Four criteria for evaluating a shared identity layer
Security, open standards, support for multiple organizations and integration effort provide a practical framework for choosing an identity layer that fits your systems.
Recognizing identity sprawl is often easier than choosing how to address it. Platforms can appear similar in a feature list, while differing considerably in how they enforce policy, represent organizations and connect to existing applications.
At Oten, these four criteria guide our approach to OXU Identity Platform. They are also useful questions to put to any vendor. Assess them together, using your own applications and access requirements, rather than treating a strong result in one area as evidence that the others are covered.
Four connected evaluation criteria. A gap in one area can limit the value of the others; the diagram is a decision framework, not a product certification.
Security that connected systems can enforce
Authentication is one part of access security. A shared layer should also help teams manage sessions, apply stronger authentication where needed and review relevant identity events. MFA, passkeys and contextual policy are useful only when their behavior is clear in the applications that rely on them.
OXU Identity Platform brings MFA and passkeys, session lifecycle management, identity event logging and context-aware access policy into a shared layer. The scope of enforcement depends on how each system integrates with that layer. A policy set centrally still needs a reliable enforcement path.
For example, requiring MFA for users with write access may involve both an authentication policy and application checks before a write operation. A session that was established earlier also needs defined behavior when policy changes.
Ask the vendor to demonstrate a policy change across representative systems. Include an existing session, a user whose role changes and an application that cannot support every feature. Record exceptions and the work needed to close them.
The question to ask: If we require MFA for every role with write access, where is the rule configured, which systems enforce it, and what additional application work is required?
Open standards that fit the application estate
OpenID Connect, OAuth 2.0 and SAML 2.0 have related but distinct roles. OpenID Connect provides authentication on top of OAuth 2.0; OAuth 2.0 is an authorization framework. Many applications use OpenID Connect for sign-in, while other enterprise applications rely on SAML 2.0. [1]
Provisioning is a separate concern. SCIM defines a protocol for managing identity resources such as users and groups, but individual products may support only part of that scope. A protocol name alone does not establish which operations or resource types are available. [2]
OXU Identity Platform provides an identity provider role for OIDC and SAML integrations, with OAuth 2.0 support and inbound user provisioning over SCIM. External directory group synchronization is a separate capability and remains on the roadmap. Confirm the supported source systems and provisioning operations for your deployment.
Standards can reduce bespoke work, but integration still involves configuration, claim mapping, certificates or keys, testing and application-specific behavior. A supported protocol is a starting point for compatibility, rather than a promise of zero integration effort.
The question to ask: Can a representative OIDC application and a SAML application use the same layer, and what configuration, mapping or connector work does each require?
An explicit model for multiple organizations
An organization may contain branches, workspaces and groups with different administrators and application entitlements. The identity model needs to represent those boundaries clearly, including what an administrator can manage and which systems a unit may use.
OXU places organizations, workspaces and per-system entitlements within its shared model. Applications can use that context when requesting authorization. This helps avoid rebuilding a separate organizational model in each system.
A hierarchy alone does not guarantee isolation. Authorization checks must enforce the boundaries across requests, administrative actions and data access. Those checks should be tested with users who belong to different organizations or hold several roles.
For applications that check current policy at runtime, a permission change can be reflected in a subsequent check. Cached decisions, local sessions and applications that rely only on previously issued tokens need their own revocation behavior. Immediate revocation across independent identity providers should not be assumed.
The question to ask: Can we create an organization and a unit, enable an application and delegate administration through configuration, then demonstrate that users cannot cross the intended boundaries?
Organizations and units with different application entitlements. The boundaries illustrated here must be enforced by authorization controls; the hierarchy itself is not a guarantee of isolation.
Integration effort that teams can plan
An identity layer creates value when applications can adopt it and keep using it. Assess the work needed to connect the first system as well as the next one: sign-in, permission checks, session handling and useful access evidence.
For software built internally, this work consumes engineering and operational time. For purchased software, it may also involve vendor fees, configuration limits or contract requirements. Both initial integration and ongoing maintenance belong in the evaluation.
OXU’s approach uses shared identity functions and open protocols to reduce repeated implementation. The actual effort depends on the application and the controls it needs. A straightforward integration may be largely configuration; a legacy system may require development or a staged migration.
The question to ask: For our next application, what are the steps, owners, dependencies and recurring costs needed to connect sign-in, authorization and logging?
Use the criteria together
The criteria influence one another. Strong authentication can be difficult to adopt if required protocols are missing. Protocol compatibility does not establish organizational isolation. A well-designed policy model can still be expensive to integrate, while a quick login connection may leave permissions and evidence fragmented.
The scorecard below provides a compact starting point. Treat its pass-or-fail prompts as discussion questions. Custom integration work or a budget line is not automatically a failure; the important issue is whether the effort and limitations are understood and acceptable.
Use the scorecard to request evidence and record gaps. Decisions should reflect application requirements and the significance of each gap, rather than a simple average score.
Ask for a demonstration with one representative application, one organizational boundary and one access change. Agree on the expected result before the test, and document any exceptions. That makes the comparison more useful than a checklist of feature names.
We welcome the same evaluation of OXU Identity Platform. The aim is a shared identity layer whose capabilities, integration requirements and limits are clear enough for your team to make an informed decision.