Over the past 25 years or so, the word ‘integration’ – when used within the context of security systems – has been widely used and abused. Those of us who’ve been around long enough will be able to recall when one or two of the larger installation companies claimed to have dedicated integrated divisions. These teams of integration experts were, however, unable to produce anything more than a mimic panel with LEDs that flashed if and when an intruder or fire alarm system was activated.
The electronic security industry has certainly made substantial progress towards delivering true systems integration, although you may have heard it referred to under a variety of different guises. Amalgamation, convergence, fusion, unification – all of these terms are currently being used to describe the process of delivering some form of integrated security solution. By doing so, they offer clients the potential to maximise the benefits from their investment in security systems by way of ensuring that those systems interact and provide security personnel and management with what could be mission critical information.
The evolution from analogue to digital equipment, the increasing acceptance of IP and the introduction of sophisticated software – made possible by the dramatic increases in computer processing power – are some of the factors that have brought us into an era where true systems integration is possible.
Does global integration deliver?
Integrated security systems offer the potential for efficiency, flexibility, simplicity and economy. In reality, though, they will often prove to be inefficient, inflexible, complex and expensive, leading to disappointment among clients whose expectations aren’t realised.
Is this the result of a misunderstanding between the client and the systems integrator as to what can be achieved, or is it perhaps the combination of poor design and planning?
Is it simply the case of the hardware and/or software not being fit for purpose?
In truth, it could be any or all of these factors, but if the component parts of the integrated system have been sourced from reputable manufacturers, and a competent systems installer has been chosen to implement the integration, the cause of the disappointment might well be down to more mundane – but important – issues, such as:
- the absence of operational procedures;
- inadequate training;
- incorrect and/or incomplete data entry;
- no naming conventions;
- no process in place for feedback or the tracking of corrective measures.
When these issues arise, they are normally symptomatic of the fact that within the client’s organisation, there is no single person ‘ownership’. Such issues may be ignored until problems arise, with responsibility for them falling somewhere between the security and IT functions of the company in question.
No ownership?
There can be a misconception among clients that security systems are smarter than they really are and that, once delivered to site, they’ll all be plug-and-play. If any attention does need to be afforded to the system, there’s a feeling that: “Betty on Main Reception will sort it out”.
Betty – or perhaps Ben – may well have once been given responsibility for the intruder alarm system or maybe even the CCTV set-up, but he or she is unlikely to be entirely qualified to take on board the issues surrounding the complexities of an integrated security solution.
In reality, it’s the lack of post-installation controls and procedures that hinders clients from gaining the maximum benefits out of their integrated security solution. It may be time consuming. It may be a hard slog, but there is no way around putting procedures in place to ensure continuity and consistency in the way systems are managed across all client sites (some of which may be overseas).
To be honest, this is quite often the ‘missing link’ preventing the effective delivery of a given ‘security system’ to the ‘operator’.
Looking to the co-ordinators
As systems integrators, we have an obligation to our clients to make sure they fully understand that the small investment needed to put proper procedures in place will save them money in the long term and deliver immediate results. However, the clients may not have any individual on board who has the required level of expertise, and even if they do that person may not have the time to take on the responsibility of driving through the implementation of the procedures.
This particular ‘human resource’ does not have to be part of the client’s headcount. Many systems integrators have recognised the requirement, and then built a team of people who have the necessary operational experience as well as technical expertise in both the hardware and software side of the business.
These ‘true’ integration experts – whom we like to call Operation Co-ordinators – can be embedded into our clients’ businesses for a period of what will typically be two to three months. The objective would be to fine-tune the system in order to meet the end user’s specific operational needs and, in parallel, produce procedures as well as fully-train anyone who needs to interact with the system.
The benefits are obvious and immediate, in that the system delivered very soon matches that specified by the client. Clients, then, receive a fully-functional system. Among the operators, the system has a greater degree of credibility because everyone knows how to extract the very best from the installation.
Perhaps the time has come for the role of the Operation Co-ordinators to be included in specifications for major projects?