Knowing who is on site, and getting them out safely.
Personnel tracking earns its place on safety-critical sites: evacuation reporting that is accurate under pressure, lone workers who can be reached, and restricted areas that are genuinely restricted. It also touches people's privacy directly, which is why the scope of what is recorded — and what is not — belongs in the design conversation rather than a later policy document.
Accurate headcount by zone during an evacuation, which is the use case that justifies most deployments on its own.
Check-in, man-down detection and escalation paths for people working alone or in hazardous areas.
Warning when someone enters an area they are not certified or equipped for, before it becomes an incident.
Who is on site, under whose authority, and whether their certifications are current.
Zone-level rather than continuous tracking wherever it will do, with retention limits agreed before deployment rather than after.
Integration with the badge and access systems you already run, rather than a parallel system nobody maintains.
By scoping what is recorded before anything is installed, and defaulting to zone-level rather than continuous tracking wherever it satisfies the safety case. Retention limits and who can see what are decided up front, because raising them afterwards is how these systems lose staff support.
Evacuation reporting. Knowing exactly who remains in which zone during an incident is a genuine safety capability that manual roll-call cannot match under pressure, and it usually justifies the deployment on its own.
Yes, and that is normally the right approach. Integrating with the access control you already run avoids a second system that competes with the first and gradually falls out of date.