Over the past couple of years, there has been much talk within the security sphere that a ‘real game changer’ is on the horizon in the form of PSIM, or — to save us from the tyranny of acronyms — Physical Security Information Management.
The view was that large, complex or multi-site organisations would fall over themselves to sign up to a new paradigm emanating from Stateside — one that would see specialist software platforms integrating an array of unconnected security applications including CCTV, access control, intrusion detection, and fire.
The goal: to improve security performance, better assess risk, and drive an enhanced security culture, all through a single user interface.
Sadly, this paradigm has failed to materialise. As we sit here in hard economic times, it’s possible that the undoubted efficiency, situational awareness, and reporting benefits have been unseated by the mistaken belief that it’s all about ‘integration’, as well as the perceived costs of implementation (in both financial and process improvement terms).
Indeed, with two large global contract opportunities cancelled in the last 12 months due to budget constraints and prominent installations largely confined to the regulated environment and utilities sectors so far, the opportunity for traction appears to have stalled.
Pushing PSIM out to a broader market
So, what could be the spur to give PSIM the ‘push up the ramp’ to mass organisational adoption?
Well in part, the benefits of PSIM need to be better articulated, and in doing that, the focus needs to be widened from being purely a security solution.
Whilst the security function should remain the principal stakeholder, true PSIM should encompass much more and focus on the ability to integrate wider technologies including building management systems, data/telephony load sharing systems, and even crisis management technologies. In essence, the capabilities that the software overlay provides for real-time situational management should be seen as an organisation-wide performance improvement opportunity — one in which it can better protect its people, property, assets, and brand.
Equally, the integration community needs to work with the true suppliers of PSIM solutions (many are just single technology providers playing the PSIM game — only offering limited integration capability) to showcase the successes and to focus the debate on the financial returns that can be made by implementing it in a structured manner.
Building a business case
Integrators need to be working with their customer bases to highlight the fact that the future for PSIM is not about the information supplied, it’s about what you do with that information and how you control the actions of those receiving that information in a consistent and effective way.
Larry Lien, Prominex VP, put it simply: “If there is a smoke alarm, is there smoke? If there is, they do these five things. If not, they do these five things.”
Finally, and perhaps most challengingly, it needs a customer who has the need, the organisation-wide perspective, and the capacity to invest in a system that will drive business performance. In these times of austerity and budget trimming, this is perhaps the biggest challenge.
However, with a detailed scoping phase and perhaps a pilot implementation across a subset of sites, the end customer can mitigate any perceived risk from a ‘big bang’ approach, whilst gathering concrete evidence of benefits that highlight the wider return on investment. In this way, a compelling business case can be constructed for further phased rollout and more mainstream adoption across the organisation.
Download the Fire Safety in 2023 eBook, keeping you up to date with the biggest news and prosecution stories from around the industry. Chapters include important updates such as the Fire Safety (England) Regulations 2022 and an overview of the new British Standard for the digital management of fire safety information.
Plus, we explore the growing risks of lithium-ion battery fires and hear from experts in disability evacuation and social housing.
“Equally, the integration community needs to work with the true suppliers of PSIM solutions (many are just single technology providers playing the PSIM game — only offering limited integration capability)” Since most all PSIMs (by their very nature) are really specialized integrations themselves, what is the benefit for security integrators to ‘work with’ PSIM providers? Who’s going to get the larger cut of the margins? Regardless of the answer, the security integrators would become defacto subcontractors; with little or no control over (or profits from) the job. “Finally, and perhaps most challengingly, it needs a customer who has the need,… Read more »
with time it will change but at the present economy everyone is looking at bottom line… and it take two to tango so to say… as it would make sense to share profit margins… as in reality contractor acting as a product rep…
“with time it will change…”WHY?Imagine a PSIM as a Bentley. When the economy is better, sure a FEW more people will buy Bentleys, but the percentage of drivers with Bentleys can not be expected to increase significantly. Why? Because most people find no VALUE in driving a Bentley – even if they could afford to buy one.The cost of PSIMs will ALWAYS be a significant limiting factor in adoption. However, the VALUE of PSIMs to 99.9% of all surveillance/security endusers will always be the main growth limiter.
Interesting point @Marty Major and a very amusing username, too! I think you might have a point on the last bit, but I wouldn’t necessarily say we can definitely exclude a ‘yet’. PSIM integration may well become simpler and more standardised as the technology and ease of integration improves. But this would be long-term, obviously. In the short-medium term, I think you’re right.
Further to my other point (didn’t see this reply first, sorry), 99.9% I think is overstating it. Yes, there will always be a huge portion of the surveillance market that don’t need PSIM, just as they don’t need an access solution. This solution is only really meant for people who do have a need for multiple security systems ie. offices and other commercial and industrial installs. Not, evidently, an average shop.
ok, 99.8% 🙂 Completely agree: “integration may well become simpler and more standardised as the technology and ease of integration improves” However, I see most of this ‘integration’ largely being accomplished by technical partnerships between VMS systems and ‘other component’ systems. Video analytics hit the streets and promised the same ‘…yet’ (literally for years) that is being floated by PSIM proponents. However, it wasn’t until they became much more focused on solutions that added real value for endusers that adoption increased. Directly embedding analytics into devices didn’t hurt any either…. 😉 Anything that can add actual value for endusers, I am… Read more »
Some of the thoughts presented on why PSIM has not taken off – because it is not a “product” but an “application. Why buy another “product” to “integrate” other products? What a PSIM does is “collect data from various disparate systems and then because of the inherent capability and intent of a PSIM – creates the right “information” and “command+control” to allow this information to be acted on. So it is not going great because there is confusion in the market about the purpose of a PSIM in a “product driven security market” where even consultant deliver a shopping list… Read more »
PSIM – Physical Security Information Management….. Even as an exponent of the security field it took a while to get my head around where PSIM should sit within the global market… At present it seems to be more of a concept or product in evolution. We all know that concepts which become product often take years to evolve and just as long for end users to understand. Take IP CCTV first tried back in the 1990’s yet twenty years on and it’s still not see off conventional cctv systems. Economics apart… People sometimes just can’t see the need for new products until… Read more »
Really nice point MajorPain. Certainly video analytics on the edge has seen those systems take that necessary extra step. I’ve said before and will do again that I’m of the opinion PSIM is like Big Data: potentially a fad or potentially completely here to stay. We just don’t know which yet. (There I go again, with that ‘yet’ suffix)
I did some quick analysis on Google Search Trends of the phrase PSIM and saw pretty much no evidence of it as an upcoming search term. Very few people are really buzzing about it beyond security itself.
Thanks for the summary, odsouza. So currently, by your estimation, PSIM is something people just don’t need at the moment, whether or not they want it?
Need andWant are difficult to separate especially if you have a visionary at the head. What people may not know is where that person intends to take the infrastructure.For example – the PSIM I use exclusively – allows me to “mimic” any exissting GUI – so my customers do not have to spend on “retraining” and therefore can introduce it quite easily right at the start of the project. Now he has a “common interface” for many “upgrades” and is FREE to choose from a of dedicated technologies that the organisation specifically needs and still keep control of the “user… Read more »
That’s cool that you can mimic the GUI of existing software. That must really simplify the need for training. Does this involve a degree of design on the part of the PSIM-supplier?
Like everything each level of skill determines the quality of your output or deliverable. The Synoptic Editor – is a tool provided within the PSIM to help the integrator/designer (or PSIM provider) put together a customised GUI easily. Depending on how much understanding the person has of a typical drawing package he could create a “boxy” gui that looks smart or something swish that will take a keen designers eye. The rest is what makes a PSIM a flexible and powerfull tool where the PSIM supplier/integrator can embedd behind every “graphic element” a lot of automated functionality including bolean logic… Read more »
Thanks odsouza, really interesting explanation there.