Locating people, equipment and inventory inside buildings.
GPS stops at the door. Indoor positioning replaces it with a choice between technologies that trade cost, accuracy and installation effort against each other — and the wrong choice is expensive to discover after the hardware is on the wall. The honest starting point is what accuracy your process actually needs, which is often far coarser than the specification people ask for.
BLE beacon positioning for knowing which area something is in — the accuracy most operational processes genuinely need, at the lowest installation cost.
UWB where sub-metre accuracy is genuinely required, such as safety zones around moving plant. Higher cost, and worth it only where the process needs it.
Passive tags read at choke points for high-volume stock movement, where per-item battery cost would be prohibitive.
Muster reporting, lone-worker monitoring and restricted-area alerts, designed with the privacy implications settled before deployment.
How long things sit and where they queue — usually more actionable than live position alone.
Building materials, interference and layout decide achievable accuracy. We survey before specifying, because a datasheet figure rarely survives a real building.
It depends entirely on the technology and the building. BLE beacons give reliable zone or room-level accuracy; UWB gives sub-metre at higher cost. Published figures assume ideal conditions, so we survey your site before specifying anything.
Start from the accuracy your process actually needs rather than the best available. Most operational questions — is it in the building, which area, how long has it been there — are answered by zone-level tracking at a fraction of the cost of precision positioning.
Technically yes, and it is common for safety cases such as muster reporting and lone-worker monitoring. It carries privacy obligations that should be settled with your people before deployment rather than after, and we would raise that early.