BEYOND THE FENCE:

PERIMETER INTRUSION DETECTION SYSTEMS (PIDS)

An Evaluation of Best Value Design Approaches
2 3
Todays integrated perimeter security management
environment has become increasingly complex. Tere
are hundreds of point technology manufacturers, few
legitimate technical standards, and multiple disparate/
proprietary data formats, any of which need to be ac-
commodated in a single solution. In addition, the varied
and rugged terrain found in many current security
zones provides a unique challenge to any surveillance
and security system. Te application of proven surveil-
lance technologies, paired with the appropriate data
fusion, infrastructure, and concept of operations, are
required to provide the necessary situational awareness
of a facility or border and its surroundings.
Tese and many other technical risks and challenges
play a role in the design, implementation, and main-
tenance of an integrated perimeter intrusion detection
system (PIDS). Te features and capabilities, efective-
ness and relative value of diferent design approaches,
as well as sensor technologies, need to be compared,
contrasted, and optimized based on a number of func-
tional, environmental, and operational factors.
In the current security market environment, technology
changes quickly and very little engineering-based liter-
ature exists on optimized solutions. FLIR undertook an
assessment and design study to better understand how
well modern day, advanced sensors can be expected to
perform in diferent operational and integrated system
environments. Te results of that study identify those
factors that represent the best value to clients.
SEE FIRST, UNDERSTAND FIRST, AND ACT FIRST
Surveillance and security systems that give military and
security ofcials the ability to See First, Understand
First, and Act First provide a signifcant leap forward
from currently available installations. CommandSpace
integrated systems from FLIR immediately provide this
leap in capability.
Once the problems of surveillance and security are
segmented into these three operational objectives, the
potential solutions to integrated security requirements
become easier to deal with and understand and the ap-
propriate technologies for each task can be applied.
Te required capabilities and technologies to See First,
Understand First, and Act First put information directly
into the hands of decision makers and frst responders,
whenever and wherever they are in the facility. In ad-
dition, these technologies aford radical results in the
area of force multiplication. By shifing the traditional
sentry approach away from extensive deployment of
personnel to the selective, targeted use of fewer people
complemented by a performance-based security ap-
proach with radars and cameras, security ofcials are
able to focus manpower assets into critical mission
specialties.
SEE FIRST GROUND SURVEILLANCE RADAR
Traditionally, perimeter security has been provided
by a physical barrier that may or may not be sensored
and monitored. If confgured as a sensor platform
and monitored for intrusions, a security fence can be
prohibitively expensive to install and maintain. It is
also quite prone to false alarms. In addition, a secu-
rity fence can only provide information about where
an intruder(s) was, not where they are. Te FLIR as-
sessment and design study used this feature-based
approach as a benchmark for comparison with more
optimized, performance-based designs.
GOALS OF THE STUDY
1. Evaluate different approaches to PIDS
design to determine best value approach
2. Evaluate the relative effectiveness of
different sensor technologies
3. Provide relevant and realistic value to
the end user
4 5
With a fence system, once the perimeter is breached,
security personnel are forced to rely on other alarms
and sensors to locate and track the progress of intrud-
ers. Unfortunately, at this point an intruder may have
already reached their objective. Physical fences serve
well as boundary markers and barriers; they do not
make good sensor platforms.

Te solution to this dilemma is to utilize performance-
based sensor systems that give security personnel
knowledge of the entire space they are required to pro-
tect. Te only sensor system that can reliably provide
such information is ground surveillance radar, which
gives operators insight into not only their perimeter,
but the areas both within the perimeter and beyond.
Ground surveillance radar can detect personnel before
a border or perimeter is crossed and track intruders
for several miles afer crossing. Early detection and
real-time tracking of potential intruders substantially
improve response time and safety for responders. Te
additional response time enables responders to priori-
tize their response actions.
Te FLIR family of radars is the system-of-choice for
perimeter and wide-area protection and includes the
only radar that has passed U.S. government detection
and false-alarm testing for crawling, walking, running,
and vehicle intrusions. Te entire FLIR family of radars
ofers 360-degree surveillance coverage with very low
false-alarm rates. Due to environmental considerations
and the fact that line-of-sight characteristics vary con-
siderably, a range of solutions may be required. To that
end, all FLIR radar oferings are interoperable enabling
every deployment scenario to be completely optimized.
Trough CommandSpace Adaptive C2, traditional
intrusion detection sensors can quickly and easily be
integrated with ground surveillance radar. Tese legacy
sensors, such as existing alarms, fence sensors, unat-
tended ground sensors (UGS), and legacy alarm points,
can be integrated as part of a comprehensive System of
Systems approach.
UNDERSTAND FIRST MULTI-SENSOR
SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS
Te ability to Understand First is accomplished via
multi-sensor cameras paired with simple video analyt-
ics, giving operators the ability to verify and identify
potential targets. Traditional video surveillance con-
sists of a large number of cameras feeding back to a
simple command center comprised of a security
guard viewing a large bank of monitors. It is lef to the
security guard to fnd a potential threat on one of the
many monitors before beginning a series of operations
to determine whether or not the potential threat war-
rants action.
As the intruder continues to move, the entire problem
is made more difcult especially when the intruder
transfers from one cameras feld of view to another.
Additional and valuable time is lost in reacquiring the
target on a diferent camera, each with typically a lim-
ited feld of view.
A more efective and strategic solution ties advanced
multi-sensor imagers with ground-based radars to au-
tomate many of the critical challenges that face security
ofcials. Tis solution will detect moving objects via
radar and automatically slew the camera to the place
the object in its feld of view. In addition, the camera
will track the object as it moves across the area of inter-
est. If the tracked object moves out of the feld of view
of one camera, it will automatically be picked up by
another camera and tracking will continue seamlessly.
With thousands of systems operational in over 70 na-
tions, FLIR EO/IR imaging systems provide 24-hour
surveillance through high-performance cooled and
uncooled imagers. Te FLIR family of EO/IR systems
ofers best-in-class performance with superior image
6 7
quality and presentation, as well as an array of optional
payloads designed to match mission requirements.
ACT FIRST ADAPTIVE COMMAND & CONTROL
Finally, the ability to Act First is supported by com-
mand-and-control systems that leverage the fusion of
all available sensor data into actionable information
that is displayed in a single, common operating picture
(COP). A COP displaying real-time, actionable infor-
mation can put frst responders in the right place at the
right time to prevent or forestall detrimental actions at
the facility.
Radars have the capability of detecting a moving per-
son at short-, medium-, and long-ranges and when
matched with advanced multi-sensor imagers, potential
intruders can be assessed and recognized at signifcant
distances, before a threat materializes. With the addi-
tion of adaptive command and control, detection and
assessment can be automated enabling the operator to
focus on making a timely and appropriate response.
With CommandSpace Adaptive C2 from FLIR, an
adaptable and scalable command and control sofware
platform, all sensor information, including radars,
cameras, and legacy sensors, is displayed in a COP. Tis
platform can also provide both primary and backup
surveillance command stations. Te intuitive graphics
interface allows operators to manage sensor inputs,
conduct analysis and control the sensor network.
Further, alarm zones can be established that display
intruder alerts associated with those zones. Business
rules can be established to turn zones on or of based
on time of day. Geospatial maps can be imported from
any source and geo-referenced to the geography.
During operations, targets are acquired by ground sur-
veillance radars, ground operators are notifed by alarm,
and intruder tracks are displayed on the operators con-
sole. Intruder information, geo-location, speed, and
heading are displayed with the tracks. Simultaneously,
intruder-location information is transmitted to the
surveillance camera. Te camera automatically slews
to the target and displays the image for assessment. At
this point, the operator can decide whether the target
is friendly, hostile, or unknown and requiring more in-
formation. Te target can be classifed by the operator
as friend or foe and the targets track information is
display as such.
STUDY EVALUATION OF BEST VALUE
DESIGN APPROACHES
Te assessment and design study FLIR undertook fo-
cused on the use of cameras and radars for a layered
approach to perimeter intrusion detection and revolved
around the use of a hypothetical site. Although hypo-
thetical, the site generally represents a large number of
critical facilities, taking aspects of each without losing
realism. Te hypothetical site also combines various
aspects of terrain along the perimeter and introduces
realistic challenges to the technologies in order to pro-
vide measurable benchmarks. Te study assesses how
specifc technologies would be expected to perform
under specifc conditions and how security design ap-
proaches impact the deployment of those technologies.
Te location and terrain of the hypothetical site in-
cluded: industrial facilities abutting a portion of the
perimeter; areas of heavy vegetation that preclude the
use of volumetric sensors; combinations of rugged and
open/fat terrain; and the southern perimeter abuts a
waterfront. Te goal was to combine these terrain ele-
ments in a realistic way that would be of beneft to all
stake-holders.
EXPLANATION OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
(TERRAIN)
Te hypothetical site consists of a primary asset, in the
center, surrounded by a clearly defned perimeter. Te
site itself is approximately one mile across, east to west,
and represents a standard installation in which a larger
8 9
property is developed in segments. As with many sites,
an investment in security assets is made for the exter-
nal perimeter in order to optimize future growth and
development.
Surrounding the facility, is a heavily vegetated area;
very rugged terrain in the form of a ravine that crosses
through the perimeter; a large fat area that, as a design
scenario, is presumed to be a public beach; an abutting
waterfront that has a jetty for transportation of ship-
based cargo; a port container terminal; and separate
industrial developed areas.
DESIGN APPROACHES
With any system design there are two primary approach-
es to sensor installation design: a feature-based approach
and a performance-based approach. Te premise of this
study focuses on examining the diferences in value be-
tween these two approaches and what it means to defne
features as opposed to defning performance.
A feature-based approach can be conceptualized as a
solution which concentrates on the inclusion of specifc
aspects certain systems, procedures, or technologies.
Examples of this approach would be requiring CCTV
cameras along a perimeter, installing fngerprint read-
ers at all gates and doors in a facility, or installing a
fber-based sense detection system. It is quite common
to have an organization engaged by a new technology
and make the decision that it needs to be deployed
somewhere in their facility. Tis is not the best ap-
proach to the situation. Ofen when this happens, a
technology is ft into an application where there may
be overlapping aspects of value while not necessarily
covering all the security requirements.
A performance-based approach is focused on evaluat-
ing the particular security problem and what system
performance characteristics must achieved. Once the
problem is defned, a measureable functional metric is
associated. Conceptually, rather than stating a require-
ment for perimeter cameras, a security ofcial would
express a need for a two-tiered security system to de-
tect both outside and inside a perimeter. Other criteria
may include observing targets away from the fence-line
or the ability to record evidence at a certain threshold
to provide situational awareness and post-incident re-
construction to support evidentiary needs. Tis type of
approach is designed to solve a problem, not to apply of
a specifc technology.
TECHNOLOGY CONSIDERATIONS
In addition to functional design requirements, the
study has a signifcant focus on technology consider-
ations. Each technology is evaluated to determine how
and where they are best used and how efective they are
in their various applications. In regards to sensor types,
specifc questions were asked: Are they passive or ac-
tive? Do they follow the terrain or are they occluded
and require a line of sight? Are they designed to look
at large areas or are they very point specifc? In regards
to cameras, the diferent types of capabilities were
evaluated (color, day/night, thermal, etc) in respect to
specifc applications. In addition, an extensive analysis
of video analytics was performed along with specifc,
associated design criteria.
CAMERA SELECTION AS AN IMPORTANT
PROCEDURE
A general statement can be made that there is a real
misconception on how cameras work and particularly
how efective they are. In actuality, a camera only has a
very limited feld of view.
Within that feld of view is a diverse array of capa-
bilities. Te military distinguishes the efectiveness of
a cameras capabilities into four categories: detection,
classifcation, recognition, and identifcation. Tese
categories are described in the following fgure.
Troughout the feld of view of the camera, its capa-
FUNCTIONAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS
Detection Zones
External to Perimeter
At Perimeter
Internal to Perimeter
Detection Levels
Linear Detection
Volumetric Detection
Alarm Assessment
Intruder Characteristics
Size
Target Speed
Level of Redundancy (Points of Failure)
Collection of Usable Evidence
10 11
bilities vary considerably based on the characteristics
of the camera components. To make cameras work
well, a complicated engineering analysis is required.
Understanding how cameras work is very critical to
optimizing site design. In many applications, cameras
are simply thrown at the perimeter and security of-
cials end up disappointed with the technology, because,
though the cameras are doing what they are capable of,
they havent been applied correctly.
DESIGN SCENARIOS FOR THIS STUDY
As a part of this study, four design scenarios were
established, optimized and compared. Scenario One
had a medium asset value and was developed with a
feature-based approach. Tis system focused on CCTV
applications with no external perimeter coverage. Te
rest of the scenarios utilized a performance-based
approach to optimize the solution. Scenario One was
designed primarily for comparison purposes.
Scenario Two was considered to have a medium as-
set value. No external perimeter coverage, volumetric
coverage or redundancy was included. Scenario Tree
increased the asset value and provided external to pe-
rimeter/volumetric coverage and redundancy through
an optimized, layered approach. Finally, Scenario Four
was considered to have the highest asset value and maxi-
mum security criteria for a comprehensive solution.
Te scenarios escalate in terms of the value assets, the
capital value of the assets and also the performance
requirements. Te presumption was that as asset value
increases so too did the performance characteristics
that were expected to be achieved.
DESIGN SCENARIOS
Scenario One was used as a benchmark to show how
technology is normally applied and the associated cost.
With a progressively escalating asset value from Sce-
narios Two to Four, asset value was used as a key index
due to the fact that it can be easily conceptualized and
helps drive the optimization of a solution.
SCENARIO 1 MEDIUM VALUE
(CCTV COVERAGE)
In this scenario, a standard value asset is located in the
middle of the perimeter. Te goal was to use CCTV
coverage along a fenced perimeter around the facility
in order to achieve visibility along the perimeter itself.
From a clients perspective, this is essentially fnding
out what is happening at the perimeter in order to stop
or deter an intruder from cutting the fence or breaking
in. Tough not a particularly sophisticated approach,
Scenario One was used as a benchmark in terms of
costing and layout.
As can be seen, fxed cameras are laid out along the
perimeter with various colors depicting the detection,
recognition and identifcation zones for a particular
camera. At key points, specifcally the corners of the
facility, pan, tilt, zoom cameras are able to assist with
interdiction of identifed intruders and overall in-
creased surveillance.
SCENARIO 2 MEDIUM VALUE
(OPTIMIZED SOLUTION)
Scenario Two includes similar types of assets with the
same value and still classifed as medium. However,
a slightly more sophisticated solution was installed.
Rather than a client asking to apply cameras along the
perimeter, this solution detects what is going on along
the perimeter. Tis solution includes point-based,
fence-bound intrusion detection. CCTV cameras with
pan, tilt, zoom functionality are strategically located on
the corners of buildings and around the gates to en-
hance detection and recognition.
SCENARIO 3 HIGH VALUE
(OPTIMIZED SOLUTION)
Scenario Tree, this is where the solution begins to get
more sophisticated. In this scenario the asset value and
performance criteria have been increased. Te result
is the ability to extend perimeter coverage beyond the
BENCHMARKING CRITERIA
Sensor Performance
Type of Coverage
Probability of Detection
Vulnerability to Defeat
Advance Warning Capacity
Nuisance Alarm Rate
System Performance Characteristics
Level of Detection
Detection
Classifcation
Recognition
Identifcation
Alarm Assessment Capability
Multi-Target Engagement Capability
Robustness
Evidence Collection
Cost of Ownership
Initial
Operation and Maintenance
12 13
fence-line as well as covering as much of the inside of
the facility without dedicated assets. In addition, this
solution appropriately follows the terrain. Beyond
CCTV and PTZ cameras, this scenario introduces ra-
dar coupled with intrusion detection along the fence.
Where appropriate, video analytics were also installed
to enhance detection inside and outside the facility.
Te area shaded orange indicates the area covered by
radar. Radar, although volumetric in terms of its sen-
sor capabilities, requires line of sight. Tis means that
it can easily be occluded by terrain features such as the
ravine or contours of the property height or physical
assets, such as fences and buildings.
In order to fully understand how the radar should be
applied and what the facility and terrain would look
like, a 3D model was developed to better represent
what the radar could see. Tis provided a better rep-
resentation of the occluded zones those areas where
the radar couldnt make it through the fence or was
blocked by some other form of structure.
SCENARIO FOUR HIGHEST VALUE
(OPTIMIZED SOLUTION)
Scenario Four was considered the highest value asset
with further increased performance requirements,
including substantial coverage of the interior of the
facility. To facilitate these requirements, additional
radar coverage was provided along with highly opti-
mized CCTV coverage and standard IP cameras. In
addition, high resolution, multi-megapixel cameras for
identifcation, classifcation, and recognition criteria
well beyond the range of the normal cameras were in-
cluded. With these assets, a larger area can be covered
with a limited amount of infrastructure.
For each scenario, a total design approach was taken. In
addition to sensor coverage, detailed design drawings
of the infrastructure and command and control net-
works were developed. For example, the infrastructure
required to place cameras along the perimeter was de-
signed and costed as part of the job. Some assumptions
were made, however. Tese included: interior terrain
that consists of easily trenchable gravel and the ability to
put in an appropriate amount of conduit and mounted
conduit on the fence for power and communications
as well as the installation of additional lighting where
appropriate. Tis created a true baseline picture of the
actual infrastructure requirements.
Beyond infrastructure requirements, sensor perfor-
mance was also evaluated and compared. Tis was
done to get a true sense of the sensor capabilities and
how they matched each scenarios performance re-
quirements. Te result was the development of several
comparison matrices to evaluate cost versus capability.
Additionally, each scenarios cost included one year of
anticipated maintenance.
08DEC08 P2 100% DESIGN ISSUED FOR FINAL REVIEW MS MS MS IS IS
DATE No. DESCRIPTION DRAWN CHKD DESIGN CHKD APPD 08OCT15 P1 80% DESIGN ISSUED FOR CLIENT REVIEW MS MS MS DM
ISSUE / REVISIONS
SCALE PROJECT NUMBER DRAWING NUMBER REV.
C:\PBA\INACTIVE\08039_PIDS ROI\08039_02_081107_MS_Design rev 1.95.vsd
COMMAND SPACE PIDS SOLUTIONS
CLIENT
PROJECT
TITLE
PBA Engineering Ltd. Suite 300, 131 Water Street, Vancouver, B.C. V6B 4M3 Tel 604.408.7222 Fax 604.408.7224
STS 350
Scenario 4 Very High Value Asset
with Optimized Solution
4.1 10' Chain Link Fence Outer and Inner Perimeters
4.6 Day/NIR PTZ Cameras with Illuminator
Volumetric Interrogation
4.7 Fixed and PTZ Thermal Cameras w/ Video Analytics Ravine
4.8 Long Range PTZ Thermal Cameras Waterfront
This is similar to the Chain Link fence in Section 1.1, but extended to 10' with 16" of barbed wire. A fence is also installed on the inner perimeter.
4.2 Fence Detection System Outer and Inner Perimeters
The same FFT system as introduced in Section 3.3 is used here. Please note that due to the software zone configurability, the single run of fibre can be programmed to have active or inactive segments as necessary. In this scenario, a single run of fibre initiates at a control building within the inner facility and loops its way around the inner and then the outer perimeters. The fibre travels across the gates underground, offering no detection at the gates themselves.
4.2 4.2
4.2 4.2
16
11 11
ICx STS1400 Radar
STS 1400
STS 350
Please refer to Section 3.6 for a description of this security layer.
In addition to the two ICx Vision IR cameras introduced in section 3.7, Scenario 4 adds the use of Video Analytics to the VisionIR camera, enabling automatic detection. This scenario also adds an ICx DefendIR camera for interrogation. The DefendIR is and integrated Thermal/CCD PTZ camera that can be fitted with a number of fixed lenses or contineous optical zoom lenses. +
The STS1400 installed on the SWcorner of the facility covers a large area of the beach area (west of property) as well as the water surface. Radar is a detection technology that should be augmented with an interrogation sensor to allow for a better look at potential threats. The ICx Orion long range thermal imager is a good candidate for this task. The Orion features a 100550 mm continuous optical zoom lens that allows it to zero in on areas of interest with a Field of View angle between (5.5 and 1.0). At 100 mm focal length, this camera achieves the following (according to Johnsons criteria for night vision):
Zooming in to a higher focal length with yield better target resolution at the expense of a narrower FoV angle. It should be noted that atmospheric conditions (such as moisture content, dust, fog) greatly impact the visibility range as well.
0.0 m 240.0 m 400.0 m 800.0 m
16
16
4.2 4.2
This scenario is of a Very High Value Asset facility. Examples of such a facility could be a military base, a nuclear power plant, a critical technology facility, a highprofile diplomatic facility. The design goes to high lengths to ensure layers of detection and the ability to assess and interrogate alarms.
Military Base Nuclear Power Plant Critical Technology Facility High Profile Diplomatic Complex
LEGEND
Color, Day/Night, 4CIF, Fixed Camera
Color, Day/Night, 4CIF, PTZ Camera
Strip with existing street lighting
Blind spot underneath camera
Detection: 5 10 ppf (16 33 ppm)
Classification: 10 20 ppf (33 66 ppm)
Recognition: 20 40 ppf (66 121 ppm)
Identification: 40 ppf (121 ppm) or better
10' Chain Link Fence
Active segments of Fence Detection System
Inactive or LeadIn segments of FDS
Near InfraRed Camera with IR Illuminators
Combined CCD/Thermal PTZ Camera
Area covered by Radar signal
Sector where Video Analytics is blind to objects moving faster than 20 m/s
4.2 Megapixel Color Day/Night camera
11 Megapixel Color Day/Night camera
16 Megapixel Color Day/Night camera
4.2
11
16
Fixed Thermal (far IR) camera
Radar coverage obscured by Fence surrounding Inner Facility (concept illustration only; not to scale)
Range limit of STS1400 radar coverage (1,400 m from radar unit)
Range limit of STS350 radar coverage (350 m from radar unit)
4.2 Megapixel Camera
11 Megapixel Camera
16 Megapixel Camera
E004 P1 0803902 1:4,000
SCENARIO 4 VERY HIGH VALUE ASSET WITH OPTIMIZED SOLUTION
ICx ORION Long Range Thermal Camera
ICx VisionIR thermal cameral fitted with 25 mm lens
ICx VisionIR thermal cameral fitted with 16 mm lens
Fixed 4CIF Camera with running Video Analytics from ICx Vision Systems
ICx DefendIR CCD/Thermal Camera
PTZ Camera with fitted IR Illuminator
Radar coverage obscured by Fence
Radar coverage obscured by terrain (concept illustration only; not to scale)
4.3 Radar Detection and Tracking Flat Terrains
Similar to what we have seen in section 3.5, an ICx STS1400 radar is placed at the South West corner of the outer fence to scan internal and external terrain. The main difference here, however, is that due to the fence installed in this scenario on the inner perimeter, the radar signal coverage is obscured even further. To cover the NE area within the facility, a smaller radar from ICx is used: the STS350 with a range of 350 meters. Please note the radar coverage contours there as well.
+
4.5 Fixed Megapixel Camera Coverage Gates, Port, and Roads
High resolution IP cameras offer significant advantages and have been gaining popularity in recent years. This scenario places Avigilon Megapixel professional cameras at each of the gates, and at the port at the south. The color coding as described in Section 1.2. The orange Detection sector is trimmed at 20 ppm for space.
4.2
11 Avigilon 11 Megapixel (4008x2672; 35mm sensors) HD Professional, Day/Night cameras are deployed at the port area.
Avigilon 16 Megapixel (4872x3248; 35mm sensors) HD Professional, Day/Night cameras are deployed at the port area. 16
0.0 m 120.0 m 200.0 m 400.0 m
4.4 Fixed Cameras with Video Analytics Outer Perimeter NW, N, E Please refer to Section 3.4 for a description of this security layer.
Strip with added lighting
Single Fibre Detection Cable is run for both Outer and Inner perimeters. Crossover patch (buried) is muted by software to prevent it from generating alarms
DETECTION Taken at 1.0 ppm: 2,800 meters
ORIENTATION Taken at 2.50 ppm: 1,600 meters
RRECOGNITION Taken at 5.00 ppm: 800 meters
IDENTIFICATION Taken at 8.00 ppm: 500 meters
Avigilon 4.2 Megapixel (1920x1080; 22mm sensors) HD Professional, Day/Night cameras are deployed at the port area. 4.2
4.2 4.2
4.2
14 15
SENSOR PERFORMANCE
Across the scenarios diferent types of performance characteristics can be seen with a corre-
sponding increasing capability level. Signifcantly, in Scenario One, which doesnt have a very
favorable evaluation, it costs just about the same as Scenario Tree which has a signifcantly
improved capability across the various performance matrices.
FUNCTIONAL COMPARISON MATRIX
Te result of this study was a cost and performance comparison matrix. For the most part, as
the value and performance requirements increased, so too did actual capital costs. Tere was
one notable exception to this increase.
In our simplest, feature-based scenario, the total system cost came to approximately $2.3 million
(USD). Interestingly, in Scenario Two a similar, but much more optimized solution was achieved.
However, that scenario resulted in a signifcant drop in capital cost. Scenario Tree, which was a
much higher value asset than Scenario One, but ofered an optimized design solution with consid-
erably increased functional requirements, actually resulted in a capital cost not that much higher.
Finally, most notably, the high value asset in Scenario Four predictably resulted in a much higher
capital cost.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Additionally, system performance characteristics followed a similar pattern. Increasing levels of
sophistication and capability, still with Scenarios One and Tree costing approximately equivalent.
16 17
KEY EVALUATION OF FINDINGS CONTRAST SCENARIO 1 & 3
Te following tables summarize the cost and performance comparison for Scenarios One and
Tree (a features-based approached versus a performance-based approach). Te result was a mi-
nor cost diferential, but a fairly major diference in the system capabilities.
NEXT STEPS
Its clear to see that the functional requirements and
a performance-based approach ofer quite a bit better
value. Although this may seem like an obvious conclu-
sion, and possibly simplistic given the steps undertaken
in this study, in reality the feature-based approach is
applied much more ofen than the performance-based
approach. Tere are likely several factors for this. One
attributing factor is that technology changes very rap-
idly and it is very difcult, even for engineers, to keep
up with how new technology performs, how it should
be applied and the details around implementation.
Tis factor is magnifed for someone who doesnt have
a technical background, but is yet charged with the
responsibility of implementing a very large security
system. Many people have fallen prey to salesmen who
come in with the latest and greatest technology, which
may in fact be a very good technology, but without an
understanding of its plausibility within their current
system.
It is very clear that focusing on and articulating the
problem and requirements is a mission critical step. Its
extremely important to understand what exactly the
requirements a system must achieve. FLIR and PBA
have taken a phased approach to project assessment
and development in what weve termed the Phase 1 site
assessment. It is essentially a needs analysis and prelim-
inary design. Because ofen times project planners will
proceed with information, particularly costing infor-
mation, which is not as comprehensive as it should be.
Once a project is in motion, facility security managers
are required to reduce the scope or goal of the project to
meet budget requirements. When cost is appropriately
addressed up front and a thorough site assessment and
preliminary design performed, site ofcials are able to
proceed in an informed manner, knowing their design
requirements are supportable.
Clearly defning requirements, making sure they apply
correctly to the site, then developing a preliminary de-
sign and preliminary architecture is absolutely essential.
Trough this process costs can be derived and a clear
summary report developed. Tis provides supporting
documentation that, in turn, provides the justifcation
of costing. Simply put, its much easier to gain buy in
when a proposed project can be fully supported. Tis
information also allows the project team to proceed in
an informed manner. From here, detailed design and
implementation follow naturally.
KEY FINDINGS
1. Understanding the functional requirements
is very important
2. Identify the problem before the solution
3. Performance based approach offers
best value
4. Optimized solutions blend technologies to
solve problems
www.FLIR.com
06012012
UNITED STATES
FLIR Systems, Inc.
27700 SW Parkway Ave.
Wilsonville, OR 97070
PH: +1 800.727. 3547
FLIR Systems, Inc.
2800 Crystal Drive
Suite 330
Arlington, VA 22202
PH: +1 703.416.6666
FLIR Systems, Inc.
5940 Cabot Parkway, Suite 100
Alpharetta, GA 30005
PH: +1 800.762.4796
MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA
FLIR Systems Middle East
FZCO
Unit C-13
Dubai Airport Free Zone
P.O. Box 54262
Dubai
United Arab Emirates
PH: +9714. 299.6898
EUROPE
FLIR Systems
C/ Avda. Bruselas 15 - Tercero
28108 - Alcobendas Madrid
Spain
PH: +49. 212. 222090
ASIA PACIFIC
FLIR Systems
Level 28 Gateway East
152 Beach Road
Singapore
PH: +65.6827.9789
MEDIA INQUIRIES
James Pinsky
Public Relations Manager
Government Systems
2800 Crystal Dr., Suite 330
Arlington, VA 22202
PH: 703-462-1417
james.pinsky@flir.com