How to Assess PIAM for Your Org: From Studio Lots to the Enterprise

Don Campbell, Senior Dir, Product Management, HID

Walk any busy studio lot and you see the same physical access challenges you find in financial services, healthcare, construction, high tech and across large enterprises: There are many identity types requiring different levels of vetting and different access rights, from employees and long-term contractors with clear end dates, to short-term visitors and vendors who work for multiple departments.

Picture a 5:45 a.m. call at a major studio. Gate 3 is already backed up. The coordinator spent the night emailing spreadsheets and pasting names into a visitor tool. Three issues hit at once.

1. Contractors. Two carpenters’ access were extended through Friday, but the spreadsheet shows yesterday’s end date. Badges fail, a supervisor chases approvals, and work starts late.
2. Vendors. The lighting vendor adds two electricians for a week. Names are handwritten; temporary passes don’t match zone policies, and there’s no quick training or do-not-admit check.
3. Visitors. The director’s guest arrives at 8:00 a.m., the escort is tied up, calls bounce, and the lobby line grows.

By 9:00 a.m., it repeats across stages: people travel, roles shift, internal sponsors for visitors are unclear, and lists go stale, causing slow check-ins, inconsistent approvals, weak traceability, and added risk and cost.

Most enterprises face similar challenges when managing identities for employees, visitors, contractors, vendors, and other third parties who need access at different times, for different reasons. Advanced physical identity and access management (PIAM) streamlines this complexity by bringing together identity management, access control, and visitor operations in one automated platform. A PIAM approach also centralizes policy, enforces consistent rules, integrates with your existing physical access systems (PACS), HR, and identity and access management (IAM) systems, and gives security and operations a single, auditable source of truth. The result is faster movement for authorized users, tighter controls for sensitive spaces, and clearer evidence for compliance.

What a Solid PIAM Assessment Looks Like
Organizations that succeed with PIAM start with a simple idea: assess workflows and outcomes, not only systems. The best assessments align executives, security, IT, and operations around three core areas:

• Enabling secure access and a positive user experience. What vetting processes are required? What is the overall workflow to determine access rights? How are third parties vetted, internally sponsored, and removed? What is the approval process to grant access? Where do people lose time or hit roadblocks? How long does it take to gain access when a person travels or changes roles?
• Systems in place. Which PACS, HR, IAM, visitor, parking, and contractor systems, hardware, and technologies are in play and across which locations?
• Policies and compliance. What internal policies govern physical access? What internal risk scoring or profiles are used? What external regulations apply? What attestation or recertification rules exist?

Map Needs to Capabilities before Integrations
The most effective programs map needs to capabilities first, then select the few integrations that deliver measurable value. This avoids wasting time and budget integrating systems simply because it is technically possible and keeps the focus on high-impact efforts.

To help decide, use a structured lens where PIAM will make the biggest difference. Start with risk management to define what must be audited, which zones are sensitive, and how third-party risk is handled; then align to capabilities such as attestation audits, credential-lifecycle management, access orchestration, watch-list/do-not-admit checks, and rapid removal of access. Next, look at efficiency to identify processes that should be automated end to end and ensure credentials are conditioned on prerequisites like training or NDAs; map this to automated provisioning, mobile credentials, and rules that keep exceptions from slipping through. Finally, assess spread and scale: consider how many sites and business units you have, and which identities extend beyond employees; apply centralized rules with local flexibility and an extended-identity model so governance is consistent even as operations vary by location.

Based on this approach, PACS, HR, and IAM are typically three high-value targets for integration in phase one based on this approach, where visitor management and parking systems are often folded in when they are central to the selected access workflows.

Case in Point: How A Studio Built Its Assessment
A global studio completed a focused PIAM assessment that can be leveraged by any multi-site enterprise:

Step 1: Journey map three identities. Follow a contractor from pre-hire to offboarding, a visitor from invitation to escort, and a vendor from internal sponsorship to periodic access. Time each step, document handoffs, and list the people and tools involved in approvals.

Step 2: Inventory systems and data. Record authoritative sources for identity, work status, training, and access. Mark where lists are created by hand, where approvals are informal, and where dormant badges or duplicate records exist.

Step 3: Score risk and business value. Score each workflow on two axes: the business impact of delay and the security risk if a control fails. A simple 2×2 grid highlights high-value, high-risk automations for phase one.

Step 4: Write rules before roles. Draft centralized rules with local options. Contractors receive time-bound access tied to contract dates. Vendors are associated with an internal sponsor. Every person is screened against a do-not-admit list before any credential is issued.

Step 5: Establish governance. For example, an executive sponsor sets risk limits, IT owns the roadmap, security defines zone sensitivity, and operations owns productivity outcomes, such as time to first access. Document decisions so they persist beyond individual projects.

This assessment worked because it was concrete, time-boxed, and measurable. It avoided a “big-bang” mentality and gave leaders a short list of high-return automations with a clear path for policy alignment. The biggest advancement came from flipping the old model. Instead of central staff keying lists, producers and department leads approved vendors and contractors in a controlled workflow, where vendors added and managed their own personnel within strict rules. This created speed for the studio, reduced repetitive work for the central team, and kept oversight intact.

From studio lots to multinational enterprise campuses, the pattern is the same: rotating teams, changing roles, and manual lists create bottle necks and risks related to physical access. PIAM replaces ad-hoc approvals with governed, auditable workflows and a single source of truth. And the path to success is identical on construction sites, in hospitals, in manufacturing and wherever identities move fast. Be sure to make the PIAM project measurable from day one by reviewing a small, steady dashboard that tracks the percent of requests automated, time to first access, and the number of unassociated or expired credentials, plus lobby wait times and a brief ease-of-use survey to track the ultimate success of balancing enhanced security with a great user experience.