Abstract :
Evaluations of Perimeter Intruder Detection Systems (PIDS) often contain results for probability of detection (Pd), false alarm rate (FAR), and costs. In a comparative evaluation it is difficult to choose the best of several systems when presented with several performance measures for each solution (e.g. Pd, FAR and cost). Pd may be best for one system, FAR for another, and cost for a third. It is not immediately clear how these performance measures should be traded-off. Those purchasing PIDS would like to use performance-based procurement to obtain a system with the best Pd vs FAR tradeoff, and allow tender selection other than on the basis of least capital cost. Existing performance specifications contain selection criteria that are somewhat arbitrary. For example, a selection criterion might be that the detection rate must be demonstrated as at least 90%. This implies that 89% is a complete failure, and that no reward is given if a detection rate of 95% is demonstrated. This is not what the specifier actually wishes to indicate. This paper will describe ways to portray the comparative performance of PIDS and will propose a way to combine Pd, FAR, reliability figures and costs to produce a single, net value for each system´s performance. It is suggested that this value could be used to:-rank PIDS evaluation results, help with tender selection, and suggest any final performance-linked payment
