As we mark a quarter-century of innovation in physical access control, the landscape has shifted from standalone, site-specific hardware to interconnected, web-based ecosystems. Malik Haidar, a cybersecurity expert with extensive experience navigating the complex security needs of multinational corporations, joins us to discuss how the industry has evolved. Over the past 25 years, the focus has moved from merely locking doors to building flexible, identity-centric architectures that support business continuity and user experience. In this discussion, we explore the shift toward open systems, the strategic importance of lifecycle management, and how modern security must adapt to the ever-changing demands of global organizations.
Traditional closed security systems often lead to vendor lock-in and high integration costs. How can an organization transition toward an open architecture without compromising current infrastructure, and what specific metrics indicate that this move is improving long-term ROI?
The transition begins by shifting the mindset away from proprietary silos toward a foundation that prioritizes connectivity. When we launched the first web-based platform 25 years ago, the goal was to break the cycle of custom fixes and workarounds that inevitably fail as a company scales. To transition without ripping out existing hardware, organizations should implement an open software layer that acts as a bridge, allowing legacy hardware to communicate with modern tools like biometrics or HR software. We measure the success of this move through the reduction in “integration friction”—essentially how much time and capital are saved when adding a new site or technology. A clear sign of improved ROI is the ability to maintain central control while allowing local relevance across distributed sites, ensuring the system evolves rather than becoming a sunk cost.
Modern security focuses on a person’s identity and role rather than just locking individual doors. When implementing an identity-centric model across multiple sites, how do you handle complex permissions, and what are the steps for ensuring this shift doesn’t disrupt daily workflows?
Flipping the script from “Who can go through this door?” to “Who is this person and what do they need?” is a fundamental change in how we manage risk. To handle complex permissions across 25 years of evolving needs, we link access rights directly to the user’s role, context, and the specific risks associated with their profile. This requires a deep integration with identity management systems so that when a person’s role changes in the HR database, their physical access updates automatically across all sites. To prevent workflow disruption, we design the system to be “people-first,” ensuring that security measures feel like a supportive background process rather than a barrier. By making identity the foundation and the door merely the enforcement point, we increase visibility and convenience for the employee while simplifying the administrative burden for the security team.
Since business needs often evolve faster than security hardware can be replaced, flexibility in system architecture is vital. What are the practical trade-offs when choosing architecture over specific features, and can you share an example of a system successfully adapting to a sudden regulatory change or organizational growth?
The most significant trade-off is moving away from the “perfect feature set” of today in favor of a flexible framework that can handle the unknown requirements of tomorrow. Systems built on fixed features often require massive modifications or total replacement within just a few years, which destroys the initial return on investment. We’ve seen organizations face sudden regulatory shifts or rapid global expansion where a rigid system would have buckled under the pressure. However, by choosing a flexible architecture, these companies were able to scale and integrate new compliance protocols seamlessly without causing operational downtime. The real value isn’t in how many buttons a system has right now, but in its capacity to adapt and grow without needing a “rip and replace” overhaul every time the business climate changes.
When security protocols are cumbersome, users often resort to risky workarounds like propping doors open or sharing credentials. How do you design an access control experience that balances high-level security with modern conveniences like mobile credentials, and how does this affect overall system compliance?
If a security system is inconvenient, it is fundamentally insecure because people will always find a path of least resistance, such as propping a door open for a colleague. We counter this by prioritizing user experience (UX) as a core security feature, not just a luxury. By introducing mobile credentials, we align security with how people naturally move and work in the modern world, which significantly reduces the friction of entering a building. This seamless experience actually boosts compliance because users are more likely to follow protocols when they are easy and intuitive. When you remove the incentive to bypass the system, you get much more accurate data logs and a much tighter security posture across the entire organization.
Viewing a security system as a one-time deployment often leads to obsolescence as technologies like cloud and SaaS emerge. What does a successful lifecycle management plan look like, and how should organizations prioritize updates to ensure they are continually improving?
A successful lifecycle plan treats security as an ongoing process of evolution rather than a finished product. It involves a roadmap that anticipates the integration of new technologies, such as moving certain functions to the cloud or adopting Software as a Service (SaaS) models as they become viable. Organizations should prioritize updates that enhance the system’s ability to support hybrid environments and evolving infrastructures, ensuring they aren’t left behind by the pace of innovation. We’ve learned over the last quarter-century that the goal isn’t to reach a state of perfection, but to maintain a system that is designed to change. This means regular reviews of the ecosystem to ensure that every component, from CCTV to identity management, is contributing strategically to the organization’s long-term goals and bottom line.
What is your forecast for physical access control?
The future of physical access control lies in the total disappearance of the “silo” and the rise of the truly adaptive ecosystem. We will see systems that are increasingly self-optimizing, where the hardware becomes a secondary consideration to the fluid, intelligence-driven software that manages it. As we move forward, the pressure to scale, stay compliant, and improve user experience will only intensify, forcing a permanent shift away from closed, proprietary models. My forecast is that the industry will fully embrace the lesson we’ve learned over the last 25 years: the only systems that will survive and provide lasting value are those that are explicitly designed to be reshaped, customized, and updated in real-time. Security will no longer be about the physical act of locking a door, but about the seamless, invisible orchestration of people and assets in motion.
