Integration - the Missing Link

Date :

“   “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” 

Over the last 25 years the word ‘integration’ used within the context of security systems has been a widely abused as well as used word.  Those of us who have been in the industry 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.

What’s Yours Called?

The electronic security industry has certainly made substantial progress towards delivering true system integration although you may have heard it referred to under a variety of names. Amalgamation, convergence, fusion, unification - all of these words are currently being used to describe the process of delivering some form of an integrated security solution. By doing so they offer clients the potential of maximising on 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 increasingly acceptance of IP and the  introduction of sophisticated software, made possible by the recent dramatic increase in computer processing  power are some of the factors that have  brought us into an era where true system integration is possible.

Do Global Integrated Systems Deliver?

Integrated systems offer the potential of efficiency, flexibility, simplicity and economy. In reality integrated systems will often prove to be inefficient, inflexible, complex, expensive and quite often lead to disappointment among clients whose expectations of the system are far higher that what is actually delivered.

Is this a result of a misunderstanding between the client and the system integrator as to what can be achieved or perhaps the combination of a poor design and planning? Is it a case of the hardware and/or software not being fit for purpose? It could be any or all of these but if the component parts of the integrated system have been sourced from reputable manufacturers and a competent system installer has been chosen to implement the integration, the cause of the disappointment might be down to more mundane but still very important issues such as:

• The absence of operational procedures
• Inadequate training
• Incorrect 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 not singe person “ownership”.  They may therefore be ignored until problems arise with responsibility for falling between the security and IT functions of a business.

No Ownership?

There can be a misconception among clients that systems are smarter than they really are and that once delivered they will be  ready to ‘plug and play’. If any attention does need to be given to the system, there is a perception that "‘Betty on reception’ will sort it out".  Betty (or Ben) may well have previously been given responsibility for the intruder alarm or even a CCTV system but he/she is unlikely be entirely qualified to take on board the issues surrounding the complexities of an integrated security solution.

In reality it is the lack of post installation controls and procedures that hinder clients from getting the maximum out of their integrated system.  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 the clients  sites which may even be in different countries. This is the quite often the missing link that prevents the effective delivery of information from ‘security system’ to the ‘operator’.

Coordination

We as system integrators 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. The clients may however not have any person 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 though the implementation of the procedures. 

This human resource does not however have to be part of the client'’s headcount. System integrators such as Frontline Security Solutions have recognised the requirement and  have built a team of people who have the necessary operational experience as well as technical expertise in both hardware and software disciplines. These true integration experts, who we call Operation Coordinators, can be imbedded into our clients businesses for a period of what will typically be a two to three months. The objective would be to fine tune the system to meet the clients’ 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 the system specified.  Clients therefore get a fully functional system and among the operators the system has far more credibility as a result of everyone understanding how to get the best out of it.

Perhaps the time has come for the role of the Operation Coordinators to be included in specifications for major projects.