Saudi Arabia
Saudi sites tend to be large, far apart, and staffed by a workforce that rotates. Those three facts shape the security problem more than anything about cameras: the distance makes every site visit expensive, the scale makes manual watching impossible, and the rotation makes any record that depends on recognising faces by memory worthless. PGAK adds detection and a workforce record to cameras a site already runs, without a visit.
Treat this page as evaluation guidance. Product availability and site suitability require an approved configuration and technical test. Published scenarios are illustrative, not verified customer results.
A site in Jubail, a second in Riyadh and a third on a highway between them is a normal shape here, and the ordinary way of tuning a detection system — an engineer on site adjusting thresholds until the alerts settle — does not survive that geography. Doing the audit and the tuning against the feeds instead of in person is not a compromise in this market; it is the only version that scales past the second site.
A site that is still being built has two problems at once: plant and material leaving it, and a labour force whose hours reach the client as a figure on a subcontractor's invoice. The same cameras answer both. A line across the material yard raises an alert outside working hours; the personnel gate produces an arrival and departure record per person. Neither needs a device at a desk, which matters on a site where the office is a cabin that moves.
Jubail and Yanbu run processes that do not stop, which makes the personnel gate and the vehicle gate the two points where a day is actually measured. Plate logging at the vehicle gate turns a dispatch question into a search; face recognition at the personnel gate turns a shift into a record. Neither asks anyone to stop at a desk, which is what makes it survive a site running around the clock.
PGAK serves Saudi sites remotely from India, and across this geography that is the advantage rather than the compromise: a site in Jubail and a site outside Riyadh are configured and tuned in the same week, with no travel between them and no waiting for an engineer to be routed. The software goes onto the cameras and recorder already installed; the audit that decides what those cameras can carry runs on your feeds before anything is committed. Camera work on the ground stays with whoever installed the system.
On a giga-project or a large contract, the camera estate often belongs to someone other than the organisation that needs the record — and that question decides more about a deployment here than any technical detail.
The cameras belong to the principal, the people arriving each morning work for a chain of subcontractors. The record that matters is hours by group, and it has to be produced without handing the subcontractor control of the system that measures them.
Cameras put up for the duration of the build and removed afterwards. Here the value is almost entirely in the material yard and the plant compound, and the configuration should assume the estate moves as the site progresses.
Where multiple firms work the same site, a single gate record that separates them by group is usually more valuable than any detection, because it ends the monthly argument about attendance without anyone keeping a manual roster.
A site that becomes an operating asset keeps the same cameras and needs different rules: the build-phase yard alerts stop making sense the day the building opens. Reconfiguring for that is a change of thresholds, not a new system.
Three things to settle before a Kingdom-wide rollout rather than after the first site.
A remote site on an unreliable link will have gaps in what reaches you. The recorder keeps recording locally, but nothing is sent until the connection is back. On desert and industrial sites this is the first item on the audit, not an afterthought.
Night detection depends on what the camera sensor recorded. No processing afterwards recovers detail that was never captured, and gate lighting is often the cheapest fix available.
The interface is English. For a project team working in Arabic that is a genuine constraint, and better weighed now than after a pilot.
It changes it in your favour, because none of the configuration or tuning requires a visit. The audit runs on your feeds, and the fortnight of tuning afterwards is done against your own footage rather than by someone standing on site.
Yes. Workers can be enrolled in their own group so that arrivals and departures are recorded independently of the hours a subcontractor invoices for.
Not at present. This page and the product interface are in English, and we would rather say so than imply otherwise. For a project that needs Arabic, that is a genuine limitation to weigh.
Alerts stop until it returns, while the recorder keeps recording locally if it has power. On remote sites a reliable link matters more than any detection setting, and it is the first thing the audit looks at.
Share your phone number, city and camera count. We will discuss your priority use case and agree the assessment scope, timing and next step with you.
Eleven seconds of PGAK's own demonstration footage — a test setup in India, not a customer site and not a Saudi one. It is here because it shows the thing a continuous-process plant actually needs: two detections judged together rather than separately.
Demonstration footage from a test setup proves the detection runs, not that it will run at your rates on your plant. Jubail and Yanbu lighting, camera positions and permit rules are their own problem, settled on your own feeds during the audit.
PGAK Innovations Pvt. Ltd. is incorporated in Punjab, engineers its own AI layer, and runs the free camera audit itself — the people who answer the phone are the people who built the product. About the company →
Compatible cameras and recorders you already own are reused wherever they are suitable. Detection runs on an on-site processing unit, and camera suitability, stream access, processing hardware and network are all confirmed at the assessment — with anything extra itemised in the quote before you commit.
| Component | What decides it | Price |
|---|---|---|
| Cameras reused | Which existing cameras give a usable view for each use case — confirmed on a still image of each view. | Quoted per site |
| Cameras moved or added | Only where a use case needs a view no camera has (plates and faces usually do). Each one named in the quote. | Quoted per site |
| On-site processing unit | Detection runs here, next to the recorder. Model, quantity and warranty depend on camera count and analytics. | Quoted per site |
| Software / licences | Which analytics on which cameras, the term, and the basis for renewal. | Quoted per site |
| Installation and configuration | Stream setup, zones, schedules, alert routing and commissioning. | Quoted per site |
| Pilot | Agreed scenes, acceptance criteria and duration before rollout. | Quoted per site |
| Support | Hours, response versus fix time, and who replaces failed hardware. | Quoted per site |
| Taxes | Stated separately on the quote. | Quoted per site |
No PGAK recording is published for this page yet. The capability register shows what has been demonstrated and under what conditions.
Share your phone number, city and camera count. We will clarify the intended use case and agree assessment scope and timing with you. Do not submit camera credentials or footage.