.svg)
Whether your goal is stronger customer engagement, improved productivity or risk mitigation, cleaning and security businesses need accurate indoor location-tracking technology information. You also need the location-tracking technology to be accessible and cost-effective. Which tracking technology should you invest in?Because trust is at the heart of cleaning and security services, your guard touring and location tracking software should enable real-time visibility of your entire workforce and provide assurance that all tours, loops and tasks are completed.
Whether you’re a security contractor tracking guard tours and patrols, or you’re a cleaning contractor who monitors loop times and rotations, touring and tracking software helps you improve performance, reduce costs, prove service and mitigate risk. To help you navigate the indoor location tracking landscape, we’recomparing the five most talked-about location tracking technologies: BLE beacons, Wi-Fi, RFID, NFC and GPS. Because this is a complex topic, it’s hard to draw exact apples-to-apples comparisons.
In a perfect world, we want a universally accessible location system that’s highly accurate, secure and cost-effective. We’re using the following attributes to assess each technology:
- Accessibility
- Range
- Accuracy
- Security
- Cost
So, which tracking technology should your business use? Unfortunately, no single solution is the perfect answer to all problems. Usually, the right answer depends on what you’re trying to achieve, your environment and your budget.
Weighing the pros and cons of indoor location technologies can be a massive endeavor. These systems are constantly evolving with new capabilities, features and price points coming out every day. This eBook attempted to represent facts and considerations for the average cleaning or security contractor, but you need to consult with other stakeholders to determine the best options for your business.
And, we explore how you can select one indoor location technology over the other to meet your needs. Just fill out the form below to access our eBook.
A — Your Workforce
B — Theft Assumptions
C — WinTeam Controls
D — Biometrics Coverage
100 emp 3 bundles 20 bundles
2,000 emp
E — Your Time Theft Exposure
Based on your inputs, each of your — estimated offenders is stealing roughly — minutes per workday — costing you approximately — per offender each year.
F — Savings & ROI
| GPS Only | GPS + Bio | |
|---|---|---|
| Theft Eliminated (Annual) | — | — |
| Remaining Exposure | — | — |
| Reduction Rate | — | — |
| Annual Biometrics Cost | N/A — GPS included | — |
| Net Annual Benefit | — | — |
| ROI on Biometrics Cost | N/A | — |
| Payback Period | N/A | — |
| Net Savings Per Employee / Yr | — | — |
| 5-Year Net Cumulative Benefit | — | — |
Employees × Avg Hourly Wage × (Hours/Week × 52)This is the total labor cost base that time theft is measured against. Part-time hours are accounted for via the hours/week slider — adjust it to reflect your workforce's actual average schedule.
Annual Gross Payroll × Theft % (default 2.2%)The 2.2% benchmark comes from Nucleus Research, corroborated by the American Payroll Association, and represents the average percentage of gross payroll lost to time theft across industries. The slider lets you adjust this up or down based on your prospect's situation — unionized environments or heavy surveillance may be lower; high-turnover or dispersed field workforces can run 3–5%.
Employees × 19%The 19% figure is from the American Payroll Association survey in which 1-in-5 employees self-reported participating in buddy punching. This is used only to show how many employees are likely involved — it does not drive the dollar calculations. The per-offender insight box connects both stats by dividing total theft dollars across the 19% offender pool.
Est. Time Theft × GPS Reduction % (default 60%)The GPS reduction rate (40–80% slider) reflects what fraction of time theft GPS mobile time tracking eliminates. The default of 60% is a conservative mid-range estimate based on TEAM Software customer outcomes — GPS eliminates location-based fraud (wrong-site clock-ins, clocking in from home) but does not fully address identity fraud. Range: 40% for low-adoption environments, up to 80% for high-compliance deployments.
Est. Time Theft × MIN(GPS % + Bio %, 95%)Adding biometrics layers identity verification on top of location verification — designed to reduce buddy punching that GPS alone may not address. The additional biometric reduction (10–40% slider, default 35%) is additive to GPS, capped at 95% total since no system can eliminate 100% of fraud. TEAM Software has observed reductions of up to 97% in some accounts with mandatory biometric enforcement policies; individual results will vary.
Est. Time Theft × (1 − Reduction %)The estimated residual theft exposure that the selected controls may not address — useful for illustrating the gap that GPS alone leaves and the additional recovery biometrics may provide.
Theft Eliminated − Annual Biometrics CostFor GPS: estimated net benefit equals projected savings (no cost). For GPS + Bio: estimated savings minus the annual biometrics subscription. A negative result means the plan cost may exceed projected recovery — typically a signal to revisit the theft % assumption or right-size the biometrics plan. Estimates only; actual results will vary.
(Net Annual Benefit ÷ Annual Biometrics Cost) × 100Standard return-on-investment formula applied to the estimated inputs. A 200% estimated ROI would suggest the projected savings are triple the biometrics cost within 12 months — however, these are estimates and actual ROI will vary based on real-world conditions.
(Annual Biometrics Cost ÷ Theft Eliminated) × 12Estimated months until projected savings would offset the biometrics subscription cost, based on the inputs provided. Expressed in months if under a year, years if longer. Actual payback period will vary.
Net Annual Benefit × 5A simple 5-year projection assuming flat headcount, wages, and theft rates. Does not account for payroll growth, wage inflation, or contract renewals — actual 5-year benefit is typically higher. Use this as a conservative floor for executive business case conversations.
| American Payroll Association | 75% of companies affected by time theft; 19% of employees self-report buddy punching. Widely cited in payroll and workforce management research. |
| Nucleus Research | 2.2% of gross payroll lost to time theft on average across surveyed organizations. This figure underpins the default theft exposure calculation. |
| TEAM Software / WorkWave | GPS reduction ranges (55–65% typical) and biometrics reduction (97% maximum observed) derived from TEAM customer implementations. Slider defaults represent conservative mid-range outcomes. |
| Robert Half | Supporting labor market and wage data used in workforce cost modeling. |
Sources: American Payroll Association, Nucleus Research (2.2% benchmark), Robert Half, TEAM Software customer data. Annual hours = avg hrs/week × 52 weeks. GPS included at no additional cost. Estimated ROI = Estimated Net Annual Benefit ÷ Annual Biometrics Cost. All results are estimates only.
.jpg)