What this planner produces
- Reader positions — one per controlled side, so an entry-and-exit controlled door counts two.
- Door position contacts — one per controlled door.
- Request-to-exit devices — where the exit side is not reader-controlled.
- Lock categories — electromagnetic lock, electric strike, electrified mortice or motorised, or a barrier and turnstile interface.
- Controller grouping — the number of controller groups at the doors-per-group figure you choose.
Door types
- Building entrance
- Internal circulation
- Department or zone door
- Service and back-of-house
- Plant and equipment room
What this planner deliberately does not do
- It does not record door names, positions, floor or zone references, or any security-posture detail — door types are generic functions with a quantity.
- It does not decide whether an escape-route door is fail-safe or fail-secure. Release arrangements and the interface to the fire system follow the project fire strategy and the authority having jurisdiction.
- It names no products, models or part numbers and produces no bill of materials.
- It shows no pricing of any kind.
- It does not replace a door survey, the appointed consultants, or the written access policy that follows them.
Access-Control Door Schedule Planner — a preliminary schedule
— Planner · access control
Door types in. A preliminary schedule out.
Set the door types, how many of each, and how each is controlled. The planner returns a preliminary schedule, device categories and controller grouping — and always routes escape-route release to the fire strategy and the approving authority.
Controlled doors
16
across 4 door types
Reader positions
18
card / fob direction
Controller groups
2
at 8 doors per group
A preliminary schedule derived from your own selections — device categories, never models, part numbers or a bill of materials. It records no door names, positions, zones or security detail. Escape-route release is not decided here: that follows the project fire strategy and the authority having jurisdiction.
A planning link — not a quote.
Preliminary door schedule
Device categories · Card / fob · 8 doors per controller group
| Door type | Doors | Readers | Contacts | REX | Lock category | Egress |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Building entrance | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | Electromagnetic lock | Fire strategy decides |
| Department / zone door | 8 | 8 | 8 | 8 | Electric strike | — |
| Service & back-of-house | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | Electric strike | — |
| Plant & equipment room | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | Electrified mortice / motorised | — |
| Total | 16 | 18 | 16 | 14 | 16 units | 2 flagged |
Preliminary categories for a brief — not a bill of materials, not a design, and not a statement about any real building. Escape-route release follows the project fire strategy and the authority having jurisdiction.
- controlled doors
- 16
- reader positions
- 18 · Card / fob
- door position contacts
- 16
- request-to-exit devices
- 14 (entry-controlled sides)
- lock units
- 16 across 3 categories
- controller groups
- 2 at 8 doors per group
- escape-route doors
- 2 — fire strategy decides release
Each controlled door also needs its supply, its cable path and a network route to its controller. Standby supply arrangements and door hardware are coordinated with the electrical design and the architect — this schedule is the brief for that conversation, not its conclusion.
What changes this estimate
- A completed door survey against the drawings
- The project fire strategy and escape-route schedule
- Door hardware coordination with the architect
- The written access policy and credential lifecycle
Coordination flags
2 of the doors in this schedule are marked as sitting on an escape route. This planner deliberately does not select a release arrangement for them: whether a door is fail-safe or fail-secure, and how it interfaces with the fire system, is set by the project fire strategy and the authority having jurisdiction. Take that decision to the appointed fire consultant before the schedule is issued.
Method
One reader per controlled side, one position contact per controlled door, a request-to-exit device where the exit side is not reader-controlled, and controller groups from the doors-per-group figure you choose. No standard, product catalogue or procurement quantity is embedded.
A planning link — not a quote.
Quick answer
An access-control door schedule sets out, for every controlled door, how it is controlled, what devices it carries and which controller it belongs to. This planner builds a preliminary version from generic door types and quantities: reader positions from the controlled sides, a position contact per door, request-to-exit devices where the exit side is not reader-controlled, and controller groups at the grouping you choose. It is the brief for the design conversation, not the design.
When to use
Early scoping of an access-control package — turning a rough sense of how many doors of each kind into a structured brief for the consultant or integrator.
When not to use
It is not a design, a bill of materials or a compliance check, and it never decides escape-route release — fail-safe or fail-secure and the fire-system interface follow the project fire strategy and the authority having jurisdiction.
Plan with confidence
From a preliminary schedule to an access system that opens on day one
The arithmetic is the easy part. What decides whether an access package works is the door survey behind it, the fire strategy that governs escape routes, and the policy that says who may go where. These notes turn the schedule into a brief.
Planning notes
- Escape-route doors are not an access-control decision. Release arrangement and the fire-system interface are set by the project fire strategy and the authority having jurisdiction — always.
- Controlled sides drive the reader count more than door count does; deciding entry-only versus entry-and-exit early avoids reworking the whole schedule later.
- Door hardware — leaf, frame, closer, transom — is an architectural coordination item; the lock category has to be one the door can actually accept.
- Every controlled door needs a supply, a cable path and a route to its controller. Those are three drawings, not one line on a schedule.
- Credential choice shapes the reader hardware, so even a provisional direction is worth setting before the schedule is issued.
Before final design, confirm
- A completed door survey against the architectural drawings.
- The fire strategy and the escape-route schedule, agreed with the appointed fire consultant.
- Door hardware compatibility for each lock category with the architect and the door supplier.
- The written access policy — who may go where, who administers it, and how credentials are issued and revoked.
- Standby supply arrangements and the network route to each controller group.
What to share with us for review
- The door schedule from the architect and the drawings that go with it, or just paste this planner's share link.
- The fire strategy, so escape-route doors are handled correctly from the start.
- Who will administer the system after handover, and any privacy position already agreed for biometric or personal data.
Share your drawings, BOQ, site details or the tool result with TechnoGuru for a written estimate after drawings, a BOQ or a site review.
· Engineering advisory · Access-control door schedule
The schedule is arithmetic. The egress decision is not.
A preliminary door schedule is easy to derive once the door types and control modes are set. The part that decides whether the installed system is safe and usable sits outside the arithmetic — the fire strategy, the door hardware, the supply and the policy behind the credential.
Deployment observations
- Lawful egress always wins. Whether a door on an escape route is fail-safe or fail-secure, how it releases on a fire signal, and what the interface to the fire system looks like are set by the project fire strategy and the authority having jurisdiction — never by the access-control design and never by a planning tool. This planner therefore flags escape-route doors and deliberately declines to choose for them.
- Reader count follows controlled sides, not doors. A door controlled on entry only needs one reader and a request-to-exit device; a door controlled in both directions needs two. Deciding that early matters because it changes cabling, controller grouping and the door hardware, and reversing it late means revisiting all three.
- The lock category has to be one the door can physically accept. Leaf construction, frame type, closer and transom decide what will work, which makes lock selection an architectural coordination item rather than a security preference expressed on a schedule.
Operational notes
- An access system is a policy with hardware attached. Who may go where, who administers the system, how a credential is issued and — more importantly — revoked on the day someone leaves, are what determine whether the installation still means anything two years after handover. Those questions belong in the brief alongside the schedule.
- Biometric credentials enrol personal data, so consent, lawful basis, retention and the privacy notice have to be settled with the client's own advisors before deployment rather than discovered at commissioning.
Lifecycle implications
- Controller grouping is a resilience decision as much as a cabling one: a larger group concentrates more doors behind one device and one cable path. The right grouping depends on what the building can tolerate losing at once.
- Credential and administration ownership should transfer to the client at handover with the configuration documented. A system whose administrator is still the installer is a system the building does not really control.
Delivered as a service ·
Access ControlIntrusion Detection & AlarmEnterprise Network Design & Installation· How this is used on a live brief
A project manager scoping an office fit-out sets two entrances controlled in both directions and flagged as escape routes, eight department doors on entry control, four service doors and two plant rooms, then picks a controller grouping. The planner returns the reader, contact and request-to-exit counts, the controller groups, and a standing flag that the two escape-route doors are a fire-strategy decision. That output goes to the consultant as a brief — with the door survey, the fire strategy and the access policy still to be settled.
· Frequently asked
Access-control door schedule —
what people ask first.
Why will the planner not tell me whether a door should be fail-safe or fail-secure?
Because that is a life-safety decision, not an access-control preference. Whether a door on an escape route holds or releases on loss of power, and how it interfaces with the fire system, is set by the building's fire strategy and approved by the authority having jurisdiction against the local code. A web tool cannot know your building's escape strategy, so it flags those doors and routes the decision to your appointed fire consultant instead of guessing.
How are reader positions worked out?
From controlled sides. A door controlled on entry only carries one reader plus a request-to-exit device on the inside; a door controlled in both directions carries two readers. The planner applies that single rule to your quantities — it makes no assumption about which doors in a real building should be controlled in which direction.
Does this record anything about my building?
No. It works on generic door types — entrance, circulation, department, service, plant — with a quantity against each. It has no field for door names, positions, floor or zone references or security posture, and the shareable link carries only those generic types and counts. Nothing that would describe a real site's layout is captured or transmitted.
Is the output a bill of materials?
No. The figures are device categories derived from your own selections, not products. There are no models, part numbers, brands or quantities to procure against, and no pricing of any kind. Procurement follows a design, a door survey and a written estimate after review.
How does this differ from the readiness checker?
The Access Control Readiness Checker asks whether you are ready to have the conversation — survey status, credential direction, policy and administration ownership — and deliberately records no counts. This planner is the step after that: once the survey exists, it turns door types and quantities into a preliminary schedule you can hand to a consultant. Use the readiness checker first if the survey is still incomplete.
What should I send for a proper review?
The architect's door schedule and drawings, the project fire strategy so escape-route doors are handled correctly, and a note on who will administer the system after handover. Share those on WhatsApp/call +91 88110 34444 or email info@technoguru.in and a project lead will return an engineering reading and a written estimate after review.
· Begin
Scoping an access-control package
from a door schedule?
Send the architect's door schedule and the project fire strategy. We respond within two working days with a reading of the package — egress interfaces, hardware compatibility, controller grouping and the policy questions that decide whether it still works in year three.