Cybersecurity is no longer optional as visitor management and access control systems move onto IP networks.
This makes vetting access control and visitor management platform vendors vital, stresses Geoff Kohl, senior director of marketing at the Security Industry Association (SIA). “Ask vendors to tell you about their data privacy and security precautions. Those are different things, but they are interrelated,” he says.
Lewis names the following key questions to ask:
The risk profile changes as visitor data, including names, contact information and identification details, moves into cloud-based environments. This shift requires internal IT team involvement, Kohl asserts.
Security systems that once operated in isolation now share networks with enterprise IT environments. An IT team can assist with API security reviews, penetration testing, credential encryption and clearly defined data retention.
Regulations also continue to evolve, and organizations must clarify who owns access data, who can view it and how long it is retained. These, he says, are all decisions that extend well beyond facilities management.
“Organizations must ask themselves: ‘What is the minimum amount of information we need to capture to create a secure envelope, without exposing ourselves to additional risk?’” says Matthew Lewis, director of product marketing at HID.
He explains that collecting more data than is necessary can increase compliance exposure. Smart system design balances security needs with data minimization principles.
But protecting data is only one side of the equation. The other is ensuring that the individual requesting access is who they claim to be.
Identity vetting capabilities in today’s systems range from basic to highly advanced. It’s vital to consider what a facility actually needs.
At the entry level, systems can scan a driver’s license and automatically capture visitor data, while more advanced deployments may allow visitors to submit identification in advance through secure portals. In high-security environments, it is possible to layer in additional screening or background verification before granting access.
Facial recognition exists, though Kohl says it’s more often deployed for enrolled employees versus one-time visitors. But in sensitive settings, such as schools, facial matching can flag individuals who are not permitted on site.
“Some platforms allow you to put individuals on a watch list,” Kohl notes. “If someone who shouldn’t be in your facility attempts to check in, the system can alert your team immediately.”
The level of verification chosen depends on a facility’s risk tolerance, visitor volume and organizational priorities, he concludes.
For facility managers, the landscape can feel overwhelming, says Andrew Campagnola, chair of SIA’s Built Environment Advisory Board and director of product management at Kastle. His advice is simple: collaborate.
“You have to go to the different stakeholders in your organization and understand what their needs are,” he says. “Don’t make decisions in a vacuum.”
That means aligning facilities, IT, security, property management and executive leadership around shared objectives.
“A lot of times, someone is trying to solve a very specific problem,” Campagnola says. “But when we bring in solutions that address long-term operational goals, like leasing more space or improving tenant experience, the person empowered to buy it wasn’t told that was the objective.”
Kohl stresses there is no cookie-cutter approach to visitor management or access control.
For example, an office building with scheduled meetings may prioritize pre-registration, automated notifications or QR-based entry. But a healthcare facility or educational environment with high volumes of unscheduled visitors may need efficient on-site scanning and identity capture.
To determine what’s really needed, facilities must consider whether they have scheduled vs. unscheduled, one-time vs. recurring, contractor vs. guest and high-risk vs. low-risk visitors, then select the most appropriate platform for their situation.
Organizations also must define visitor policies, approval workflows, host responsibilities, data retention rules and escalation procedures, all of which require training.
“Training and change management are often the largest hurdles when modernizing visitor management and access,” Kohl says.
Visitor management now sits at the intersection of security, tenant experience, operational efficiency and digital transformation.
What began as a clipboard at a reception desk has evolved into a critical infrastructure layer within modern buildings; one powered by mobile credentials, AI-driven automation, integrated building systems and expanding cybersecurity requirements.
The challenge before facility managers isn’t mastering every technology. It’s recognizing that visitor management is no longer just about who walks through the door.
It’s about what the building knows and what it does with that knowledge.
Ronnie Wendt is a freelance writer based in Minocqua, Wisconsin.
Smart Visitor Management is Reshaping the Modern Building
Cybersecurity and Identity Verification Take Center Stage in Visitor Management
