In a recent discussion at our headquarters in Bedfordshire, SMT Online’s Editor Brian Sims and I ended up debating the answer to a fundamental question: ‘Who’s really driving the design of modern security and surveillance systems?’
It struck me that as security, surveillance and IT continue to converge over the next few years, and in particular as IP technology gains momentum, there’s an overriding need to take a fresh look at the design requirements for the solutions of tomorrow.
Most certainly, this will mean that the knowledge base of consultants will change. Technology improvements will require a much more fundamental approach to the concept of future proofing security solutions.
Consultants must broaden their horizons
According to a review article published on SMT Online (31 December 2008) and featuring Fredrik Nilsson’s book ‘Intelligent Network Video: Understanding Modern Video Surveillance Systems’: “All leading security industry experts predict a permanent paradigm shift from analogue to network cameras in the next five years. In preparation, security managers and directors need as much information as they can grab hold of such that the transition isn’t too painful for either themselves or their host organisations.”
Let’s be realistic. This means we’re working in a world where thousands of new security and surveillance solutions are designed and implemented each year. More importantly, a world wherein the understanding of different technologies’ capabilities, their ‘longevity’ and future upgrading capabilities must take centre stage in the minds of consultants advising on and designing the security systems of the future.
Taking a step back for a moment, let’s review how the process of design is undertaken today. The answer to the question: ‘Who is driving the design of modern security systems?’ isn’t as obvious as it may seem. There’s no doubt that the design should be driven by the end user requirement, the risk assessment, cost analysis and the technology available to satisfy that requirement.
However, to a large extent what’s happening in the real world is that the technology manufacturers seem to be taking more than their fair share.
To ensure that unsuitable technology applications – which may be the ‘flavour of the month’ due to hype, marketing budget, etc – don’t occupy the driving seat, we must demand more expertise from security managers with regards to how they implement the technology to satisfy the requirements in the best possible fashion.
This understanding demanded of end users will continue to play an even more important part in the future, especially as security and surveillance solutions continue to become more ‘technology deep’. The challenge is certainly not diminished by the continued convergence of IT with our industry’s more traditional solutions.
Technology-driven design can lead to a complete redesign
The technologists selling the technology do not always understand the real security requirements they’re addressing. What do I mean by that? A simple example was brought to my attention only recently.
An industrial estate had a CCTV perimeter surveillance solution in place, but was struggling with a high number of thefts from the forecourt. The solution to the problem – according to the technologist – was to install more CCTV cameras so as to be able to view the entire perimeter (and, hence, catch possible intruders). At a significant cost, additional CCTV cameras were installed and, surprisingly, the problem with theft persisted. It was only when someone suggested installing a physical fence around the perimeter – at a fraction of the initial spend – that the issue was solved.
This brings me nicely on to the subject of risk assessment. When designing a security solution, it’s necessary to understand what the security risks are. What are we trying to defend against? Then design a solution where the specifications are consistent with the risks and subsequently work out how best to use the technology available and use it to the best requirement.
In the example quoted, thousands of pounds could have been saved had someone identified from the start that there was a potential risk of theft, and that a physical barrier would prevent cars and trucks from driving in and people helping themselves to goods.
Although this may be a simple example, it still proves the point. Technology implemented for the sake of technology is often an expensive exercise which can result in a complete redesign. The issue becomes even more pertinent as we begin to examine IP solutions, and how we might future proof them.
Attempting to secure industry standards
For the moment, there’s a most welcome movement towards trying to secure industry standards in terms of the algorithms, but until there are actual standards agreed there may an issue with regards to IP solutions.
Now, if we’re talking about a solution for a petrol station – where the main requirement is to detect license plates and prevent people from ‘doing a runner’ – an IP-based solution which fulfils the requirements of the solution today is all well and good. As long as it’s understood that as technology evolves and the processing power increases with a Factor of X every two years, it’s affordable to replace the solution.
Much worse is the situation when you are looking to implement a security solution which must evolve over the next ten to 15 years. A town centre solution would be a good example. Here, the continued development in technology would probably mean that the entire system will need to be replaced – at significant cost, I might add – in two-to-four years’ time. I don’t mean replacing the cameras alone, but all of the components.
It goes without saying that, from a technologist’s point of view, this is a good thing. It’s ongoing business doing technology upgrades. Furthermore, if the solution is implemented on a single supplier basis, the end user is suddenly caught in a Catch 22 situation. Either continue with the existing supplier – which, all things equal, may seem the cheaper option – or consider a complete re-design of the solution in the future to ensure that any technology advancement and developments may be accommodated.
Taking the alternative approach
There’s an alternative approach to this scenario whereby you decide from Day One that you wish to take advantage of future improvements in technology, such as the application of intelligent video analytics. In such cases, a hybrid system may be better served to suit the application.
Hybrid solutions require that you continue to use analogue cameras, and bring back the signals to the Control Room uncompressed, before putting the analytics on to the solution. This would mean that, as analytics improve in terms of their capabilities, you don’t have to replace the field devices such as cameras and transmission devices. Hence, you will extend the lifetime of these devices, thereby improving returns on the original investment.
I find it equally important that security managers and consultants/specifiers are able to defend their case when challenged. They should not be put into a situation where they feel bullied by suppliers to accept a technology which doesn’t necessarily provide them with the right level of future proofing.
Differences in approach: UK versus overseas
The UK plays a leading role when it comes to the implementation of security and surveillance solutions. We have the longest-established history of applying the technology, and have proven many times that we can design solutions of national importance with the right application of future proofing.
A good case in point is the National Roads Telecommunications Services (NRTS) project instigated by the Highways Agency. Over a ten-year period starting in 2005, this project will provide a national digital system linking more than 14,000 roadside devices – including message signs and emergency telephones – and up to 4,000 cameras and traffic monitoring systems with the Highways Agency’s network of Traffic Control Centres.
In effect, this means the solution will consolidate data for all 5,800 miles of strategic roads nationwide.
A system like that for the NRTS project is not only of strategic importance, but also involves using the fibre optic cables already in place at the roadside in the most effective way possible. Capacity is at a premium, and the investment in the solution is such that it must be able to accommodate future technology enhancement (such as the application of intelligent video analytics in the Control Rooms).
If we look overseas, there’s a difference in style. We have come across examples where customers have been driven by manufacturers, often due to lack of experience. They are now in a situation where they’re experiencing the limitations of the systems they’ve put in place. Let me briefly mention a couple of cases where the solutions seem to have fallen short, primarily due to a lack of insight with regards to future technology requirements.
Transportation infrastructure in Singapore
In Singapore, the transportation infrastructure surveillance solution is based on IP. It encompasses more than 1,000 cameras, and transmits the video signals in compressed format back to the Control Room.
That being the case, the end user is now in a situation where virtually nothing can be done with the signals. There’s a desire to apply video analytics in the Control Room but, because the signals have been compressed, serious analytics are impossible because the software doesn’t work well with video signals that have been compressed and then uncompressed. This now results in a significant expense as the video analytics have to be applied at the field locations at the camera end.
Had the original design of the system taken into account the future application of software solutions like video analytics, it would have meant that the analytics could have been installed – as and when required – at the Control Room end.
In Malaysia, the situation is even worse. There, the local Governments have implemented individual surveillance solutions for their respective highways based on IP technology. Due to lack of co-ordination, they have further implemented different solutions based on different manufacturers’ IP offerings.
When it now comes to integrating all of this into a national solution, taking the already compressed video signals from each of the local Control Rooms to a nationwide master Control Room – and thus creating a national network – the signals have to be re-compressed. This renders them virtually useless.
If the original system had been designed and specified with a view to future application of new technology, it would have become apparent that bringing back video to the local Control Rooms in an uncompressed format (so that it could be transmitted to a national network and a national Control Room) should have been the design of choice.
Unfortunately, for both of the above examples, it turned out that the end users didn’t know the market actually offers transmission solutions which completely emulate the capabilities of an Ethernet/SDH, and allows for uncompressed digital transmission of the video signals.
Solutions correct from the start
On the other hand, we’ve also seen examples of solutions where those players involved had it absolutely right from the start.
The Indian National Highways Development Project (NHDP) is one of the world’s largest highways projects. Started by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) in 1998, it’s aiming to take the Indian Highways network kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.
The Indian highways network currently totals 66,590 km, and is the nervous system of the country, carrying 40% of total traffic the length and breadth of the nation. It involves a massive construction and building effort over many years as the network continues to expand.
Crucially, from the onset this solution has been designed to be equipped with the Best in Class – ie future proof – national traffic management solutions that use uncompressed digital video transmission back to the local Control Rooms. At this point, they can then put it onto a national network using any technology available both now and in the future.
Obviously, I fully appreciate that there’s a huge difference in the future proofing requirements for a security and surveillance solution going into a petrol station and one which is implemented along the highways. A petrol forecourt solution meets the requirement at the time of installation. The future isn’t a necessary consideration.
However, with a better view to the future application of technology to come, many end users will benefit greatly from consultants who look to design solutions driven by the appropriate risk assessment and the long term end user requirement before specifying technology that in no way caters for future improvements.
Dr Alan Hayes is the founder and managing director of AMG Systems