THE FUTURE OF AUTOMATED : MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION

A White Paper Comparing eGates and Self-service Kiosks

PREPARED FOR

PREPARED BY InterVISTAS CONSULTING | MAY 1, 2019 CONTENTS

Foreword: Why an Informed Decision is Important 3

Introduction to this Study 5

The Study: EU Environment 6

Using eGates for Document Checking 6

Using eGates for Border Clearance 7

Exception Handling 7

Functionality 8

Analytical Model 9

Methodology 12

Results 13

Other Considerations 15

Summary 16

Key Findings 18

Recommendations: What Does this Mean for Future-Proofing Automated Border Control? 19 WHY AN INFORMED FOREWORD DECISION IS IMPORTANT

eamless, customer-centric, exceptional customer As safety concerns increase, The key issue experience, smart and advanced processing are the alongside the desire to facilitate S impacting border control latest buzzwords emerging as differentiators and drivers passenger convenience during is the lack of space and for growth, operational efficiency and sustainability in the the border crossing process, airport industry. All of them have a direct impact on every automated border control resources required to touch-point in a passenger’s journey. systems are gaining popularity. undertake the critical The adoption of these systems Border controls are challenging touch-points where security screening of is moving at a fast pace across governments and airport operators need to address and passengers. the world. According to Credence mitigate the impact of two converging issues: 1) new and Research1, the global automated increasing security requirements and 2) the exponential border control market was valued at increase in international passenger growth. and USD 526.7 million in 2017 and is expected to expand passengers consistently experience long lines and delays at a compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of 18.3% at high-volume, overburdened and sometimes redundant during the forecast period from 2018 to 2026. Ongoing checkpoints. The key issue impacting border control is investment and technological advancements are expected the lack of space and resources required to undertake the to make automated border control solutions more robust critical security screening of passengers. and reliable, increasing their appeal over the coming years.

1 Credence Research: Automated Border Control Market By Product Type (Automated Border Control e-Gates, Automated Border Control Kiosks), By End-Use Application (Airports, Seaports, Land Ports), By Component (Hardware, Software, Services) - Growth, Share, ­Opportunities & Competitive Analysis, 2018 – 2026

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 3 emand for automated border control solutions The EU is currently exploring various options to modernize Dis currently highest at airports. In 2017, airports and improve security for the external borders of the accounted for more than three-fourths of the global Schengen Area. The EU’s Smart Borders Package includes border automation market value, and this trend will a new Entry/Exit System (“EES”) and the European continue as air traffic and passenger numbers are Information and Authorization System (“ETIAS”). The EES expected to increase over the next 20 years. With several will electronically record travellers’ time airport projects in the pipeline and new regulations on and place of both entry and exit to the horizon, the demand for automated border control the Schengen Area. The ETIAS systems will continue to rise. will allow and keep track of According to the visitors from countries In terms of value contribution, Europe was the largest who do not need a visa European Commission, it is automated border control market worldwide in 2017, to enter the Schengen forecasted that the annual accounting for over 40% of the total market value2. Zone. Both systems traveller border passages According to the European Commission, it is forecasted will make more use of that annual traveller border passages into the European into the European automated verification Union (“EU”) will reach approximately 887 million by Union (“EU”) will reach and identification 2025. With this expected volume of passengers travelling approximately 887 million methods, based on internationally, new systems are being installed or passages by 2025. biometric data such as integrated with existing systems to enhance security at fingerprints and facial images. border crossings. In addition to Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia and other countries are investing in intelligent process automation in border control and combining emerging technologies. Through utilizing a combination of self-service kiosks (“kiosks”), e- gates (“eGates”), biometrics and artificial intelligence, agencies can minimize interventions while maximizing effectiveness at border crossings.

2 ibid

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 4 TO THIS INTRODUCTION STUDY

nterVISTAS Consulting was commissioned by While eGates are currently deployed and used for IVancouver ’s Innovative Travel Solutions processing European Economic Area3 (“EEA”) passport to provide an objective comparison of automated border holders and trusted travellers at numerous EU airports, controls, specifically focusing on eGates versus kiosks future border processing requirements, including the Smart and their performance for border control processing. Borders Package, will result in additional and more complex functionality that extends beyond current eGate capabilities. Border controls are highly variable and changing. As they require the ability to perform primary document and For example, the growing frequency and types of exception identity checks, as well as determine each individual’s handling, which occurs when the default process does status for a wide array of items such as purpose of not take place, has significant impacts on border control. journey, border controls need Examples include issues to maintain compliance with with reading the e-passport, changing legislation across residency questions, biometrics multiple geographies. registration and additional input from the traveller. These For the purposes of this exceptions may require study, an airport in the EU significant interactions with was used for the conceptual the traveller and may occupy analysis. However, the the processing point, which fundamentals outlined in this may be an officer or a kiosk, for white paper can be applied prolonged periods of time. to other airports around the world. Quantitative and This white paper is intended to qualitative factors were considered along with experience inform border control and airport decision-makers of the with kiosk and eGate deployments in other similar differences between eGates and kiosks to help future-proof jurisdictions including the United States and Canada. border control operations and processes in a growing and ever changing environment.

3 The European Economic Area (“EEA”) was established via the EEA Agreement, an international agreement which allows for the extension of the EU’s single market to non-EU member parties. The EEA links the European Union member states and three EFTA states (Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway) into an internal market governed by the same basic rules.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 5 EU AIRPORT THE STUDY ENVIRONMENT­

USING eGATES FOR DOCUMENT CHECKING

Gates are analogous to subway turnstiles in which decision-making abilities that are based on reliable and e tap-to-pay technologies’ functionality is the sole fast read rates. To ensure unimpeded customer flow, no determinant of whether the gate opens or not. eGates additional interaction or user input functionalities can have achieved tremendous passenger flow throughput be added. rates using at-speed tap payment methods in which a Access to security screening at several airports, including binary yes or no decision is all that is required. Munich and London’s Heathrow For airport processing purposes, such as Airport, exemplify applications that enable high-speed and passenger identity verification, eGates must have throughput with a limited number of exceptions. Similarly, biometric capture and/or verification capabilities. British Airways has found that passengers who self-board Fingers-on-the-fly (i.e. fingerprint) or distance-based using eGates have expedited the process significantly. In (i.e. facial) biometrics may eventually have the potential particular, British Airways noted that for an A380 to achieve the desired outcome. aircraft with over 400 passengers is 20 minutes faster when using eGates4. When eGates are only used for access control, which may only require confirmation of traveller identity, the While eGates may appear to be a faster method for deployment of these verification devices at the study processing passengers than self-service kiosks, the airports demonstrated that eGates are the leading specific functionality and purpose must be considered self-service solution. The key factor for the successful carefully. The process time for an eGate is often 30 deployments of eGates is their clearly defined binary seconds or less per passenger, while the total “touch” time for a kiosk is 45 to 60 seconds.

Figure 1: check/eGate access to a specific area of the airport. This binary verification process determines the validity of a boarding pass.

4 http://mediacentre.britishairways.com/pressrelease/details/86/2018-247/9247

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 6 USING eGATES FOR BORDER EXCEPTION HANDLING CLEARANCE he challenge is even greater for eGates when planning sing eGates for immigration purposes is likely to be Tfor exception handling. Different documentation Umore complex and involve stronger requirements. requirements such as e-, visas, biometric Biometric verification of passengers is typically performed residence permits, boarding passes, etc. exemplify the by reading the chip contained within e-passports and variety of documents that may need to be read, which may comparing the facial biometric information contained pose an issue for eGates. Other requirements for border within it against that of a live biometric capture device agencies, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, such as a digital camera. In particular, the many different Canada Border Services Agency, Australia Border Force, or standards for e-passports has resulted in poor read rates U.K. Border Force may include more than immigration and for passport holders of certain countries. The IATA Doc identity checks. 9303 standard for machine readable travel documents There may be the need for greater flexibility in the future can help improve these read rates, but there may be as border control processing requirements change and the slow uptake by certain countries or a decision not to ability to handle exceptions increases, such as: adopt the standard. There are other methods of pre- registering traveller biometrics in a database instead of • Dynamic questions depending on passenger responses; directly from e-passports, such as the • Biometrics registration and enrolment; U.S. Department of Homeland • Ability to process foreigners with permanent residency Security Traveler Verification status or visa holders; and Service. However, these • Additional questions that passengers must answer at the There may be the need systems are nascent border such as health and pandemic related questions. for greater flexibility and require a dedicated system to The ability of eGates to address these types of questions in the future as border populate, store and may be limited. However, related steps can be quickly and control processing make the image- easily programmed, integrated, and deployed in self-service requirements change matching library kiosks. Alternatively, similar to several trusted traveller and the ability to handle available to the self- programs, these items create opportunities to pre-populate exceptions increases. service equipment. data for risk determination.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 7 FUNCTIONALITY

n this study, foreign nationals who do not hold EEA eGates, by providing the ability to deploy kiosks outside of Ipassports can experience a lengthy queue and wait the border control processing area, such as within queue time before a passenger finally arrives at a traditional areas and hallways before border control. With Wi-Fi processing booth. Additional capabilities may be required enabled kiosks that only require power, kiosks can have to address the scenarios in which EEA passport holders considerable flexibility in placement, as well as their ability may have different requirements for journeys into EU to be re-arranged or re-located as needed. This flexibility is member countries in the future. particularly advantageous when processing groups of travellers as it can help mitigate Self-service kiosks have a significant congestion within the border control amount of flexibility demonstrated by Several Canadian processing area. their ability to accommodate additional and U.S. airports have requirements, such as questions or Conversely, traditional booth experienced over 40% confirmations for passengers as well processes require a staffed as other interactions. Further to this, gains in border processing position performing highly manual kiosks have the ability to process capacity through the verifications. An InterVISTAS families who are travelling together, introduction of study found that several Canadian can accommodate those with mobility self-serve kiosks. and U.S. airports have experienced issues, and can have multi-lingual over 40% gains in border processing capabilities. capacity through the introduction of self-serve kiosks. A hybrid-processing model The use of self-service kiosks can help provide a more could include the retention of the existing eGates, but with efficient process for non-EEA travellers over traditional kiosks providing additional processing capacity for border booth processing. Moreover, all nationals, including EEA control officers thus reducing the number of traditional booth nationals, can use self-service kiosks. positions. The extra processing capacity provided by kiosks Several other incremental operational improvements for border clearance frees up border control officer resources can be made with kiosks, which cannot be made with that can be deployed to supervise eGates or for other duties.

Figure 2: eGates (located along the back and right) are available for EEA nationals and trusted travellers from 40+ countries. All other passengers proceed through traditional booths on the left.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 8 Figure 3: Traditional booth at an airport

Figure 4: There are many areas that could be used to place kiosks outside the main international arrivals hall.

ANALYTICAL MODEL

he mode of operations that could potentially be 2. Self-serve kiosks only: kiosks can process any type Tdeployed and implemented were analyzed for of passenger as the kiosk has features that allow scenarios with: passengers to interact (e.g. answer questions)

1. eGates and traditional booths: traditional booths 3. eGates and kiosks (instead of traditional booths): staffed by officers are required for passengers that eGates continue to be used to process eligible require some sort of interaction as eGates may not travellers, while kiosks are used for other international have the input functionality required for dealing passengers and if there are issues with eGates, for with exceptions exception handling

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 9 For the purposes of the high-level model, passengers were considered one of two types:

Passenger Type A: eligible to use eGates (e.g. Passenger Type B: not eligible to use eGates and require EEA passport holders, trusted travellers, etc.). interaction or user input (e.g. other international visitors). These passengers are coloured blue in the These passengers are coloured green in the diagrams below. diagrams below. Those few passengers that have significant processing needs (e.g. exception handling), are coloured red.

Conceptual operations under the three scenarios shown in the following illustrations.

Scenario 1 eGates & Traditional Booths

Figure 5: Eligible passengers (e.g. EEA passport holders, trusted travellers, etc.) can use the eGates, while all other passengers must use traditional booths.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 10 Scenario 2 Self-Serve Kiosks

Figure 6: All passenger types can use the self-serve kiosks.

Scenario 3 eGates & Self-Serve Kiosks

Figure 7: A hybrid of the previous two scenarios, eligible passport holders can use the eGates, while all other passengers can use self-serve kiosks.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 11 METHODOLOGY

simulation is generally a better predictor of reality of passenger types arriving each hour, same number of A than a static analytical model since it captures cases requiring exception handling, etc. interactions over time. A stochastic computer simulation Scenarios 2 and 3 used fewer border control officers was developed based on these three operating scenarios since the per officer processing capacity and rate is much to demonstrate the relative performance between the two higher for kiosks compared to traditional booth positions. types of passengers. Each scenario was tested under identical conditions, such as the same volume and mix The specific simulation parameters used for the analysis are as follows:

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 eGates & Self-Serve eGates & Traditional Booths Kiosks Self-Serve Kiosks

Processing Points/ • 6 eGates • 6 self-serve kiosks • 6 eGates Resources • 3 border control officers • 1 border control officer • 4 kiosks (1 eGate supervisor, 2 at performing kiosk • 2 border control officers traditional booths) supervision & document (1 eGate supervisor, verification 1 performing kiosk supervision & document verification)

Passenger Arrival 250 passengers per hour Rate

Passenger Mix5 • 65% Eligible to use biometric passports (Pax Type A) • 35% Non-eligible and require user input (Pax Type B) • 4% Of all passengers have significant processing needs (exception handling)

Processing Rates • eGates (Pax Type A): • Kiosks (Pax Type A): • eGates (Pax Type A): 30s w/12s std dev 45s w/12s std dev 30s w/12s std dev • Booths (Pax Type B): • Kiosks (Pax Type B): • Kiosks (Pax Type B): 1m w/30s std dev 1m w/30s std dev 1m w/30s std dev • Exception handling: • Document Verification • Document Verification 5m w/30s std dev (All Pax Types): (All Pax Types): 6s w/3s std dev 6s w/3s std dev • Exception handling: • Exception handling: 5m w/30s std dev 5m w/30s std dev

5 65% eligibility to use eGates was assumed for this analysis.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 12 RESULTS

hrough conducting a trial of 1,000 runs over a The results for these passengers under the three T simulated eight-hour period with a one-hour “warm- scenarios are as follows: up” period for each run, the model simulated over six million passengers processed through the system.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 eGates & Self-Serve eGates & Traditional Booths Kiosks Self-Serve Kiosks

Total Average • All Passengers: 13m 12s • All Passengers: 2m 18s • All Passengers: 2m 29s Border Control • Pax Type A: 2m 50s • Pax Type A: 2m 13s • Pax Type A: 2m 14s Time • Pax Type B: 34m 58s • Pax Type B: 2m 27s • Pax Type B: 2m 57s

Average Queue • eGate (Pax Type A): 0s • Kiosks (All Pax): 9s • eGate (Pax Type A): 0s Times • Booths (Pax Type B): • Kiosks (Pax Type B): 11s 32m 52s

Average Queue • eGate (Pax Type A): • Kiosks (All Pax): 0.64 pax • eGate (Pax Type A): Size/Length No queue No queue • Booths (Pax Type B): • Kiosks (Pax Type B): 51 pax 0.27 pax

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 13 The results demonstrated the following: Figure 8: Total average border control time • When processing passengers eligible to use eGates (Passenger Type A), all for each of the three scenarios scenarios had minimal queues mm:ss • Queues would generally form when 40:00 exception handling takes place and 34:58 occupies a border control officer for extended periods of time under the All Passengers eGate & traditional booth scenario 30:00

• In Scenarios 2 and 3, most of the Passengers Type A additional processing time was required to address the exceptions taking place Passengers Type B 20:00 at the kiosks, with less time required of the officers overseeing the kiosks. 13:12 • The use of kiosks appears to free up border officer resources for other 10:00 tasks, such as supervising eGates or other duties. 2:50 2:18 2:27 2:57 2:13 2:29 2:14 Although the simulation model results are 0:00 highly impacted by the passenger mix, the Scenario Scenario Scenario cascading effects of exception handling for traditional booths results in an overall 1 2 3 passport control time including queuing (eGates & booths) (kiosks only) (eGates & kiosks) (Scenario 1) that is an average of 11 minutes longer for all passengers than that of the scenarios in which exception handling takes place at kiosks (Scenarios 2 and 3). In the case of passengers not eligible to use eGates (Passenger Type B), the benefits are even more pronounced with reductions of 32 minutes in processing and queue time through the use of kiosks instead of traditional booths.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 14 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

PRICE

he significantly different average processing time Tresults from the analytical model above are one of many considerations. Another consideration is that the price per eGate has been found to be at least 30% higher than that of a self-service kiosk from the same supplier due to higher costs associated with moving and motorized parts as well as a larger footprint within the facility. eGates tend to be fixed in place, whereas kiosks are Additionally, the total lifecycle cost of kiosks can be more portable with Wi-fi connectivity, which allows their significantly lower than eGates due to lower overall installation throughout the arrival flows of an airport, maintenance requirements. Kiosks have low physical minimizing congestion at border control points. maintenance requirements since they have minimal moving parts as kiosk software updates are their primary Both eGates and kiosks can be used for immigration and maintenance requirement. The physical maintenance is emigration in departures and arrivals. much higher for eGates over the life of the equipment as THE TWO-STEP PROCESS their automated doors require servicing. iosks enable the use of a two-step process that FLEXIBILITY Kfrees border control authorities from cumbersome iosks have significantly more functionality and administrative functions, such as data entry, biometric Kflexibility than eGates as additional passenger collection, etc. The first step moves administrative functions questions or family group processing can easily be to the self-serve kiosks and a second step of document integrated and captured through the user interface. Much verification and supervision by border officers. The second of this functionality may not require a software update step adds a level of security by empowering the border and can be administered immediately by the kiosk owner, officer to have the final approval to allow a traveller into the such as providing processing capabilities in another country. The automation of the administrative function and language. This flexibility helps ensure that kiosks are added security are particularly appealing to most border future-proofed against additional requirements. control authorities around the world.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 15 SUMMARY

he following table summarizes and highlights some of the key capabilities and features of eGates and self-serve T kiosks. Key considerations include both a quantitative and qualitative comparison of functionality, space, processing rates, expected total border control times (wait times and process times) and cost.

eGates Self-Serve Kiosks

Reads all travel documents? No Yes

Biometric capture and Yes Yes verification?

Interactive and transactional Limited Yes capabilities?

Deployment location Fixed at boundary between cleared Variable locations and un-cleared areas

Approximate footprint 120 cm x 240 cm per eGate 90 cm x 60 cm per kiosk

Average process rate/speed 30 seconds per passenger 30 to 60 seconds per passenger (requires traditional booths or kiosks for non-eligible passengers)

Percentage of passengers 60% 98% that can use the solution

Overall estimated border ~15 minutes ~2 minutes control time (~40 minutes for non-eligible passengers)

Cost6 €18,000 to €22,500 per eGate €13,500 to €18,000 per kiosk

Maintenance considerations Mechanical and electronic Electronic components components

6 From supplier quotes obtained during implementation support projects.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 16 These results demonstrate that processing times and border officer efficiency can be vastly improved. Lessons from the study airport can be applied to different border processes around the world that may be transitioning from a combination of eGates and traditional booths to a mix of channels appropriate for different streams of passengers.

For those locations with only traditional booths and no border automation implemented, the deployment of self-service kiosks provides an effective solution to minimize space used, incur the lowest cost of investment in assets, and achieve a low total cost of ownership.

A comparative analysis shows that benefits of self-serve kiosks include flexible positioning, very high usability rates and lower cost (both purchase price and maintenance).

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 17 KEY FINDINGS

elow is an overview of the key findings as they relate to six areas of importance for border Bcontrol and processing:

1. BINARY APPLICATIONS 4. FUNCTIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY

eGates are efficient if border control passage is based Kiosks have significant functionality and flexibility solely on a simple yes or no response and there are no over eGates as additional passenger questions and exceptions to address. interactions can easily be integrated with and captured through the user interface. Software updates can be 2. QUEUING TIME administered immediately by the kiosk owner, which When a passenger is eligible to use biometrically- helps future-proofing against additional requirements enabled e-passports for self-service automated border such as changing policies, international rules, dynamic processing, both eGate and kiosk solutions perform border threats, pandemics, surge of illegal activity, etc. well. When a passenger is not eligible to use an eGates tend to be fixed in place, whereas kiosks are e-passport and requires interaction or user input, kiosks portable and can be moved easily when needed. outperform traditional booths by reducing queuing 5. OVERALL BORDER CONTROL TIME times by more than 32 minutes on average. Using a hybrid combination of eGates and kiosks, 3. EXCEPTION HANDLING overall border control time is reduced by 81% for all When using eGates and traditional booths, the passenger types, making it an efficient solution for simulation results indicate that queues would generally processing time. form when exception handling takes place and 6. PRICING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS occupies a border control officer for extended periods of time. When traditional booths are replaced with The price per eGate is at least 30% higher than that of kiosks, much of the exception handling takes place at a self-service kiosk, and the total lifecycle cost of kiosks kiosks which frees up border control officer resources is significantly lower than eGates due to lower overall and reduces the number of passengers not eligible to maintenance requirements. use eGates, and waiting in queues, by almost 96%.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 18 RECOMMENDATIONS WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FUTURE-PROOFING AUTOMATED BORDER CONTROL?

hen making decisions related to automating uses eGates and a traditional booth. As this comparative Wborder control, it is recommended that a system report demonstrates, the kiosk-only solution and the of solutions be designed to meet growing passenger hybrid eGates/kiosks solution reduce overall passenger demands and dynamic requirements. These solutions processing time and queues, provide physical space including maximizing efficiencies through a two-step requirement flexibility and, most importantly, provide kiosk border control process or a hybrid solution of resource efficiencies for border control booths. Kiosks eGates and kiosk technology. can also meet the immigration needs of any government in the world as they provide the software flexibility, which A hybrid approach combines the use of eGates for is easy and effective to implement, required to meet passengers who are eligible to use them, along with a continuous changes in immigration processes. two-step kiosk process for non-eligible passengers that may require interaction or user input. Kiosks provide As security is heightened and international passenger exception handling for eGates. Kiosks also support the volumes exponentially increase, automated border control deployment of supervisors and document verification solutions are gaining momentum. The kiosk solution officers during the second step in the process. eGates and hybrid eGates/kiosks solution provide customizable and kiosks are typically supported by a options that can help modernize border traditional booth that provides final management. They ensure the airport exception handling. experience for passengers is efficient, safe and seamless, while evolving A kiosk solution or a hybrid A kiosk solution or with the changing needs and pace solution of eGates and kiosks a hybrid solution of of tomorrow’s traveller. is superior to a solution that eGates and kiosks is superior to a solution that uses eGates and a traditional booth.

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 19