At this point, many owners of large systems may be shaking their heads with an emphatic “No,” and owners of smaller systems are wondering how much of this detail and documentation is appropriate for them. Sadly, there is little by way of standards in our industry concerning what documentation should be left behind.

The fact is, documenting a system is handled differently by all parties involved and is driven primarily by what the end user requires, demands and is willing to pay for.

Everything Has a Price

If I were looking for one key differentiator used to justify varying bid amounts, it would be in the sophistication and thoroughness of the system documentation included in the bid. A high-end integrator will invariably bid a drawing package with the system that includes signal flow, cable numbering and designations, floor plans with device locations and junction points, and other documents showing the extent and scope of the system installation, customization and programming.

A cost-effective bidder may forgo the expense of creating such a package, assuming they have such capabilities. The package that they present upon system completion is often limited to a cardboard box containing the system manuals, accessory kits and warning sheets advising you not to operate your equipment in the shower or out in the rain for fear of electrical shock.

Let’s assume that all other things – product and installation quality, competence and support – are equal. If the only differentiator in price were the project documentation, what level of detail is appropriate for you? Remember, the reason the well-documented system costs more is simply a function of the labor involved. It takes time and expertise to produce this material and someone will need to pay for it.

Size Matters in Levels of Detail

If we’re talking about a very small system or one with a fairly simple topology, not much documentation is needed. At a minimum, the owner should receive that previously mentioned cardboard box.

A simple line drawing should also be provided showing what went where, and any programming tweaks or customizations should be marked in the appropriate manual. A bill-of material that is reconciled to the system order will prove invaluable down the road when a record of what was installed is needed for repair, expansion or insurance. Finally, a record of serial numbers for all installed equipment is handy. Put all of this material in a file or three-ring binder and save it for that rainy day.

As systems grow larger and more complex, the documentation should ratchet up accordingly. Since its main purpose will be to aid in service or expansion, a good rule of thumb is that the documentation should be a timesaver down the road. Look at everything – system and documentation – as if you were a third party being brought in to review your installation for the first time.

Remember, integrators go out of business and your own support staff may retire or seek employment elsewhere someday. There’s nothing like an accurate written record to get you through such a transition if it’s in your future.

Make Time for Third Party Review

No matter how basic or complex the system documentation is, make sure every word is reviewed by someone other than the person who put it together.

As a consultant, part of the final sign-off on a project is a final review of all as-built drawings, and it is rare that we don’t find a small list of mistakes. These errors can be typos or simple mistakes and are easily chalked up to “human nature.” They are easy to fix as part of the review process. However, if they’re not fixed, transposed numbers aren’t going to jump out at you several years from now. Correcting mistakes in documentation at that point will need to be done the hard way: with ladders, tool belts and an open checkbook.

Robert Grossman has spent more than 15 years in the industry and is president of R. Grossman and Associates (www.tech-answers.com), a consulting group specializing in electronic security products and projects. He can be reached at (609) 926-9264 or rdgrossman@securitysales.com.

Security Sales & Integration 1 November 2004

Download this article in PDF format

How does the end user know who’s competent? With a sales engineer or systems architect, the answer is simple: Engineers and architects are degreed positions, so look for the diploma. But with consultants, it’s not as black and white.

Let’s create our own definition. We’ll stick with Webster as closely as we can: A consultant is a person who gives unbiased professional or expert advice and is beholden only to the person who has hired him.

Still, the advice given by a consultant varies, so let’s explore an advisor’s duties and responsibilities.

Consultants Help Make Decisions

Many vendors will provide design, engineering, installation and project management services as part of a “turn-key” solution. If you’ve selected such a vendor and are confident it will meet your needs, you do not need a consultant.

If there are several vendors involved, comparing their bids is much like comparing apples to oranges. If you believe that you can evaluate their offerings and select the one that best suits your needs, you’re acting as the consultant yourself and don’t need to hire outside help.
But there’s a difference between need and benefit: Many organizations find that there are tangible benefits, both financial and operational, in employing this outside expertise.

Consultants Often Act as Specifiers

A consultant is hired by end users to look at their specific concerns and apply the appropriate technology and operational procedures to accomplish their goals. The objective can be very specific or ethereal, but the end result is generally a specification that details how the problem will be solved. These specifications fall into two categories: functional and performance specifications.

A functional specification describes what a system will do. It is generic in nature and written to allow multiple vendors to apply their specific products. Often, it relies on the lowest common denominator to ensure wider participation between vendors, and may be accompanied by an approved vendor list.

A performance specification is more stringent and describes how the system will work. To accomplish this, a consultant generally has a spe¥cific system in mind, and while others may equal the performance, the criteria are much tighter. This type of specification selects a single vendor “or equal,” and is often the basis for a sole-source procurement agreement.

With either type, the consultant evaluates the options, discusses them with the client and – based on his opinion and expertise – designs a system around the customer’s needs or budget. Sometimes a manufacturer is favored because the consultant has had good experiences and often the installed equipment dictates the add-on products, but there should be no financial incentive for the consultant to choose a particular brand.

The consultant provides this specification in a format that may be sent to multiple vendors, ensuring a competitive bid process. While he helps evaluate the different proposed products to verify their suitability, he also explains the intangibles. Does the integrator have a history of success¥fully completing projects like the client’s? Will the manufacturer support the product for the life of the system? Does the product have a good track record?

“Theory cannot compensate for actual experience,” says Fred Zagurski, of Fred Zagurski Consultants. “Only a consultant from the ‘field’ will know what corners the bidders will try to shortcut, and (he) address these issues in their specifications.”

The consultant also acts as a representative during the construction and commissioning process. He ensures the installed system is the one specified, and will work through the many changes and add-ons that are inevitable side effects of the construction process. Often, a consultant will save his client more than his fees by ensuring the project stays on schedule and within budget.

Integrity, Experience Are Crucial

It’s clear there is no substitute for integrity and experience. To ensure a consultant’s independence, look for someone who is doing it for a living, and is not just “between jobs.” Look for experience with the type of project you are considering. And make sure he has been around long enough to have the reputation, industry contacts and people skills needed to smooth over the rough spots, should it come to that. Remember, your choice in consultant is a lot like a headache remedy – neither does you any good unless it takes away the pain.

Robert Grossman has spent more than 15 years in the industry and is president of R. Grossman and Associates (www.tech-answers.com),
a consulting group specializing in electronic security products and projects.
He can be reached at (609) 926-9264 or rdgrossman@securitysales.com

Security Sales & Integration 1 March 2004

Download this article in PDF format