THE FUTURE - Innovative Travel Solutions€¦ · The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 3 S eamless, customer-centric, exceptional customer experience,

PREPARED BY InterVISTAS CONSULTING | MAY 1, 2019

PREPARED FOR

THE FUTUREOF AUTOMATED BORDER CONTROL: MAKING AN INFORMED DECISION

A White Paper Comparing eGates and Self-service Kiosks

CONTENTS

Foreword: Why an Informed Decision is Important 3

Introduction to this Study 5

The Study: EU Airport 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

The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 3

S eamless, customer-centric, exceptional customer

experience, smart and advanced processing are the

latest buzzwords emerging as differentiators and drivers

for growth, operational efficiency and sustainability in the

airport industry. All of them have a direct impact on every

touch-point in a passenger’s journey.

Border controls are challenging touch-points where

governments and airport operators need to address and

mitigate the impact of two converging issues: 1) new and

increasing security requirements and 2) the exponential

increase in international passenger growth. Airports and

passengers consistently experience long lines and delays

at high-volume, overburdened and sometimes redundant

checkpoints. The key issue impacting border control is

the lack of space and resources required to undertake the

critical security screening of passengers.

WHY AN INFORMED DECISION IS IMPORTANT

As safety concerns increase,

alongside the desire to facilitate

passenger convenience during

the border crossing process,

automated border control

systems are gaining popularity.

The adoption of these systems

is moving at a fast pace across

the world. According to Credence

Research1, the global automated

border control market was valued at

USD 526.7 million in 2017 and is expected to expand

at a compound annual growth rate (“CAGR”) of 18.3%

during the forecast period from 2018 to 2026. Ongoing

investment and technological advancements are expected

to make automated border control solutions more robust

and reliable, increasing their appeal over the coming years.

FOREWORD

The key issue impacting border control is the lack of space and resources required to undertake the critical security screening of

passengers.

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


Demand for automated border control solutions

is currently highest at airports. In 2017, airports

accounted for more than three-fourths of the global

border automation market value, and this trend will

continue as air traffic and passenger numbers are

expected to increase over the next 20 years. With several

airport projects in the pipeline and new regulations on

the horizon, the demand for automated border control

systems will continue to rise.

In terms of value contribution, Europe was the largest

automated border control market worldwide in 2017,

accounting for over 40% of the total market value2.

According to the European Commission, it is forecasted

that annual traveller border passages into the European

Union (“EU”) will reach approximately 887 million by

2025. With this expected volume of passengers travelling

internationally, new systems are being installed or

integrated with existing systems to enhance security at

border crossings.

The EU is currently exploring various options to modernize

and improve security for the external borders of the

Schengen Area. The EU’s Smart Borders Package includes

a new Entry/Exit System (“EES”) and the European Travel

Information and Authorization System (“ETIAS”). The EES

will electronically record travellers’ time

and place of both entry and exit to

the Schengen Area. The ETIAS

will allow and keep track of

visitors from countries

who do not need a visa

to enter the Schengen

Zone. Both systems

will make more use of

automated verification

and identification

methods, based on

biometric data such as

fingerprints and facial images.

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-passport gates (“eGates”), biometrics and

artificial intelligence, agencies can minimize interventions

while maximizing effectiveness at border crossings.

2 ibid

According to the European Commission, it is forecasted that the annual traveller border passages

into the European Union (“EU”) will reach

approximately 887 million passages by 2025.


TO THIS STUDYINTRODUCTION

InterVISTAS Consulting was commissioned by

Vancouver Airport Authority’s Innovative Travel Solutions

to provide an objective comparison of automated border

controls, specifically focusing on eGates versus kiosks

and their performance for border control processing.

Border controls are highly variable and changing. As they

require the ability to perform primary document and

identity checks, as well as determine each individual’s

status for a wide array of items such as purpose of

journey, border controls need

to maintain compliance with

changing legislation across

multiple geographies.

For the purposes of this

study, an airport in the EU

was used for the conceptual

analysis. However, the

fundamentals outlined in this

white paper can be applied

to other airports around

the world. Quantitative and

qualitative factors were considered along with experience

with kiosk and eGate deployments in other similar

jurisdictions including the United States and Canada.

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.

While eGates are currently deployed and used for

processing European Economic Area3 (“EEA”) passport

holders and trusted travellers at numerous EU airports,

future border processing requirements, including the Smart

Borders Package, will result in additional and more complex

functionality that extends beyond current eGate capabilities.

For example, the growing frequency and types of exception

handling, which occurs when the default process does

not take place, has significant impacts on border control.

Examples include issues

with reading the e-passport,

residency questions, biometrics

registration and additional

input from the traveller. These

exceptions may require

significant interactions with

the traveller and may occupy

the processing point, which

may be an officer or a kiosk, for

prolonged periods of time.

This white paper is intended to

inform border control and airport decision-makers of the

differences between eGates and kiosks to help future-proof

border control operations and processes in a growing and

ever changing environment.


EU AIRPORT ENVIRONMENTTHE STUDY

eGates are analogous to subway turnstiles in which

tap-to-pay technologies’ functionality is the sole

determinant of whether the gate opens or not. eGates

have achieved tremendous passenger flow throughput

rates using at-speed tap payment methods in which a

binary yes or no decision is all that is required.

For airport processing purposes, such as travel document

and passenger identity verification, eGates must have

biometric capture and/or verification capabilities.

Fingers-on-the-fly (i.e. fingerprint) or distance-based

(i.e. facial) biometrics may eventually have the potential

to achieve the desired outcome.

When eGates are only used for access control, which

may only require confirmation of traveller identity, the

deployment of these verification devices at the study

airports demonstrated that eGates are the leading

self-service solution. The key factor for the successful

deployments of eGates is their clearly defined binary

USING eGATES FOR DOCUMENT CHECKING

decision-making abilities that are based on reliable and

fast read rates. To ensure unimpeded customer flow, no

additional interaction or user input functionalities can

be added.

Access to security screening at several airports, including

Munich International Airport and London’s Heathrow

Airport, exemplify applications that enable high-speed

throughput with a limited number of exceptions. Similarly,

British Airways has found that passengers who self-board

using eGates have expedited the process significantly. In

particular, British Airways noted that boarding for an A380

aircraft with over 400 passengers is 20 minutes faster

when using eGates4.

While eGates may appear to be a faster method for

processing passengers than self-service kiosks, the

specific functionality and purpose must be considered

carefully. The process time for an eGate is often 30

seconds or less per passenger, while the total “touch”

time for a kiosk is 45 to 60 seconds.

Figure 1: Boarding pass

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


USING eGATES FOR BORDER CLEARANCE

Using eGates for immigration purposes is likely to be

more complex and involve stronger requirements.

Biometric verification of passengers is typically performed

by reading the chip contained within e-passports and

comparing the facial biometric information contained

within it against that of a live biometric capture device

such as a digital camera. In particular, the many different

standards for e-passports has resulted in poor read rates

for passport holders of certain countries. The IATA Doc

9303 standard for machine readable travel documents

can help improve these read rates, but there may be

slow uptake by certain countries or a decision not to

adopt the standard. There are other methods of pre-

registering traveller biometrics in a database instead of

directly from e-passports, such as the

U.S. Department of Homeland

Security Traveler Verification

Service. However, these

systems are nascent

and require a

dedicated system to

populate, store and

make the image-

matching library

available to the self-

service equipment.

EXCEPTION HANDLING

The challenge is even greater for eGates when planning

for exception handling. Different documentation

requirements such as e-passports, visas, biometric

residence permits, boarding passes, etc. exemplify the

variety of documents that may need to be read, which may

pose an issue for eGates. Other requirements for border

agencies, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection,

Canada Border Services Agency, Australia Border Force, or

U.K. Border Force may include more than immigration and

identity checks.

There may be the need for greater flexibility in the future

as border control processing requirements change and the

ability to handle exceptions increases, such as:

• Dynamic questions depending on passenger responses;

• Biometrics registration and enrolment;

• Ability to process foreigners with permanent residency

status or visa holders; and

• Additional questions that passengers must answer at the

border such as health and pandemic related questions.

The ability of eGates to address these types of questions

may be limited. However, related steps can be quickly and

easily programmed, integrated, and deployed in self-service

kiosks. Alternatively, similar to several trusted traveller

programs, these items create opportunities to pre-populate

data for risk determination.

There may be the need for greater flexibility

in the future as border control processing

requirements change and the ability to handle exceptions increases.


In this study, foreign nationals who do not hold EEA

passports can experience a lengthy queue and wait

time before a passenger finally arrives at a traditional

processing booth. Additional capabilities may be required

to address the scenarios in which EEA passport holders

may have different requirements for journeys into EU

member countries in the future.

Self-service kiosks have a significant

amount of flexibility demonstrated by

their ability to accommodate additional

requirements, such as questions or

confirmations for passengers as well

as other interactions. Further to this,

kiosks have the ability to process

families who are travelling together,

can accommodate those with mobility

issues, and can have multi-lingual

capabilities.

The use of self-service kiosks can help provide a more

efficient process for non-EEA travellers over traditional

booth processing. Moreover, all nationals, including EEA

nationals, can use self-service kiosks.

Several other incremental operational improvements

can be made with kiosks, which cannot be made with

FUNCTIONALITY

eGates, by providing the ability to deploy kiosks outside of

the border control processing area, such as within queue

areas and hallways before border control. With Wi-Fi

enabled kiosks that only require power, kiosks can have

considerable flexibility in placement, as well as their ability

to be re-arranged or re-located as needed. This flexibility is

particularly advantageous when processing

groups of travellers as it can help mitigate

congestion within the border control

processing area.

Conversely, traditional booth

processes require a staffed

position performing highly manual

verifications. An InterVISTAS

study found that several Canadian

and U.S. airports have experienced

over 40% gains in border processing

capacity through the introduction of

self-serve kiosks. A hybrid-processing model

could include the retention of the existing eGates, but with

kiosks providing additional processing capacity for border

control officers thus reducing the number of traditional booth

positions. The extra processing capacity provided by kiosks

for border clearance frees up border control officer resources

that can be deployed to supervise eGates or for other duties.

Several Canadian and U.S. airports have experienced over 40%

gains in border processing capacity through the

introduction of self-serve kiosks.

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.


1. eGates and traditional booths: traditional booths

staffed by officers are required for passengers that

require some sort of interaction as eGates may not

have the input functionality required for dealing

with exceptions

2. Self-serve kiosks only: kiosks can process any type

of passenger as the kiosk has features that allow

passengers to interact (e.g. answer questions)

3. eGates and kiosks (instead of traditional booths):

eGates continue to be used to process eligible

travellers, while kiosks are used for other international

passengers and if there are issues with eGates, for

exception handling

ANALYTICAL MODEL

The mode of operations that could potentially be

deployed and implemented were analyzed for

scenarios with:

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.


For the purposes of the high-level model, passengers were considered one of two types:

Passenger Type A: eligible to use eGates (e.g.

EEA passport holders, trusted travellers, etc.).

These passengers are coloured blue in the

diagrams below.

Passenger Type B: not eligible to use eGates and require

interaction or user input (e.g. other international visitors).

These passengers are coloured green in the 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.

1Scenario 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.


2

3

Scenario

Scenario

Self-Serve Kiosks

eGates & Self-Serve Kiosks

Figure 6: All passenger types can use the 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.


METHODOLOGY

A simulation is generally a better predictor of reality

than a static analytical model since it captures

interactions over time. A stochastic computer simulation

was developed based on these three operating scenarios

to demonstrate the relative performance between the two

types of passengers. Each scenario was tested under

identical conditions, such as the same volume and mix

of passenger types arriving each hour, same number of

cases requiring exception handling, etc.

Scenarios 2 and 3 used fewer border control officers

since the per officer processing capacity and rate is much

higher for kiosks compared to traditional booth positions.

The specific simulation parameters used for the analysis

are as follows:

Scenario

eGates & Traditional Booths

Scenario

Self-Serve Kiosks

Scenario


Processing Points/Resources

• 6 eGates

• 3 border control officers (1 eGate supervisor, 2 at traditional booths)

• 6 self-serve kiosks

• 1 border control officer performing kiosk supervision & document verification

• 6 eGates

• 4 kiosks

• 2 border control officers (1 eGate supervisor, 1 performing kiosk supervision & document verification)

Passenger Arrival Rate 250 passengers per hour

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): 30s w/12s std dev

• Booths (Pax Type B): 1m w/30s std dev

• Exception handling: 5m w/30s std dev

• Kiosks (Pax Type A): 45s w/12s std dev

• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 1m w/30s std dev

• Document Verification (All Pax Types): 6s w/3s std dev


• eGates (Pax Type A): 30s w/12s std dev

• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 1m w/30s std dev

• Document Verification (All Pax Types): 6s w/3s std dev


1 2 3

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


Scenario

eGates & Traditional Booths

Scenario

Self-Serve Kiosks

Scenario


Total Average Border Control Time

• All Passengers: 13m 12s

• Pax Type A: 2m 50s

• Pax Type B: 34m 58s







Average Queue Times

• eGate (Pax Type A): 0s

• Booths (Pax Type B): 32m 52s

• Kiosks (All Pax): 9s • eGate (Pax Type A): 0s

• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 11s

Average Queue Size/Length

• eGate (Pax Type A): No queue

• Booths (Pax Type B): 51 pax

• Kiosks (All Pax): 0.64 pax • eGate (Pax Type A): No queue

• Kiosks (Pax Type B): 0.27 pax

1 2 3

RESULTS

Through conducting a trial of 1,000 runs over a

simulated eight-hour period with a one-hour “warm-

up” period for each run, the model simulated over six

million passengers processed through the system.

The results for these passengers under the three

scenarios are as follows:


The results demonstrated the following:

• When processing passengers eligible

to use eGates (Passenger Type A), all

scenarios had minimal queues

• Queues would generally form when

exception handling takes place and

occupies a border control officer for

extended periods of time under the

eGate & traditional booth scenario

• In Scenarios 2 and 3, most of the

additional processing time was required

to address the exceptions taking place

at the kiosks, with less time required of

the officers overseeing the kiosks.

• The use of kiosks appears to free up

border officer resources for other

tasks, such as supervising eGates or

other duties.

Although the simulation model results are

highly impacted by the passenger mix, the

cascading effects of exception handling

for traditional booths results in an overall

passport control time including queuing

(Scenario 1) that is an average of 11

minutes longer for all passengers than that

1 2 3Scenario

(eGates & booths) (kiosks only) (eGates & kiosks)

All Passengers

mm:ss

Passengers Type A

Passengers Type B

Scenario Scenario

40:00

30:00

20:00

10:00

0:00

Figure 8: Total average border control time for each of the three scenarios

13:12

2:50 2:18 2:13 2:29 2:14 2:572:27

34:58

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.


OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

PRICE

The significantly different average processing time

results 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.

Additionally, the total lifecycle cost of kiosks can be

significantly lower than eGates due to lower overall

maintenance requirements. Kiosks have low physical

maintenance requirements since they have minimal

moving parts as kiosk software updates are their primary

maintenance requirement. The physical maintenance is

much higher for eGates over the life of the equipment as

their automated doors require servicing.

FLEXIBILITY

K iosks have significantly more functionality and

flexibility than eGates as additional passenger

questions or family group processing can easily be

integrated and captured through the user interface. Much

of this functionality may not require a software update

and can be administered immediately by the kiosk owner,

such as providing processing capabilities in another

language. This flexibility helps ensure that kiosks are

future-proofed against additional requirements.

eGates tend to be fixed in place, whereas kiosks are

more portable with Wi-fi connectivity, which allows their

installation throughout the arrival flows of an airport,

minimizing congestion at border control points.

Both eGates and kiosks can be used for immigration and

emigration in departures and arrivals.

THE TWO-STEP PROCESS

Kiosks enable the use of a two-step process that

frees border control authorities from cumbersome

administrative functions, such as data entry, biometric

collection, etc. The first step moves administrative functions

to the self-serve kiosks and a second step of document

verification and supervision by border officers. The second

step adds a level of security by empowering the border

officer to have the final approval to allow a traveller into the

country. The automation of the administrative function and

added security are particularly appealing to most border

control authorities around the world.


eGates

Self-Serve Kiosks

Reads all travel documents? No Yes

Biometric capture and verification?

Yes Yes

Interactive and transactional capabilities?

Limited Yes

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

Variable locations

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

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

30 to 60 seconds per passenger

Percentage of passengers that can use the solution

60% 98%

Overall estimated border control time

~15 minutes

(~40 minutes for non-eligible passengers)

~2 minutes

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

Maintenance considerations Mechanical and electronic components

Electronic components

6 From supplier quotes obtained during implementation support projects.

SUMMARY

T he following table summarizes and highlights some of the key capabilities and features of eGates and self-serve

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.


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).


KEY FINDINGS

Below is an overview of the key findings as they relate to six areas of importance for border

control and processing:

1. BINARY APPLICATIONS

eGates are efficient if border control passage is based

solely on a simple yes or no response and there are no

exceptions to address.

2. QUEUING TIME

When a passenger is eligible to use biometrically-

enabled e-passports for self-service automated border

processing, both eGate and kiosk solutions perform

well. When a passenger is not eligible to use an

e-passport and requires interaction or user input, kiosks

outperform traditional booths by reducing queuing

times by more than 32 minutes on average.

3. EXCEPTION HANDLING

When using eGates and traditional booths, the

simulation results indicate that queues would generally

form when exception handling takes place and

occupies a border control officer for extended periods

of time. When traditional booths are replaced with

kiosks, much of the exception handling takes place at

kiosks which frees up border control officer resources

and reduces the number of passengers not eligible to

use eGates, and waiting in queues, by almost 96%.

4. FUNCTIONALITY AND FLEXIBILITY

Kiosks have significant functionality and flexibility

over eGates as additional passenger questions and

interactions can easily be integrated with and captured

through the user interface. Software updates can be

administered immediately by the kiosk owner, which

helps future-proofing against additional requirements

such as changing policies, international rules, dynamic

border threats, pandemics, surge of illegal activity, etc.

eGates tend to be fixed in place, whereas kiosks are

portable and can be moved easily when needed.

5. OVERALL BORDER CONTROL TIME

Using a hybrid combination of eGates and kiosks,

overall border control time is reduced by 81% for all

passenger types, making it an efficient solution for

processing time.

6. PRICING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS

The price per eGate is at least 30% higher than that of

a self-service kiosk, and the total lifecycle cost of kiosks

is significantly lower than eGates due to lower overall

maintenance requirements.


WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR FUTURE-PROOFING AUTOMATED BORDER CONTROL?

RECOMMENDATIONS

When making decisions related to automating

border control, it is recommended that a system

of solutions be designed to meet growing passenger

demands and dynamic requirements. These solutions

including maximizing efficiencies through a two-step

kiosk border control process or a hybrid solution of

eGates and kiosk technology.

A hybrid approach combines the use of eGates for

passengers who are eligible to use them, along with a

two-step kiosk process for non-eligible passengers that

may require interaction or user input. Kiosks provide

exception handling for eGates. Kiosks also support the

deployment of supervisors and document verification

officers during the second step in the process. eGates

and kiosks are typically supported by a

traditional booth that provides final

exception handling.

A kiosk solution or a hybrid

solution of eGates and kiosks

is superior to a solution that

uses eGates and a traditional booth. As this comparative

report demonstrates, the kiosk-only solution and the

hybrid eGates/kiosks solution reduce overall passenger

processing time and queues, provide physical space

requirement flexibility and, most importantly, provide

resource efficiencies for border control booths. Kiosks

can also meet the immigration needs of any government

in the world as they provide the software flexibility, which

is easy and effective to implement, required to meet

continuous changes in immigration processes.

As security is heightened and international passenger

volumes exponentially increase, automated border control

solutions are gaining momentum. The kiosk solution

and hybrid eGates/kiosks solution provide customizable

options that can help modernize border

management. They ensure the airport

experience for passengers is efficient,

safe and seamless, while evolving

with the changing needs and pace

of tomorrow’s traveller.

A kiosk solution or a hybrid solution of

eGates and kiosks is superior to a solution

that uses eGates and a traditional booth.

Documents

THE FUTURE - Innovative Travel Solutions€¦ · The Future of Automated Border Control: Making an Informed Decision 3 S eamless, customer-centric, exceptional customer experience,