We are all familiar with “scope creep” — when the project requirements increase exponentially, usually without a commensurate increase in time or funds available to do the work. However, over the years, I have noticed that punch lists get longer and longer, often through no fault of the integrator, the equipment, or the installation.

The reasons for this are varied, but I suspect the main one is a reluctance to let the integrator move on. They are on site, you kind of get used to seeing them, and there’s some comfort in having Mr. Fix-It on hand and available. So, at the time when all efforts are being made to close out the job, the pile increases. These added items generally fall into three categories:

• Forgotten – These items legitimately belong on the punch list but weren’t high enough profile in the past. The card reader that is crooked. The camera with the scratched lower dome. Or the software feature that wasn’t implemented. The best way to avoid items like these is to deal with them as they come up, but that isn’t always practical. These items are legitimately why a punch list is created.
• Broken – Some items break during the beneficial use milestone and the project closeout. This is normal, and it’s why there’s a warranty. This shouldn’t affect the completion of the project, and the integrator should be paid. If you don’t trust that the integrator will handle warranty repairs properly, you have bigger problems than a punch list.
• Changed – We often see change order items rolled into a project punch list, and that can be OK if they are changes that should have been completed in conjunction with the installation – camera moves, system programming, and things like that. But if the changes represent a legitimate alteration of the project scope, such as the addition of cameras or card readers, they should be treated separately and have their own punch list.

It’s helpful to remember that a punch list is not the end of a business relationship, but the passage from one phase to another. The goal is to close it out and move on, not to prolong it.

Click here to read the original article on the Security Sales Integration website

As a result, we often find ourselves evaluating substitutions and lately we’ve had a few near misses that have caused us to re-think the process. Why? Because products, in general, keep improving and as a result we tend to take some features for granted. And that’s the root of today’s cautionary tale!

We recently approved a substitution for a number of pan/tilt/zoom (p/t/z) IP  cameras on a project. The proposed substitution sure appeared to be a better deal for our client. The optical zoom range was better, resolution and other performance metrics were comparable, and the product was from a known manufacturer (Panasonic) with an excellent reputation and good product line. We had direct experience with their products on other projects, and may not have examined the data sheet as closely as we should have.

And even if we had gone through it with a fine tooth comb, we likely would have missed the fact that the substitution had no slip rings and was therefore a 350-degree dome, not a 360-degree dome as specified. This means that the dome didn’t rotate in a complete circle. At a certain point, it would stop and if you wanted to follow a subject, you’d have to rotate the dome quickly in the opposite direction to pick up where it left off. As these domes were going into a parking lot, there was obviously a usability issue with this. Fortunately, we had specified it correctly and we were working with an excellent integrator who stepped up to the plate and provided an alternative that met the original specifications.

My point is that we may no longer be checking for critical features on a product when evaluating substitutions, assuming that they are “jacks or better,” but we should be. When you buy a car, you no longer check to see if it comes with a spare tire as all cars include that, even though it was once an option. When evaluating electronic security equipment, I learned the hard way that such assumptions really don’t apply. You may be used to long warranties on cameras but you still need to verify. The same with power over Ethernet compliance (rather than compatibility), included accessories, and dozens of other things – including 360 degree rotation, apparently!

Now more than ever, caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware!”

Click here to read the original article on the Security Sales Integration website

The fact is many manufacturers of infrastructure products are baffled about the questions about pan/tilt/zoom (p/t/z) control for IP cameras. When installing an IP camera, folks understand that the Ethernet cable is carrying video information. They even get the concept of power over Ethernet (PoE), whereby an intermediate device (such as a network switch or power injector) provides power for the camera down the same cable. But what about p/t/z? How do we remotely position the camera? Is it RS-422? RS-485? Pelco P? Coaxitron? SensorNet? Bi-Phase? The questions and examples are like a walk down memory lane for many of us.

No, you don’t need to run a separate wire for p/t/z control any more, and with IP cameras, the protocol no longer matters. Why? Because the commands to control the camera are built into the IP command set. If your software can “talk” to the camera and get a usable picture from it, it can control any p/t/z functions as well – provided it is a p/t/z camera.

It gets a little more complicated if we are talking about an analog camera connected to an IP encoder. In those cases, the software can still control the camera but you’ll need to tell the encoder what protocol the camera speaks (a software setting) and run the appropriate control data cable from the encoder to the camera. Most IP encoders have a wide range of protocols built in, can be wired several different ways to accommodate a range of camera manufacturers, and are pretty reliable once you figure out the quirks of the software.

Software quirks? Now there’s a topic for another day!

Click here to read the original article on the Security Sales Integration website

Case in point was a new line of camera power supplies from Altronix that include battery backup. This is a natural extension of a product line and is far more efficient than the usual method of plugging the multi-drop supply into an off-the-shelf UPS often purchased for the occasion at the local office supply superstore. The supplies do not include batteries; the integrator must furnish them and, therefore, has the ability to select battery type based on run-time. It’s a great idea, simplifies the installation by eliminating another box (the standalone UPS), and we plan to include it on our future specifications.

This raises the often-asked question of “how much UPS run time is enough?” In our view, 20 minutes is sufficient in most cases, particularly where there are generators in place that will kick on. Remember, in most areas the power is pretty stable. When it goes out it will only be out for a short duration, and if it’s out for longer than 15 minutes or so, something catastrophic has happened and it’s going to be out for hours. That’s not to say you can’t go for longer run times in specific applications. In fact, that’s really easy to do; just oversize the UPS.

We’ve got an interesting application that does just that, but in a planned deployment. Two of our recent specifications for malls in California and Arizona included parking lot cameras with wireless communication to the building. The problem is that these are existing properties, the cameras will be hung on existing light poles, and power to the poles is cut off during daylight hours from a central location. Rather than going to the expense of running power, we’ve asked the integrators to install an oversized UPS at each location, sufficient to power the camera and Wi-Fi transmitter during daylight hours. At night, the power sent to the pole (stepped down to 120VAC) will recharge the UPS and run the equipment, and to accomplish this we need roughly a 14-hour run time. That’s not difficult to do given the minimal current requirements of the camera and associated equipment.

The application described above is a good example of using existing equipment technology in an innovative, application specific way, much like Altronix has done. My first thought was “why didn’t someone think of that sooner?” If someone did, shame on me for just noticing it.

Click here to read the original article on the Security Sales Integration website

The session, “Developing, Influencing and Responding to Request for Proposal’s (RFP’s)“, focused on practical, hands-on tips to make the whole RFP process work better for all involved. The class was well attended (I estimated 60 people), with a mix of end-users, manufacturers, consultants and integrators, although integrators were the most vocally represented, judging from the questions.

I will use some of the questions and comments in future blogs, but one thought that generated some discussion centered on what integrators can do when they are confronted with a really bad RFP developed by a consultant. The consensus was that, no matter how strong the integrator’s relationship is with the end user and no matter how bad the consultant (and RFP) is, an integrator isn’t going to win an argument with a consultant. The consultant is usually perceived as being unbiased and an expert, while the integrator is just looking to make a buck. Now I’m not saying that is true; there are many good integrators looking out for their clients. Unfortunately, there are enough bad consultants to make this a valid question.

After much thought, my recommendation is this: If you think the specification is really bad and that you’re not going to win the job by doing it right (or do it right by following the specification), you have only one choice. Write a letter to the end user, copy the consultant, and tell him your firm will decline to bid the job and give the reasons. If you’d like, you can go one step further and recommend an alternate consultant. If there’s someone you’ve worked with, put his name out there. A surprising amount of our consulting business comes from integrators that we have successfully worked with.

Either way, by doing this, you will alienate the consultant. Who cares? You’re not going to win his jobs anyway. You probably won’t alienate the end user if you have a good relationship with him. You certainly won’t appear to be a whiner, as you might if you just protest loudly and bid the job anyway. And, if another prospective vendor does this as well, you have an excellent chance of effecting positive change. I know that a big part of our value to our clients is our ability to deliver a range of competent and competitive bids. If a prospective bidder were to go around us and point out legitimate flaws in our RFP, we’d have some serious explaining to do.

But, more importantly, you’ll be above the fray and in an excellent position to pick up the pieces and save the day if the project crashes and burns. And there’s always a happier ending for the team that cleans up the mess than there is for the one that created it.

Click here to read the original article on the Security Sales Integration website

“The 100 meter limit for Ethernet over copper presents some installation challenges.”

I think there are very few people involved in the installation of IP-based CCTV systems that would disagree with either of the above statements. In an upcoming study featured in SECURITY SALES & INTEGRATION’s April 2011 issue, research shows integrators are still using coax in 39 percent of new installations, so there is going to be a lot of coax out there for the near future. Moreover, even those using unshielded twisted pair (UTP) for analog video (the same study shows that is gaining and rose 2 percent to 14 percent last year) aren’t tied to the distance limitations of Ethernet, a contributing factor in the use of those products. Any way you look at it, you’ll be contending with long cable runs of UTP or coax as you upgrade these systems in a market that is clearly moving to IP.

As a result, we are seeing an ever-increasing demand for media converters, in particular the ones that overcome these limitations. Often called “Ethernet extenders,” these devices allow IP Ethernet transmission of network data to communicate over an existing coaxial cable for distances up to 2,500 feet (750 meters); with UTP cable the distance limit can be extended up to one mile (1,600 meters). Naturally the transmission speed varies based on losses that occur from cable length, signal noise and interference, but the units generally auto-negotiate bandwidth, making it transparent to the installer and end user.

In fact, one of the problems with these devices is their ease of installation. There is absolutely no set up or configuration; installation requires simply connecting the BNC connectors at each end of the existing coaxial cable to the transmitter and receiver. They are completely transparent to the network and do not even have IP or MAC addresses. So, why is this a problem? Because of the simplicity, Ethernet extenders are becoming commodity devices in the eyes of the installer and nothing could be further from the truth.

In the past year, we have seen hundreds of these devices fail at client sites both in the U.S. and internationally. Not all brands are prone to failure; we have replaced a number of failed units with Nitek VR-series units (VR124COAX and VR124UTP) and have not seen a single failure with the Nitek units in over two years. However, we have seen at least one brand with almost a 100 percent failure rate at certain locations, and our predictions of failure are uncanny in the eyes of our clients when we see that particular brand installed.

So what should you look for? While we like Nitek, that is based on personal experience and we’re not saying there aren’t other great units out there. Like anything else, look at references, installed base, track record, and construction before choosing and standardizing a brand. We’ve also discovered that size matters as well — the units that fail frequently are often more compact, no doubt because they haven’t been encumbered by robust surge suppression or quality components that may take up more space. To that end, make sure that the box you put these devices in is sized for a larger unit. That way, if you inadvertently chose one of the failure prone devices, you won’t have the added expense of replacing junction boxes with larger ones like we did!

Click Here to Read the Original Article on the Security Sales & Integration Website

Download the “SSI EntSolutions – Handling Coax, UTP Cables” PDF

To accomplish our objective, we need to put some care into the preparation of a bid list for each job. This can be complicated for a firm like ours as we work nationally, and there are great integrators everywhere, and unfortunately not-so-great ones too.

We first look to our past experiences. Do we have integrators in that area that we have worked with? Even if an integrator hasn’t won one of our projects in the past, if their bid was responsive and professional, we’ll consider them.

Second, we talk to the client. Are there any firms that they have successfully worked with? Who is the incumbent? Sadly, many of our clients come to us precisely because they have no one; if they did, the project might have been a negotiated sale with no need for a consultant. But their local integrators have let them down, and they’re ready for someone new.

Third, we look to the key manufacturers on the project to recommend firms that they have successfully worked with. We like that option as it tends to give us well-trained firms and the backing of the manufacturer.

And fourth, we’ll occasionally consider firms that have approached us to be on our bid lists.

When the integrators get our RFP package, they have a decision to make — whether or not to bid on the project. This is often just a business decision with no strategy involved. They can look at their skill set, the competition, current and projected workload, and other factors and decide whether or not it’s worth their while. If not, why go to the trouble?

Two reasons come to mind, besides the actual project. First, referrals. If a manufacturer is referring you, it’s going to want you to bid. If you don’t bid on projects for which you are referred, the leads are sure to dry up. No one wants to refer someone who is non-responsive, and deciding not to bid a job is about as non-responsive as it gets. From our perspective, when we are referred a consulting lead, it has to be pretty bad for us to ignore it. We want the referrals, and keeping people who give our name out thinking of us is a key consideration when looking at prospective projects.

Second, the experience is a factor. If you are interested in getting into an area, go ahead and respond. If you don’t get the project, seek out feedback as to why you didn’t get the job. There are often factors beyond price, and an informal “off the record” phone call with the owner, consultant, or other key players may give you the information you need to win the next one.

As a side note, sometimes you may get leads that really don’t speak to your core competencies. Rather than summarily rejecting them, respond with the reason you’re not bidding. I’d rather hear from an integrator that they’re not interested in bidding a certain type of project but keep them in mind for other types, than to have them just “no bid” our jobs. The former will get them on the right bid lists; the latter will take them off all of our lists – even the Christmas card list!

Click here to read the original article

We have several clients with IP-based CCTV systems that include fairly elaborate self-healing, fiber-optic ring networks. These networks are configured in a circular topology, where each node has a path to the previous node and the next node. If either one of the fiber-optic links to a node is broken, the network remains fully functional. Sounds like a great idea so far, doesn’t it?

The intended application for this type of network is in areas where there is some danger of one of the fiber-optic links being broken. Traffic cameras are a good example as a pole could get knocked down. Campus environments where the network spans multiple buildings. Or hazardous environments where the cable could be in danger. No examples come to mind, but I’m sure they are out there. If you think of any, hit the “comment” link.

But the applications I am talking about are in large, contained structures. The cable is well secured in back hallways, and any accident that damaged one link would probably sever others as well. So these applications do not gain any functionality from this topology, but they sure pay a cost. For one, the network bandwidth is limited to a single link — with this topology, if the link speed is 1 gigabit (1000BASE-T), the total bandwidth for all nodes is 1 gigabit. With a star configuration (where all nodes are connected to a central hub), the speed is 1 gigabit per node, not per network. And the star approach is more reliable, faster, and significantly less expensive. In fact, with many of our clients we have replaced these expensive switches with simple media converters, reconfigured the rings to stars, and watched network crashes and slowdowns disappear overnight. And, if a media converter goes bad and is no longer being manufactured, you only need to replace the pair. With the self-healing ring, you often have to replace the entire network.

There are plenty of other examples — specifying high-end network switches where lower end products will work just as well for simpler applications. Running Cat-6 cable to cameras or other edge devices where they will never come close to utilizing the bandwidth available in a Cat-5e cable. But, if you’re the integrator that can bring some common sense to the party, explain where the cost savings won’t hurt and may actually help the system, and save your customer some money, you have a distinct competitive advantage. It’s something to think about.

This article was written by Bob Grossman for his “Enterprising Solutions” blog for Security Sales & Integration .

Link to full article:

http://www.securitysales.com/Blog/Enterprising-Solutions/Story/2010/10/Spending-Too-Much-Part-1-of-Many.aspx

The market is being whipped into a frenzy by buzz about IP, yet studies show that only 10-15 perent of systems sold include IP cameras. What’s the deal?

Our firm was recently retained by a new client to provide a strategic review on the electronic security industry. This client was focused on CCTV, and inevitably the topic of IP-based CCTV systems was high on their list. They had studied all of the market data they could find and were disappointed to discover that — depending on the estimates — only 10-15 percent of the systems being sold today are considered IP systems. “How can this be?” they asked. “Aren’t all systems today essentially IP based systems?”

They were right. Unless you are using a videocassette-based system or an extremely low-end DVR, all systems are IP based. Why? Because the recording is handled by a DVR, and that DVR virtually always includes client software that allows you to remotely access live or recorded video. So, if all systems are IP eventually, why is there so much discussion as to the pros and cons of IP based systems?

Close to the Edge

The real question is how far out to the edge do you go with IP. An IP system converts an analog video signal to a digital stream that can be transmitted over a conventional Ethernet network. But it can do this in a number of places.

If an IP camera is used, the signal is converted at the camera itself — this is what is commonly referred to as an IP-based system. An analog camera can also be used, and the signal can be fed into an IP encoder that converts the signal to a digital stream. The IP encoder can be located in a more convenient location, and multi-channel encoders are available to convert multiple cameras from one box. Or the camera can remain analog all the way to the recording device, which then converts the signal to store it. In that case, the recorder is also serving as an encoder, and the signal is generally available as an IP signal streaming from the recorder.

So, which system should you use? In general, we recommend that analog cameras be fed to IP encoders unless megapixel resolution is required. We base this on a number of factors, including cost, ease of installation and appearance.

1. Cost — In general, the cost of an analog camera plus an encoder is generally the same price or less than the cost of an IP camera, and technically the signal quality is identical. In fact, if multi-channel encoders are used the cost of the analog/encoder pairing drops significantly below the IP camera cost.

   The true savings come in when you look at replacement cost. Edge devices fail or get damaged from time to time. One of our clients had a faulty camera installation and the outdoor IP camera filled up with water during a storm. Replacement cost was $900, but it would only have been $300 if an analog camera had been used and connected to an encoder that was safely installed in a closet or other weatherproof space.

2. Ease of Installation — An IP camera has some installation limitations that can drive costs up significantly. Primarily is cable distance — IP cameras are limited to 100 meters (328 feet) unless special converters, repeaters, or fiber optic cable is used. Analog cameras can run for great distances before being converted to IP — over a mile if the proper UTP (unshielded twisted pair) baluns are used. The same cabling can be used, so cable cost isn’t an issue, and the convenience of locating equipment where conditioned space is available often outweighs other concerns.

   Other installation factors include the sensitivity of IP cameras to power fluctuations, the difficulty in getting environmentally hardened IP equipment, and the limitations in size and form factor for IP base products.

   Finally, analog cameras can be plugged into a portable monitor for setup, focusing, and field of view adjustments. While some IP cameras also include analog outputs to allow this, many do not. This makes installation far more difficult, involving a computer, extra network port (if power-over-Ethernet is used) and added time and complexity when installing.

3. Appearance — We are currently in the golden age of analog cameras in that the variety of sizes, shapes, features and performance levels available at low price points has never been better. This gives the designer or installer tremendous flexibility in matching cameras, housings, lens types, and other specification features to capture exactly the image that is needed. Too often, IP cameras require aesthetic or performance compromises that do not go over well with end users.

   While these and other advantages make us lean in this direction, nothing trumps technical requirements. If your application makes IP cameras advantageous, feel free to mix and match or use whichever makes the most sense. As far as which type of device to use, keep both in your toolbox and remember the old adage; if the only tool you have is a hammer, pretty soon everything looks like a nail.

DVR Versus NVR

To convert a camera to a digital signal it must be encoded. There are three ways of doing this. First, you can buy an “IP” camera which has an encoder built into it. We don’t usually recommend this, as when the camera breaks you have to replace the camera and the encoder at the same time, since they are one unit. Second, you can buy a separate camera and encoder. This allows you to just replace the device that fails which, over time, will save money. Third, you can buy a digital recorder with an encoder built in, and just plug the analog camera into the recorder.

A device that records signals that have already been encoded (options No. 1 and 2 listed above) is called a network video recorder, or NVR. A device that has the encoders built in (option No. 3, above) is called a digital video recorder, or DVR. It gets a little more complicated as there are units that have some encoders built in and also record encoded signals. They are usually called DVR’s as well, although they’re really both.

Functionally, there’s not a lot of difference. In fact, many manufacturers make both types and a system could use both. For example, a shopping mall might put a DVR in their command center to record the cameras that were run directly back to that room, and put encoders in data closets that would stream back to NVR’s, also located in the command center. When viewing cameras, they wouldn’t be able to tell if they were plugged into an NVR or a DVR, and they could view both types side by side on the same monitor. In most cases, the primary concern is cabling, infrastructure, and ease of installation since the recorded and live images are identical with each type of technology.

Click Here to download this article in PDF Format

Few organizations are as sensitive to mood swings as the police agencies and security departments of colleges, universities and hospitals. Every time there is a well publicized security incident, the need to address areas of vulnerability is first and foremost on everyone’s mind. However, once the crisis blows over, it’s back to full justification for every expenditure.An important part of upgrading or expanding a system is establishing a baseline. The foundation is critical when building anything, and electronic security systems are no exception. For those trying to be proactive and upgrade their systems in a logical, well-planned fashion, the question of upgrading or replacing equipment is usually a key one. Should you maintain the status quo by performing maintenance and repairs, upgrade a system (or portions thereof), or just chuck it all and replace it?

This is not simply a technical question for many; it encompasses all areas of a security operation and requires consideration of a number of factors. This article is not about building or adding on to a system. These are decisions based on very tangible needs. Instead, a campus should grade its systems in three ways:

Functionality: Is everything working as required?

Future: Do the systems have the capacity to grow to accommodate near- to mid-term future needs?

Features: Are there specific features needed for your operation?

If your system gets one or more “F” grades in this report card, it may be time for a parent-teacher conference.

Functionality Depends on Application, Hardware, Installation
Systems that are not functioning properly may be unreliable or of insufficient quality for the application. This includes CCTV systems with poor image quality, access control systems that fail to permit access as needed (or grant it too freely), or alarm point monitoring that false alarms too often or doesn’t alarm when needed. In all of these cases, the next question that should be asked is, “Can it be repaired cost effectively?”

Surprisingly, that question isn’t always as simple as it sounds. A system can be unreliable because of the application, hardware or installation. If it is one of the first two, you’re often better off replacing it. If the equipment isn’t right for your application, it will never be reliable. If the equipment isn’t up to the task, same answer.

If the installation is faulty, you need to do some more investigating before making a decision. If the wrong type of wire was pulled, the equipment was not terminated properly, there are power or thermal problems, or one of a host of installation related gremlins are present, you’re better off remedying those problems before you rip out a system and replace it with one that performs equally poorly. Very few careers can withstand that kind of mistake.

Another question that should be asked is whether or not the equipment is approaching the end of its serviceable life. We usually think of this as being age related. Monitors, for example, have a very finite operating life, which is often exceeded. But there are two other reasons that come to mind.

The first is whether the product still exists or is supported by the manufacturer. A campus might have an analog matrix switch that is about six years old. Ordinarily, this would not be an issue as matrix switching systems tend to be extremely reliable with 20-year operating lives not uncommon. In some cases, however, the switch manufacturer is no longer in existence, having long ago been acquired and shut down by the new parent company. Since parts are no longer available and the failure of this system would be catastrophic, a campus with this type of equipment has no choice but to replace it.

The other end-of-life issue occurs when a technology is rendered obsolete and will shortly lack even basic market support. The best example of this is the multiplexer/VCR combination, which provides poor quality, low frame rate images and is subject to a host of problems that go unnoticed until there is a problem.

The worst time to find out there is a problem — the heads are worn on the VCRs, the tapes have not been changed, or a power glitch has stopped the VCR — is when there’s an incident at your facility. The alternatives are so far superior to tape that this has pulled out of the realm of “nice to have” and into a necessity item.

Other examples include DVRs and access control equipment using operating systems that are no longer supported by the manufacturer or technologies that consume more space, power and cooling than their more modern counterparts (CRT monitors, for example). If your facility is still hanging on to a type of technology like this, there had better be a plan in place to ensure replacement, with a strongly written letter in a file to cover yourself when the inevitable problems arise.

Determine If the Current System Meets Future Expansion Needs
The second reason for performing the upgrade-or-replace analysis is to determine whether your systems can be expanded to the capacity that you will need, and whether or not it will be cost effective to do so. Both sides of this question are equally important.

Often systems can be expanded, but if this pushes you up against the system maximums, the next round might not be possible. If that is the case, you may want to skip this expansion and replace the head-end with one that has more head room.

In other cases, the expansion of older systems is not cost effective. The older architecture may be expensive to incrementally scale, while a new system can offer greater capacity for less than expanding the old one. This is particularly true with older analog video matrix switches and some access control systems.

Look to preserve as much of the existing infrastructure as possible when making this decision. While the cost of the head-end may not be prohibitive, if all new cabling or other accessory devices are required as well, that may negate any savings. Manufacturers are moving more and more toward platform interoperability, and you should be able to reuse a portion of your existing system or replace it in a later budget cycle.

For example, one CCTV system may require a complete replacement. While campus officials would like this to incorporate everything, including eliminating oversized fixed camera housings and mounts in favor of sleek, miniaturized fixed domes, the image quality is remarkably good, particularly the black-and-white cameras. Because of this, campus officials decide to defer that portion of the system replacement for another year, focusing on upgrading system control and adding digital recording.

New Equipment Features Can Make Your Life Easier
While your system may be working well and have sufficient capability for expansion, it may be lacking features that are needed to effectively run your department. This can range from remote access to video files and system control, to fault tolerance for recorded images and data.

For example, one facility that was migrating from analog to digital recording reported that incident searches were shortened dramatically. This allowed the department to be far more proactive.

Other facilities are looking to do things with their systems that current products simply don’t allow. A university is looking to allow limited access to certain CCTV cameras so prospective students can take virtual tours of their campus while letting parents know they are serious about security. Another organization in a highly regulated environment is looking to improve fail-over provisions to ensure full compliance with all government regulations, including some that are only on the drawing board. In these cases, expansion or repair is usually not an option; replacement of the system, or at least a portion of the system, is required to achieve the desired results.

One caution comes to mind. Security systems are very much like utility type products. They were purchased to perform a specific task, and in many cases they are still doing so reliably and effectively. If the needs haven’t changed, and reliability is not an issue, don’t rush to upgrade software or firmware simply because the manufacturer now offers a newer version.

The old saying “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” comes to mind, and the problem the manufacturer is solving may not apply in your application. They may have released a new version to solve one bug, but do you really want to be the one to discover the new bugs that this “fix” may have created?

Changing Systems May Be Worth the Trouble

One reason to expand or upgrade rather than replace is the pain associated with a system replacement. The concerns (often well-justified) about disruptions to service and the length of time required to perform the change-out often causes public safety directors and other security professionals to defer replacement and nurse the old system along. While there are many reasons (as outlined in this article) to stick with existing systems, applying “band-aids” is not a viable mid- to long-term strategy for several reasons.

First, contrary to popular belief, the conversion to a new system does not have to be a painful process. As part of the RFP process, you can ensure that the integrator you select has done this exact type of work before. If the project management aspect is beyond the skills of your in-house staff, there are consultants and project managers who routinely guide their clients in this direction.

Second, a phased and planned system replacement can be far more cost effective if properly planned. A campus hospital that intends to ultimately move to a fully IP-based CCTV system can start pulling CAT-5e or CAT-6 cable for analog camera additions to its existing system, using UTP to coax converters to allow analog cameras to run over that type of cable. Once the change out is underway, cabling will not be an issue in these locations.

Similarly, the added cooling and UPS power requirements can be factored into data closet and rack room upgrades before the actual equipment is purchased.

Finally, you want to choose the timing. If there’s a danger that your old system will fail — either suddenly or gradually — it is far more cost effective to do a planned replacement than an emergency overhaul. The former involves careful choices and a trade-off of features, staged phasing and budgetary approvals. The latter will cost exponentially more and may not be the appropriate technology or products, instead leaning more toward what was available on short notice.

Click Here to download this article in PDF Format