PROBLEM & REQUIREMENTS
Face recognition attendance system on existing CCTV — how it works, what it needs
A face recognition attendance system that runs on the entrance cameras you already own: enrolled faces recognised at walking pace, every record backed by its own frame, and exceptions a person reviews and corrects. What the camera view must provide, where it fails, and why a pilot on your own gate comes before anything is quoted.
Who this evaluation is for
HR and the site operator agree enrolment, shift rules and a correction process. Entrance events are compared with a permitted reference record. Ambiguous and missing records require review before any attendance or pay decision.
Define an observable event
An enrolled person passes the selected entrance; the review workflow resolves a missing or ambiguous event.
Limitations to test
Queues, helmets, masks, profile views and backlighting can cause missed or incorrect matches. Model confidence is not proof of identity. Do not promise payroll integration without demonstrating the exact interface.
Technical requirements
- A consistent entrance view with sufficient face detail, lighting and limited occlusion.
- An authorised enrolment process and defined access/retention responsibilities.
- Verified event export or attendance integration and a manual correction workflow.
A scoped deployment example
Illustration: a factory compares one gate's proposed attendance events with an authorised manual register during a scoped shift trial. No payroll adjustment is automated from the trial.
Acceptance-test approach
Measure false matches and missed events against a permitted ground-truth set. Test shift boundaries, repeat entry, queues and correction of disputed records. Record the sample size and conditions.
Use the evaluation worksheet →Available evidence
PGAK has published recorded demonstrations of its own (listed on the evidence page), each with its conditions and limits. No customer result or measured accuracy report is published yet, and the deployment scenarios are illustrations, not verified deployments.
No PGAK recording is published for this use case yet, so it is not listed as an available capability. Ask for evidence of the exact workflow you need.
Inspect evidence status →Cost drivers and responsibilities
Camera count is only one input. Include processing, site preparation, configuration, integration, support, taxes and contract terms. Agree who maintains the feeds, reviews events and responds during an outage.
Understand project pricing →Privacy and safety boundaries
Provide appropriate notice, authorisation and alternatives where required. Limit enrolment data, access and retention. A qualified person should assess applicable privacy and employment obligations; analytics is not automatic proof of misconduct.
What a project here involves
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.
What the quote is made of
| 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 |
How it is evaluated
- 1. Self-check — Two minutes, nothing sent — find likely blockers.
- 2. Scope on paper — Cameras, use cases and acceptance tests, written down.
- 3. Site assessment — PGAK checks streams, views and network on your cameras.
- 4. Pilot against criteria — Precision, recall, false alerts and delay, agreed in advance.
- 5. Written proposal — Itemised as above; you decide whether to roll out.
Evidence for this page
No PGAK recording is published for this page yet. The capability register shows what has been demonstrated and under what conditions.
Discuss this use case
Send a callback request with this page’s context. Camera count is optional; do not include credentials or footage.