Shop) from the back-end processes. If the submission of a request through the web portal is done and it gets stuck computing something in the back end, the front end control should still be granted back so that the user can continue navigating freely across the site. Currently, if a request is submitted and it is taking time to process, the front end just gets stuck on a spinning wheel (loading wheel).

I have used it for ~2 years.

If the requirements can be met through product configuration, then issues don't arise as often. Customizations (depending on complexity) can be problematic at times.

Transporting change labels across environments can be confusing. It should be noted that the content contained in change labels should be documented right from the beginning of the project and all team members should be on the same page.

It's more about getting used to the correct way of working with the product rather than issues with deployment.

I have not encountered any stability issues.

We implemented the tool in an environment with roughly 35,000 active employees and over 2,000 service accounts. A few things I noted were:

• The web portal (IT Shop) tends to get a bit slow loading information for certain roles that have access to lookup all employees.
• The admin tools can also get a bit slow while loading too much information at once. For example: Loading user account information under the Active Directory tab in Manager can take a long time.
• We had various rules defined in our scripts for central account generation. One of those included a check in a history table to avoid granting a user name which has already been used in the past thus avoiding collisions. This caused our contractor account requests through the web portal to become extremely slow. Submitting a user account request from the IT Shop could take up to four minutes at times. We had all necessary columns indexed and the code to generate CentralAccount was written by the vendor team itself but the slowness could not be tackled.
• There was always a direct relation between the slowness we faced and the number of employees the environment managed. For example: Account requests used to take roughly 20 seconds in our development environment which had roughly 15k users and almost 25k entries in the history table we maintained to avoid username collision. In our production environment, it took way longer since the number of employees increased to ~35k and entries in our history table exceeded 150k records.

Customer service was just average during implementation phase.

Technical support is decent overall. However, some SRs took way too much time to resolve for the value they provided.

Some escalation engineers are very knowledgeable and troubleshooting sessions with them can be really worthwhile and informative.

We previously used legacy scripts with Microsoft FIM as the backend. FIM was too old and not user friendly at all. It was ancient in terms of IDAM and there were far better products with a lot more capabilities.

Setup was straightforward. Initial JobService configurations ends up being a bit confusing.

It was a hybrid implementation: We had an in-house team and a vendor team during the time of development for the first phase of the project. The second phase was done purely in-house.

The vendor team was not good. It was just average. There were a lot of times when we felt communication was lacking from the vendor side and at times, there were mistakes in the implementation, also. We recognized some errors long after the product had gone live. Overall quality delivered during development was not up to the mark. Average experience during the first phase with the vendor caused us to stick to a complete in-house implementation for the second phase.

Vendor teams (at least in the US) should be trained more about the tool's capabilities. I have heard that European vendor teams are much better with a lot more knowledge about the product.

Before choosing this solution we also evaluated TIM, OpenIAM, OIM, and SailPoint. All had week-long PoCs with us. We chose Q1IM (at the time, D1IM). SailPoint was a close second.

It is certainly a leading product in the IAM sphere.