Robotics TCO 3 Years: Full-Cost View for DACH

Robotics TCO 3 Years: Why the 36-Month View Decides the Case

Security budgets in DACH are planned over three fiscal years. Shorter horizons distort any comparison between personnel and robotics. The start-up costs of classic guard service contracts look lower in the first months than the running monthly rate of a robot. The picture only turns from month 12 onward.

The 24-month minimum contract term of Quarero RaaS includes twelve months of follow-on operation. The standard contract therefore covers exactly the 36-month frame that controllers in mid-market firms and large corporates apply to security investments. A shorter comparison window structurally penalises robotics.

A defensible total cost of ownership calculation contains more than the monthly rate. It covers hardware, software updates, maintenance, connectivity, replacement unit on failure, training of the operating staff and contract management. The same logic applies on the personnel side: not the hourly wage, but the fully loaded cost position with all premiums is the comparison base.

Hidden costs in classic guard service are routinely understated in tenders. Premiums for night, Sunday, public holiday plus sickness cover and turnover run 18 to 22 percent above the pure base tariff industry-wide (BDSW Zahlen, Daten, Fakten). Anyone who does not include these premiums compares plan costs with full costs and reaches the wrong conclusion.

The goal of this article is a defensible full-cost calculation for QR-1, QR-2 and QR-3 against a 24/7 guard post. All figures are given as ranges or means. Point forecasts without assumptions have no place in a TCO view.

Reference Base: 24/7 Guard Post on BDSW Tariff

A continuously staffed 24/7 post requires 4.2 full-time equivalents (BDSW Zahlen, Daten, Fakten). The figure follows from the 8,760 annual hours divided by the actual annual working time after deducting vacation, sickness and statutory rest periods. The reference is the German Working Time Act. Anyone calculating with 3.5 FTE plans in structural under-coverage.

Hourly billing rates for qualified security personnel with §34a Sachkundeprüfung sit between 28 and 38 euros net in Germany in 2026. Austria is on a comparable level, Switzerland clearly above. The spread reflects regional collective agreements, qualification level and competitive intensity. Tariff and structural data for the sector is documented by the BDSW.

This produces monthly costs per 24/7 post in DACH of between 15,000 and 25,000 euros. The mean of around 20,000 euros is a conservative assumption for the calculation that follows. Higher qualification (Werkschutzmeister, fire warden, first aider) shifts the value upward. The same applies to KRITIS sites with mandatory background screening.

Over 36 months this yields a cost range of 540,000 to 900,000 euros per post. The range contains personnel costs only. Equipment, patrol vehicle, radio and central station connection come on top. Experience puts these positions at a further 8,000 to 15,000 euros per year.

These figures are the reference line for any robotics TCO view. Anyone working from a lower comparison value has either missed the FTE calculation or the premiums. The detailed guard service cost comparison lists each line item with tariff sources.

QR-1, QR-2, QR-3: Monthly Rate and Included Services

QR-1 at 3,200 euros per month covers indoor areas and light outdoor zones. RGB camera, audio analytics and acoustic anomaly detection are included. Typical deployment areas are warehouses, administrative buildings and logistics zones without continuous bad-weather exposure.

QR-2 at 3,500 euros per month is the standard solution for 24/7 outdoor perimeter. Thermal camera, person detection at night and IP rating for continuous outdoor operation are part of the package. The configuration suits industrial sites, freight yards and mid-sized works areas. Details on the QR-2 for 24/7 outdoor perimeter are in the product documentation.

QR-3 at 3,800 euros per month adds LiDAR sensing and drone detection. The configuration targets KRITIS sites under the KRITIS Umbrella Act (KRITIS-Dachgesetz), substations, waterworks and data centres with elevated protection needs. The QR-3 with LiDAR and drone detection additionally meets the requirements for detecting small flying objects below the radar threshold.

Included in all three tiers: hardware, software updates, OTA patches, preventive maintenance per service plan, replacement unit within 48 hours on total failure, training of the operating staff. These services are listed transparently in the three-tier pricing model.

Not included are structural adaptations for charging stations (typically 2,000 to 6,000 euros one-off), local mobile SIM for special requirements and connection to customer-owned control centres beyond the standard interfaces. These positions should be budgeted separately in the business case.

36-Month Calculation in Direct Comparison

QR-2 over 36 months yields total costs of 126,000 euros. There is no acquisition, no residual value discussion at contract end, no depreciation in fixed assets. The position appears in full as an expense in the P&L.

A 24/7 guard post at the mean of 20,000 euros per month costs 720,000 euros in pure personnel costs over 36 months. Ancillary costs for equipment, vehicle and control station push the figure higher. The difference per post against the QR-2 solution is around 594,000 euros over three years.

The calculation only holds, however, if the robot fully covers the function of the guard post. That is the case for detection, patrol and reporting. The limit is at physical intervention. For most outdoor perimeters this is manageable because intervention is handled by an intervention service or the police in any event.

A realistic hybrid configuration for mid-sized industrial sites is two QR-2 plus reduced daytime presence. Three 24/7 posts fall away. Robotics takes over night and weekend duty, personnel concentrates on reception, access control and daytime tasks involving physical contact.

The break-even against a single guard post is reached in the first quarter. No start-up investment has to be depreciated. From day one the monthly rate runs against personnel costs, and the difference returns to liquidity.

Accounting Treatment: OpEx Instead of CapEx

The RaaS model avoids capitalisation as a fixed asset. This removes the depreciation logic under commercial law together with the discussion about useful life and residual value. The Robotics as a Service model is treated in accounting terms as the procurement of a security service.

Monthly rates flow in full into the P&L as expense. Depending on the chart of accounts they appear under outsourced services or other operating expenses. Period accrual is not required since the service is rendered in the month of invoicing.

For corporates this gives a clear advantage: no tying up of investment budgets, no approval loop through the Investment Committee. Security spending stays in the operational responsibility of the plant manager and does not have to go through CapEx planning.

For mid-market firms this means predictable liquidity without financing requirement. There is no lessor, no security transfer of title, no credit line being drawn. The company's credit rating is not affected by the security decision.

The tax treatment should be coordinated with the auditor (basis: §§ 4, 6 EStG and the BMF guidance on rental and leasing contracts). The standard reading follows rental contracts for security technology and is immediately deductible as operating expense. For cross-border constellations, such as intra-group recharging between Switzerland and Germany, the respective transfer pricing rules must be checked.

Scaling Effects Across Multiple Sites

From three sites upward a central control station pays off. It supervises several robots in parallel instead of holding personnel locally at each location. Consolidation of the monitoring function is the real economic lever in multi-site operation.

Marginal costs per additional robot do not fall through volume discount. They fall because one operator handles several sites in parallel and control station capacity is shared. Personnel costs in contrast scale linearly: every additional 24/7 post costs full tariff plus premiums.

Example calculation for an industrial park with five gates: five QR-2 yield 36-month robotics costs of 630,000 euros. Five 24/7 posts at the mean yield 3,600,000 euros in personnel costs. The saving over three years is around 2.97 million euros. A comparable configuration is described in the case study on hybrid TCO in the industrial park.

A precondition for this scaling is a reliable network connection at each site. LTE backup or redundant fibre are mandatory, not optional. Escalation procedures to the local police or to the intervention service must be fixed in writing before commissioning.

The calculation holds under the assumption that a 24/7 post is actually substituted at each location. With reduced requirements (such as night and weekend duty only) the ratio shifts but remains in favour of robotics. The substitution has to be modelled per site.

Risks and Limits of the Robotics TCO Calculation

Robotics does not replace physical intervention. A robot detects, reports and documents, it does not engage. An intervention contract with a keyholding service or security company remains necessary. Typical costs are 200 to 600 euros per month per site as availability fee, plus per-call charges (indicative figures based on standard intervention contracts; site-specific quotes should be obtained).

In extreme weather conditions patrol capability may be limited. Heavy snowfall, dense freezing rain or storm beyond the IP rating set limits. The contract must provide an escalation path to human patrol for these cases. The frequency of such events in DACH is a few days per year.

Insurance questions should be clarified before contract signing. KRITIS sites are subject to specific requirements from the KRITIS-Dachgesetz (Bundestag-Drucksache 20/9262). Safety requirements for autonomous service robots are set out in EN ISO 13482. The legal framework for mobile machinery is given by the EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230.

Works council acceptance is not a legal but an operational risk. §87 BetrVG triggers co-determination on technical equipment for monitoring conduct and performance (§87 BetrVG on gesetze-im-internet.de). Early involvement shortens the introduction time considerably. A works agreement with clear limits on image analysis is standard.

The TCO calculation applies to stable continuous operation. One-off large events, temporary construction sites or relocations still require personnel. Anyone planning the removal of every single guard post is planning too optimistically. A residual base of 10 to 20 percent personnel presence for non-automatable tasks is realistic.

Procedure for the In-House Business Case

Step 1: Inventory of all staffed posts with actual costs of the last twelve months. Plan data systematically understates sickness cover, overtime and turnover effort. The source is the cost centre accounting, not the personnel plan.

Step 2: Classification of posts by need for physical presence versus detection and reporting function. Reception posts with visitor registration cannot be replaced. Outdoor patrol for night and weekend detection can be. The classification determines which share of personnel costs falls within the substitution scope.

Step 3: Definition of the target configuration. It consists of robots, reduced personnel presence and intervention service. The configuration is modelled per site, not in a blanket way across the company. Different risk profiles justify different robot models.

Step 4: Pilot operation over 60 to 90 days with clearly defined KPIs. Detection rate (true events vs. detected), availability (patrol time without outage) and false alarm rate are the three core metrics. Without this measurement the economic case remains theory.

Step 5: Rollout decision on the basis of verified pilot data. Manufacturer forecasts do not replace own measurement. If the pilot confirms the assumptions, the rollout scales in predictable steps. If it does not, configuration adjustment follows, not project termination.

Anyone wanting to produce a 36-month calculation for their own site will find the input variables in the guard service cost comparison and can set up the measurement phase via the pilot enquiry for the own site.