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

I’ve often used the saying, “95 percent of a good job is a bad job.” That means that it’s the last 5 percent that determines success or failure. There are many reasons for this:

• The details are what everyone understands. They may not know whether you used the right kind of cable, but they know whether you labeled each end. The servers may function perfectly, but if there’s a little LED on the front panel that is blinking continuously, it will drive many people crazy. Handwritten labels on masking tape, trash left behind, no equipment manuals – all of these are things that the client can understand and can fix. Why didn’t the integrator?
• The tip of the iceberg. If the integrator missed these simple and obvious things, what else did they miss? This turns into a trust issue. It’s hard to trust that the things you can’t see and can’t understand are OK when the things you can see and can understand are deficient.
• What will happen if something breaks? Again, the issue of trust and confidence comes into play. If it took the integrator this long to clean up after itself, what is its attention to detail going to be like when something breaks? Can you trust that the integrator will show up on time, send things out under warranty, and replace them promptly?

Of course, there’s a positive side to this equation if the integrator is prepared to step up to the task. Even if there have been problems during the installation, including the product not working or missed deadlines, you can be redeemed. A dedicated effort to finish the job, with incredible focus on every detail, will pull you out of almost every penalty box. Problems will be forgiven, and the account will usually result in a reference from the client. Sadly, we see too few integrators take advantage of this aspect of a project. As a result, companies are often dragged down as they struggle to complete things and move on.

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

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

There is nothing average about Galleria Dallas. Under a magnificent barrel-vaulted glass skylight, the visitor experience is one of a casual city street replete with shopping, cafes, seating and people watching. To ensure the safest possible environment, Galleria Dallas’ proactive management decided to upgrade the facility’s electronic security including the move to IP-based video surveillance.

The action was initiated without the all-too-typical presence of a precipitating event or upward crime trend forcing the decision. Rather the comfort and security of visitors took center stage, and the upgrade was part of a longstanding trend in strategic thinking on the part of management.

“We want people — guests, employees and visitors — to feel that they have arrived at a safe environment,” explains Angie Freed, general manager of Galleria Dallas. “And knowing that the feeling of security and safety is the No. 1 reason people cite in visiting or not visiting a shopping center, we want to make sure they choose us.”

Galleria Dallas already had CCTV located throughout the shopping center, but management wanted to do more and allocated funds for an upgrade. Egg Harbor Township, N.J.-based consulting firm R. Grossman and Associates Inc. (RG&A) was hired to survey the facility, offer recommendations and assess proposals already in hand.

“We wanted an outside expert to evaluate our systems, make suggestions, and make sure we were moving in the right direction,” explains Earl Morgan, director of security for the property and an Andrews Int’l employee. “We are not experts in this; it’s not what we live and breathe every day,” adds Freed.

The scope of the project would entail helping safeguard the complex’s 1.9 million square feet of retail space and more than 200 retail shops. There is also a four-story glassed-in structure featuring an ice skating rink that is home to the nation’s tallest indoor Christmas tree, 10,000 garaged parking spaces and a 4,300-square-foot, award-winning Children’s Play Place.

Following is a first-hand account of how consultant, integrator and end user forged a rock-solid collaborative union to deliver the best possible security design, installation and final solution. The endeavor would prove the axiom that planning pays off, and include hundreds of cameras, several hundred terabytes of data storage, 90,000 feet of conduit in the parking garage alone, and a total cost in excess of $1 million. (Editor’s note: This project’s nondisclosure agreements bar revealing precise equipment locations and quantities.)

Design Calls for IP Cameras, VMS

It was against this backdrop that RG&A set out to design and specify the system. After two site visits and extensive exploration of the massive property, a scope of work was defined and a specification was created around a “wish list.”

“Anytime you are dealing with a project with a fixed budget, there are a number of ambiguities,” says Robert Sprague, RG&A consultant/project manager assigned to Galleria Dallas. “On the one hand, you want to get your client exactly what they’re looking for. On the other, you need to be mindful of the budget; if your design goes over [budget], you don’t want to go to the expense of rebidding the project. And it’s not fair to put the integrators through that.”

The center initially had a number of analog cameras in public areas. These were recorded on GE/Kalatel DVRs installed in data closets located strategically around the property and linked via a fiber-optic backbone. The DVRs handled storage of the recorded images while a Genetec video management system (VMS) was used to view and play back recorded images from a central command center. There were no cameras in the parking garages and the initial focus of the design was to add complete coverage of the 10,000 parking spaces, and redesign the command center to handle the added workload.

As a standard course of business, RG&A designs projects with a base system and a number of option packages or alternates. The base system is the minimum functionality required, and the options traditionally enhance performance or add features.

In the case of Galleria Dallas, the base system included the parking garage cameras and associated storage and video management. Options included the new command center; added coverage for the interior of the shopping center; increased recorded retention time from the baseline; moving all of the existing cameras off of the DVRs and onto the new system; and replacement of the emergency callbox system. The last option was initially going to be a separate project but the prospect of labor savings compelled management to act sooner.

After replacing the existing DVRs with encoders in the data closets throughout the shopping center, Robert Tabbara (left) and Brian Heldreth of 911 Security review the transition plan to clean up the temporary wiring without causing any system downtime.

In all, 13 bids were received from nine different integrators. In fact, the initial system design had been specified as analog cameras with IP encoders to minimize the cost of replacing vandalized cameras, in case that became a problem in the parking garages. Galleria Dallas stakeholders had mixed feelings about going analog (the “future-proof” nature of a fully IP-based system was appealing) and it was ultimately an alternate proposal that won out.

The project, including all of the specified option packages, was awarded to Dallas-based 911 Security Cameras (911). With 47 employees in four offices (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Baton Rouge, La.), 911 was established in 2007. Today the business realizes 80 percent of its revenues from video surveillance and the balance from access control projects.

“We feel this is a great advantage because it really separates us from the competition,” says 911 President Robert Tabbara. “The whole company — techs, sales, support staff — are really knowledgeable about these products. Consequently we are able to evaluate products, get hands-on experience, and become certified on a tremendous depth of products within that market niche. We are certified on seven brands of video management systems and have dealt with almost every kind of camera out there, so we know what to promote and what to avoid.”

The integrator had proposed a fully IP-based system that included high-end products with familiar brand names where appropriate (e.g. Cisco networking, Dell computers, Winsted console), as well as a lesser-known make (ACTi) of fixed cameras.

“I was initially unfamiliar with that brand,” says T. Riley Pierce, senior consultant for RG&A and the person responsible for evaluating substitutions on the project. “911 sent us a sample and we actually had it installed at another site with similar lighting and environmental conditions. But it was the independent feedback from another integrator that pushed me over the edge.”

RG&A leases a warehouse on its property to integrator Pro Video Engineering. When Pierce asked Pro Video’s Tim Longnecker what kind of IP cameras he was using, he responded ACTi without even being prompted. “He had such a large installed base over a long period that we had no problem moving forward with the substitution,” adds Pierce.

Throughout the value engineering phase there were a number of suggestions made by 911 that further refined the system. RG&A’s philosophy is that there is no room for egos on a project. The consultant believes the overriding imperative is providing the client with the best system within their design and budgetary constraints. Hence, all good ideas should be discussed and evaluated.

That sentiment was echoed by both Morgan and Denise Witry, operations director at Galleria Dallas. “We feel it was a good three-way marriage, if you will,” says Witry.

Other equipment manufacturers involved in the project included APC, Panasonic, Salient and Talk-A-Phone.

Solving Power, Cabling Challenges

The level of planning, combined experience of the team, and proximity of the site to 911′s Dallas office made this a relatively painless installation.

Brian Heldreth, project manager for 911, is also a licensed electrician and his extensive experience with larger electrical projects proved helpful. “We ran 90,000 feet of metal pipe in three weeks,” he says. “And throughout all of that, we stayed out of the way completely, with no disturbance to customers or operations.”

A major contributor to things proceeding so smoothly was the level of cooperation between Galleria Dallas and 911. “I can’t think of any time we impacted their ability to complete their work. And a lot of this was happening during the [Thanksgiving and Christmas] holidays, and it was all pretty seamless,” says Witry.

One area where the consultant’s specification made things a little more difficult was the insistence on a dedicated power wire rather than using power over Ethernet (PoE) technology. RG&A had concerns about the cable distances involved, voltage drop and cameras that would draw more power in the future.

Ryan Armstrong (left), crew leader and Josh Davis, senior technician, work on camera and conduit installation after Dallas Galleria operating hours. While the initial intent was to minimize disruption to the shopping center, the off-hours work sped up installation dramatically as it presented a safe and obstacle-free environment that would have been difficult to achieve with heavy traffic in these areas

A team of a dozen 911 employees was assigned to the project, with four subcontracted personnel handling the fiber pull and termination. The team worked from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. during the conduit installation, cable pull and camera-mounting phase to minimize disruptions.

Tabbara spent about 15 percent of his time onsite making sure things went according to plan and that his people were supported properly. “I like to stay close to the customers and make sure that I hear any complaints or things that could be going wrong. Getting real feedback to make sure we are on schedule is critical, and I also want to be close to my guys. If there are any problems, I can solve them pretty quickly.”

Although the installation phase came off without any especially challenging hurdles or nagging problems, Sprague highlights a few small issues that cropped up.

“Sure, there were the usual changes and improvements,” he says. “There were plans initially to put the IDF points in air-conditioned cabinets in the garage because of the Texas heat, but we felt that would be a failure point once we got past the three-year warranty period. We decided to go with hardened switches and fiber-optic modules that could withstand these environmental conditions and 911 selected ComNet, a relatively new entrant in this field. We looked at them closely and were impressed with the product and the people behind it and it has worked out well.”

Similar problems – though relatively minor – concerning command center layout, rack locations, camera positioning and other issues were worked out quickly and efficiently. A communication practice RG&A has deployed on projects for quite a while worked out particularly well.

“We create an E-mail address for every project,” says RG&A Office Manager Terri Timmons, who handles project communications. “Any messages sent to that address automatically forward to a list of project contacts, including the client and our own people. Once the project is awarded, the integrator adds their people to the list, and if there’s an architect or general contractor we add them as well. It really simplifies things, as no one gets left out. You just send an E-mail to one address and it goes to all the right people.”

Director of Security Earl Morgan walks the shopping center, shown here talking to Dallas Police Sr. Corporal Jeff Ell. 'It is important to visualize the coverage area in person while looking at the cameras,' says Morgan. 'The best way to do that is to review the areas in person, on a regular basis.'

So how is the system working? Galleria Dallas personnel weren’t surprised with the coverage. “We had walked every square inch of the parking garage, so coverage was exactly what we expected,” says Morgan. Asking him about the possibility of adding cameras elicits a smile. “Right now coverage is so good it is hard to imagine where we could possibly need more cameras. I’m sure that once we’ve been working with it for a while we will make some minor tune-ups and adjustments.”

But the real surprise he says was the ease of use: “The other day I had two other security officers with me and I wanted to see how easy it was to go back and review some footage. I asked the operator to show me a review, and she made a couple of mouse clicks — 1 second, 5 seconds, 20 seconds, 30 seconds — she went right where she needed to go and hit ‘play.’ Video popped right up and that’s with no training.”

Other advantages are being realized as well. From an operational standpoint, as the management team continues to get familiarized with the new capabilities, they are looking forward to being able to view cameras from their offices and performing virtual walkthroughs of the facility. Cameras near emergency call boxes will allow security staff to evaluate the situation before dispatching someone and eliminate false alarms. And on the rare occasion when crime does occur they will be able to help law enforcement catch the criminal, which is a powerful deterrent in itself.

Witry sums it up nicely: “You know, from an operations standpoint I have 19 million people who travel in and out of this shopping center on an annual basis. If our security programs — CCTV, call boxes, patrols, bikes, vehicles — provide them with a feeling or perception of safety, and they can go home and say, ‘My visit to Galleria Dallas was just phenomenal from beginning to end,’ it’s something to be proud of.”

Read the original article on the Security Sales & Integration website

Download this article in PDF format – ‘Shopping Center Steps Up Its Security – Security Sales & Integration’

“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

Aaron Zebrook wrote questioning the wisdom behind the proprietary nature of certain systems, and the willingness of consultants to cut and paste from manufacturers’ specifications (my words, not his). I liked his comment that this approach is “akin to shooting a fly with a shotgun.” Often the products have limited distribution as well, effectively boxing certain integrators out of the bid opportunity.

I have two thoughts in response to this. First, I am not a big fan of proprietary systems. We’ve had too many clients get boxed into systems where manufacturers were acquired, support suffered, or they just didn’t keep their promises. It’s expensive ripping out and replacing systems, both in terms of pain and cost. Fortunately, this is becoming less and less of a factor with IP video systems as the hardware, edge devices and infrastructure are becoming more interchangeable. Unfortunately, the practice is alive and well in the access control arena of which Mr. Zebrook speaks. I profess to having no expertise in fire systems and cannot speak to his assertion that it’s a problem there as well.

Our firm has found a solution to this problem for our access control systems that works well for our clients; we specify products that work with panels made by the OEM manufacturer Mercury Security Corp. At last account, Mercury made the panels used by more than 15 access control systems manufacturers including Honeywell and Lenel. This means that with a firmware upgrade and software change out, the system becomes a different brand without the forklift upgrade. To my knowledge, this is currently the only way to have an “open” system in access control, and it’s not really open — it just has a lager proprietary pool to draw from. But to Mr. Zeebrook’s point, it is easy to provide an “or equal” in this manner and our clients benefit from a more competitive bid process.

My second thought speaks to feature bloat, and again Mr. Zebrook raises an excellent point. The fact is that most manufacturers repeatedly add features and complexity, whether they are needed or not. I understand that it is easier to add features to a common software platform than to customize systems, but we truly see some arcane features that have limited value to the majority of the customer base. We try to specify only the features that are needed on all products to make it easier to provide equivalent substitutions, and we avoid the temptation to cut and paste the entire A&E specification provided by a manufacturer. If we don’t want an “or equal” we would rather just say that, so prospective integrators don’t waste their time. But I fear there are a limited number of firms that do this, and perhaps more shotguns than fly swatters out there.

Click Here to Read the Original Article

Loren Dupree wrote: “…I have had many bid situations where I have responded thoroughly and timely and lost the bid. When I have asked for feedback, I was not given any information at all. I feel that if a consultant is willing to accept your bid response, he/she should realize they have a responsibility to provide feedback to the losing bidders when requested.”

When we write RFP’s, we tell prospective bidders what our evaluation criteria are up front. We also tell them that we will not be able to provide information to them as to why their bid was rejected, except in those rare cases where we are permitted to discuss this with them. But in most cases, our client prohibits that type of review — and rightfully so.

There are many reasons for this, but I believe the most prevalent is time. Our clients are busy and they don’t have time to defend their decisions to all of the bidders who were unsuccessful. It takes more time than you’d think because many people don’t take criticism and feedback well. When working with the U.S. Postal Service, we conducted a number of debriefings with unsuccessful bidders. Even with ground rules spelled out clearly up front, many bidders felt this was an appeal, an opportunity to plead their case, or a chance to take a shot at the successful bidder (“You’ll be sorry…”). After a lengthy bid process, the end user wants to move on with the project, not continuously defend their decision to people who have a vested interest in disagreeing with it.

So this brings it back to the consultant, as Mr. Dupree suggests. If our client tells us we can’t discuss it, that’s often the end of the story. We’re paid for our time, and we need to maintain the trust of our client. Both of those reasons will ordinarily prohibit us from providing a candid response to a third party. But there’s a way around this, and it may be easier than you think.

Try giving the consultant a call. Tell him/her you were an unsuccessful bidder on the XYZ project and you would like to speak off the record and not specifically about that particular project. Tell the consultant that you value his/her opinion, explaining that you would like to bid on future projects and hopefully win them. You will agree not to contest the bid or object in any way, and you certainly won’t make an effort to go around the consultant by speaking to the client. You just want to know, in general or specific terms, what you can do to improve your bid. In turn, you are willing to provide constructive criticism on his/her RFP — well, maybe leave that last part out.

In this manner you are appealing to the consultant’s ego – everyone likes to be asked his/her opinion. You are agreeing not to be a pest, and your willingness to improve will ultimately benefit the consultant. If they have no criticism, you lost the bid because of price and/or a preferred vendor was on the inside track. If they are willing to talk, it’s OK to ask for clarification, but don’t argue. Remember, you asked for an opinion. You don’t want to talk someone out of his/her own opinion. And if you think the consultant is an idiot, don’t bother. His/her opinion won’t help you anyway.

Click Here to Read the Original Article

While everyone was happy to get away from feeding tapes to VCR’s, the digital replacement is not without an appetite of its own. First and foremost are the environmental requirements: power, dust, and cooling. While VCR’s were fairly forgiving (if power dropped out you needed to hit the record button again), digital video systems are an amalgamation of computers. They need stable power or they’ll have to reboot to come back to life. And a digital system crashing because of an unexpected shutdown can damage the recorded files, creating gaps in coverage or, worse, making previously recorded video disappear.

Digital systems also need to be kept cool and dust free. If not, they will often still run, but the reliability will suffer and the hard drives will fail sooner. Keeping the filters clean, ensuring that there is proper ventilation, and observing the manufacturers environmental temperature requirements is a must.

Keep in mind that, no matter how good the power is, and even in the cleanest and coolest of environments, the mechanical components of a digital system will fail over time. This is a predictable occurrence, and proper maintenance can lengthen that useful life considerably, but you are better off planning for this and being proactive than waiting for your system to fail with unpredictable results.

These mechanical items are the new consumables. Hard drives typically start to fail in three years, while fans can last forever or fail anytime depending on the quality of the fan. If you are otherwise comfortable with the DVR or NVR, why not proactively replace the hard drives and fans before they fail? It’s less costly if you do it as part of a maintenance plan; you can cycle the units through when there’s no critical footage to be lost and you won’t have the downtime usually incurred by emergency repairs.

A word about hard drive replacements: Enterprise. There are two types of hard drives; consumer models and enterprise rated. Consumer-level drives are also fine in commercial desktops, or anywhere that they will only be written to and read from intermittently. In applications where the hard drives are in constant use such as DVR’s and servers, an enterprise-rated drive will last at least twice as long and will not cost twice as much. There aren’t as many to choose from and capacities tend to be smaller, but they are worth the extra investment. A consumer drive will work just as well, so feel free to run to Best Buy and pick one up for an emergency replacement. Just be sure and swap it out at the earliest possible occasion.

The other maintenance issue that concerns digital systems is software maintenance. There appears to be a continuous cycle of software upgrades and improvements, and sometimes it feels like an upgrade treadmill. Before you buy into that and start endlessly tinkering with your software, keep in mind that, in many ways, the products in our industry are utility devices that must work and work reliably. While the manufacturer may continuously add features, once things are set up and running smoothly many people would prefer to leave well enough alone. So, when we hear of improvements, bug fixes, and maintenance releases, sometimes you need to read further before automatically hitting the upgrade button. Very often the software fix breaks something else, and going back to the way it was isn’t always an option. The old adage “if it isn’t broken, don’t fix it” often applies here.

Remember, unlike your personal computer, your digital video system is a closed system. It won’t be surfing the Web, clicking on dubious sites, or running new applications. It will be recording images, alerting you to motion, and doing other mundane tasks day in and day out. While many upgrades and improvements are essential for security, reliability and performance, others may add features you don’t need at a cost you’re not prepared to pay. Think about that next time you’re contemplating jumping on the upgrade treadmill!

While this article is just scratching the surface, in general the care and feeding of a properly designed and installed digital video system is far less complex and more predictable then the older tape based systems. It is not completely maintenance free but should be fairly reliable and free of surprises. If you’re doing all the right things and you find that your system is still prone to failures, look for deeper problems relating to manufacturer quality, suitability to the task, installation issues, or – the most common one we have found – a poorly designed network. Otherwise, enjoy the extra space that getting rid of all those old VHS cassettes has gained you!

Click Here to download this article in PDF Format