I just realized that I have never told the FULL story of FpVTE 2003 in the Bredemarket blog. I’ve only told the problem part, but not the solution part. Bad on me.
The problem part
I told parts of this in a 2023 post entitled “The Big 3, or 4, or 5? Through the Years.” One of the pivotal parts of the story was when the “big 4” became the “big 3.”
It happened like this:
These days the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is well known for its continuous biometric testing, but one of its first tests was conducted in 2003. At the time, there were four well-recognized fingerprint vendors:
- Cogent Systems.
- Motorola, which had acquired Printrak.
- NEC.
- Sagem Morpho, which had acquired Morpho.
There were a bunch of other fingerprint vendors, but they were much smaller, including the independent companies Bioscrypt and Identix.
I was a product manager at Motorola at the time, managing the server portion of the company’s automated fingerprint identification system (AFIS), Omnitrak. This featured a modernization of the architecture that was a vast improvement over the client-server architecture in Series 2000. The older product was still in use at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), but Motorola was in the process of installing Omnitrak in Slovenia and upgrading existing systems in Oklahoma and Switzerland.
Yes, I’ve worked in biometrics for a while.
This is the environment in which NIST released its Fingerprint Vendor Technology Evaluation of 2003 (FpVTE 2003).
“FpVTE 2003 consists of multiple tests performed with combinations of fingers (e.g., single fingers, two index fingers, four to ten fingers) and different types and qualities of operational fingerprints (e.g., flat livescan images from visa applicants, multi-finger slap livescan images from present-day booking or background check systems, or rolled and flat inked fingerprints from legacy criminal databases).”
So the companies listed above, among others, submitted their algorithms to FpVTE 2003. After the testing, NIST issued a summary report that included this sentence.
“Of the systems tested, NEC, SAGEM, and Cogent produced the most accurate results.”
You can see how this affected Motorola…and me. We were suddenly second-tier, via independent confirmation.
We first had to go to the RCMP and admit that we weren’t as accurate as other systems. This came at a particularly bad time, since the RCMP was engaged in a massive system upgrade of its own. While Motorola’s FpVTE performance was not the ultimate deciding factor, we lost the massive RCMP system to Cogent.
But Motorola did something else at the same time.
The solution part
The accuracy of an automated fingerprint identification system falls in the laps of the algorithm developers, whether the vendor develops its own algorithms or buys a third-party algorithm from another AFIS vendor.
Motorola developed its own algorithm…and one of the R&D leaders was Guy Cardwell.
Motorola held a User’s Conference after the FpVTE results announcement, and Cardwell spoke to our customers.
- It wasn’t a flashy presentation with smoke and mirrors.
- It wasn’t an accusatory presentation calling NIST a bunch of crooks.
- It was basically Guy, on stage, saying that we didn’t do well.
- And that we would do better.
Now of course that in itself means nothing unless we actually DID better. The R&D team went to work and improved the algorithm, and continued with other advances such as supporting complete 1000 pixel per inch systems as Sweden demanded.
But from a product marketing perspective, Motorola’s initial messaging to its customers was critically important.
Because if Motorola didn’t publicly address its FpVTE 2003 performance, then the only people talking about it would be Cogent, NEC, and Sagem Morpho.
And you don’t want to let your competitors deliver your message and steal your prospects.
Bredemarket 