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

“Our work tends to be segmented into two areas: Project-focused services, which include electronic security project design, project documentation and project management and product-focused services including product line strategy management, security product evaluation and testing and security product marketing. The new site is organized to create a better user experience and help prospective clients easily learn about the services that are of particular interest to them,” Grossman said.

Grossman, who has been associated with some of the largest, most complex electronic security projects in the world, has authored numerous articles for electronic security industry publications. “We’ve created a comprehensive security information center on the site with dozens of articles that also serve as case studies for many of RG&A’s client projects,” Grossman said. He noted that his electronic security consulting firm’s client portfolio represents a variety of electronic security solutions including gaming, government, cruise ships, shopping centers, retail malls and sports arenas.

The new site also includes a visual tour of the electronic security firm’s Egg Harbor Township facility. “Our offices are in a converted 100-year-old farmhouse located on wooded acreage that has been certified as a wildlife habitat by the National Wildlife Foundation,” Grossman said. Along with private office space, the facility includes two electronic security product test labs, conference areas and a system training center, which offers classes on CCTV, access control, electronic security systems design and integration, and other related topics.

R. Grossman and Associates, Inc. was founded in 2003 and has a staff of six with a thorough understanding of industry-specific best practices and first-hand knowledge of available electronic security products and technology. The company offers a full range of electronic security consulting services, including system design, documentation, bid support, project management, certification and training. With staff members who are recognized subject matter authorities, RG&A is available to provide security product and business evaluation, system analysis, recommendations, advice and expert testimony for problem resolution as well.

Click here to download in PDF Format

Since Chicago’s archetype Market Square opened in 1916, shopping malls have been synonymous with safety. Their predictability has been a source of security and, for many, a way of life. People exercise at gyms in the morning, attend movies at night; parents use the mall to baby-sit their teenagers; and children visit with Santa and the Easter Bunny, and cavort in play areas.

That feeling of well being doesn’t come without a cost, however, particularly in a post-9/11 world. Malls have repeatedly been identified as potential terrorist targets and make national headlines when troubled individuals decide to take out their rage in such a public place.

So how do you go about securing a facility that at its heart relies on open access and the unimpeded flow of traffic to accommodate shoppers and tenants?

Mall security provides sort of an “umbrella” of protection. The mall is responsible for securing the common, public space, while individual tenants handle their own security. Anchor stores (larger retailers that draw shoppers to the mall) often have elaborate security systems that conform to corporate loss prevention guidelines, with smaller stores running the gamut from locking gates to sophisticated systems of their own.

Defining this umbrella can be tricky. By nature, shopping malls encompass a lot of physical space and there are lots of entry points, some used considerably less frequently than others. There is essentially a back of house labyrinth of corridors that allow retail goods to be transported from the loading dock to each store without being seen by the public.

At any given time there are one or more stores undergoing renovation that necessitate access by workers after hours. And there are a number of electrical and mechanical rooms that must be secured and protected from vandalism, or worse.

Hamilton Mall, a 1 million-square-foot complex in Mays Landing, N.J., 12 miles outside Atlantic City, recently addressed these needs and challenges.

“Safety is the overriding concern,” explains Bill Schu, general manager for Hamilton Mall. “We had been planning on installing video surveillance and alarm point monitoring for some time, but wanted to do it right. It had to enhance the effectiveness of our security team without becoming intrusive to our guests.”

That basic premise would serve as the foundation for the design, planning and execution of a comprehensive video surveillance solution based on a blend of established and newer technology — and do so for less than originally projected.

Past Experience Pays Off

Hamilton Mall is a joint partnership with Simon Properties Group, the largest mall operator in the country, and Kravco Simon Co., a regional mall operator. Our firm had previously done work for King of Prussia Mall, in King of Prussia, Pa., another Kravco Simon property and one of the world’s largest malls (3 million square feet of retail space).

“We take our responsibility for the safety of our customers and the overall property at King of Prussia very seriously and we have invested in both the technology and the people to do that,” says Robert Hart, general manager of the King of Prussia Mall. “One of our primary roles is to protect unauthorized access to the mall after hours. Individual retailers within the mall then further secure their own space in ways that are appropriate to their own needs.”

So we were very familiar with the particular needs of retail shopping malls. At the same time, our experience with gaming-related projects had led us to some innovative features that we tried at King of Prussia and wanted to repeat at Hamilton.

“While our focus is on effective monitoring and protection for the benefit of our customers, tenants and employees, we also need to be mindful of expenditures,” says John Petruzzi, corporate vice president of security for Simon Property Group. “We’re not just buying technology — we’re buying long-term results.”

An Alternative Approach

Armed with an understanding of the unique requirements of shopping malls and a successful installation at a sister property, we sat down with Schu to capture his specific “wish list” of features and functionality. To our surprise, it turned out to be easier than we expected; the mall already had another consultant involved and liked the system that was originally proposed.

The problem: it was a completely IP-based solution that would break the bank.

“I was looking at having to scale back or defer purchasing, and we knew we needed to get this system installed,” says Schu. “We felt there were too many areas that could invite problems, and while we hadn’t had an incident we didn’t want to wait until something happened to act.”

Our goal was to match the image quality, camera count and feature set of the system that had been previously designed. It had to digitally record images for 30 days, allow for remote monitoring, and include an analog matrix switch for real-time (zero latency) command and control of pan/tilt/zoom (p/t/z) cameras. We were to do this by providing top-quality products from major manufacturers, installed by union labor and warranted for three years from system acceptance.

The reduced price had to include our consulting fees as well and — here’s the challenge — had to cost roughly 30-percent less than the previously designed system to meet budgetary targets. To accomplish this, we knew we’d have to get away from the IP-based design provided by the previous consultant. While the price of IP-based video equipment continues to decline, unfortunately the infrastructure costs do not. For a facility as large as Hamilton Mall, IP-based video meant using fiber-optic cable, while a hybrid system meant copper.

We’d preserve future upgradeability by using Cat-5e instead of coaxial cable, locating data junction boxes in areas where they could be converted to an IP backbone and moving camera power supplies to the data junction areas, but we would have to rely on analog video.

The data junction areas would be run back to the central control area via 25-pair Cat-5 cable, a topology we used with great success on other projects. An added benefit: alarm contacts could be run back in the same manner, further reducing infrastructure costs. Analog cameras would also prove more cost effective than IP-based units as well, particularly p/t/z units. At the time the system was designed, the state-of-the-art optical zoom (35x with image stabilization) was only available in analog, and performance would be better; lower latency on analog camera control meant a more responsive joystick as far as the operator was concerned. Fixed cameras were smaller, less costly and more attractive, and all cameras would be viewable live at 30 images-per-second, with no dropped frames, delayed call-up or compression artifacts.

Key Features Prioritized

Once the decision was made to go hybrid, with analog cameras feeding networked DVRs, we started adding back features. Mindful of the budget, we created a specification that included a number of alternates. This would allow us to bid the system to a number of vendors and determine, using actual bid responses, the cost of each feature.

Option packages and enhancements included:

Master evidence server — With the advent of YouTube, an Internet-based repository for amateur videos, there is an ever-increasing need to control security video footage. A centralized, shared hard drive allows any operator to pull a video clip off the DVR and store it on the master evidence server. Without the proper password, the operator can not burn it to a CD or E-mail it to someone, preventing that funny incident in the parking lot from turning into a public relations nightmare.

Part-time p/t/z cameras — By day, when the mall is open, cameras over escalators, elevators and public stairways are fixed on their targets, documenting any “slip-and-fall” incidents for insurance reasons. By providing lower cost dome cameras with limited (8x) optical packages in these positions, we were able to allow the cameras to assist with virtual guard tours during off hours, supplementing the full-performance p/t/z cameras without a major cost impact.

Assignable public view monitors — Since this was a small system, designed for one or two operators, the matrix switch had 16 outputs — 11 more than were needed for control room and office call-up monitors. For the price of some additional monitors, we added outputs in select offices and at the mall information desk, allowing assignable views rather than static displays. A few analog quads (remember them) were fed from matrix outputs and returned through inputs, allowing the viewing of any four cameras at once. Sure, we could do that from the digital workstations, but this low-tech method was more reliable, less costly and tremendously flexible.

Lightning protection — Even though distances did not make it a necessity, all outdoor cameras were to be run using fiber-optic cabling. This optical isolation prevented a strike on an outdoor camera from knocking out any equipment downstream. The mall is on a crest and is the highest point in the area; lightning strikes are inevitable and we wanted to be prepared.

Plan Perfectly Executed

In order to ensure that this project met the cost targets we had imposed on ourselves, planning was critical.

“We’ve had too many projects go over budget because of add-ons and changes, and I didn’t want that to be the case here,” says Schu. “We wanted to know upfront what this would cost — no surprises.” The only way to do that was to carefully document every facet of the system design, allowing the integrator a crystal-clear picture of what it was getting into. We walked the facility several times with Security Director Nick Laiso and Regional Engineering Manager Bill Kirner, and logged every comment. While a few things are always missed, the cost impact on this project was minimal.

The installation went smoothly as well. We had worked before with the integrator selected for the job, Westville, N.J.-based Arose Inc. Project Manager Larry Shirley understood our passion for neat wiring and well-documented installations.

“We always try and get it right the first time,” he says, “but knowing what is expected of you certainly makes that easier to achieve. It was nice having a project that was well planned in advance, and working as a team to make the customer happy instead of doing ‘field engineering.’”

System Benefits Hit Home

Ultimately the system was delivered on budget, with all of the required features and then some. The digital back-end provided by the DVRs will allow a host of additional features, including remote viewing and control, and the ability for an Internet-based “Santa Cam” next holiday season. Camera coverage of the parking lots is better than expected, and the security guards will have to go to the gym more as they tour the mall more with their fingers and less with their feet.

This system’s real benefit, however, hit this author personally. As a consultant used to working on projects around the country, the impact of the system design is rarely personal. But Hamilton Mall is my local mall and, with two teenage children, I appreciate the added sense of safety that this system provides.

Click Here to download this article in PDF Format

R. Grossman and Associates, Inc., a New Jersey based electronic security consulting firm is pleased to announce the addition of Robert G. Sprague and Susan Procovic to their team.

Mr. Sprague joins the firm as a Consultant/Project Manager. In keeping with their “hands on” style of consulting, his extensive background as an integrator and end user will be a tremendous asset to the firm. He has previously worked for Security Services and Technology, Edge Security, and in various gaming facilities in Atlantic City, including ten years with the Trump organization. He is trained and certified as a locksmith and has extensive experience with access control, CCTV, and other low voltage systems.

Susan Procovic will serve as Operations Manager, responsible for project scheduling, tracking, and workflow management. With experience in administration and traffic management at Smith, O’Keefe and Associates, a large advertising agency, Susan will help manage the growth of the firm, ensuring that all aspects of project design, documentation and administration are completed on schedule and to the satisfaction of RG&A’s clients.

“Our two new staff members add significant capacity to our firm as we continue to grow,” explains Bob Grossman, President and founder of RG&A. “Robert is an experienced consultant who has hit the ground running, while Susan provides the skills needed to help manage our workload and increase our efficiency. While our technical capabilities are important to our clients, attention to deadlines and details are just as critical.”

On a more somber note, Americo DiPrinzio who joined the firm as a Consultant/Technical Specialist in February of 2008 has unexpectedly been called back to active duty and redeployed by the New Jersey National Guard. “We are sorry to temporarily lose Rico but have committed to keeping his job open and look for forward to his return,” comments Grossman. “The addition of Robert and Susan will ensure that there are no interruptions in our workflow.”

I just read Bob Dolph’s feature, “Sensorship That Makes Sense” (see February issue) and I wanted to thank you for your kind mention of our products. I especially appreciated that our products were properly presented as event-based video instead of surveillance. Obviously, you do understand what need Videofied is attempting to fill.

You might want to look at our new outdoor product line, which is especially targeting copper theft. If you go to www.coppertheft.info, you can actually see a real apprehension if you click on “Catching a Copper Thief in the Act” button in the top left. It will show a series of five videos that are very compelling.

KEITH JENTOFT, President
RSI Video Technologies
White Bear Lake, Minn.

RESIDENTIAL ARTICLE ON THE MARK

I just got around to reading Managing Editor Rodney Bosch’s “Magnifying the Path to Residential Success” article in the January issue and really enjoyed it. It was a great job and provided really good information.

SCOTT HOLMAN, Product Manager
Security Potter/Amseco St. Louis

CASINO CCTV CABLING CONUNDRUM

I am not ashamed to say I have no experience installing an aerial RG59 cable for a parking lot p/t/z camera installation. My manager ordered and received two 1,000-foot aerial RG59 cable reels. I am tasked with finding out how to install this cable and connect it to a p/t/z camera (Pelco Spectra IV). It will be a home-run back to a Pelco CM9760 matrix system.

The cable run will only be approximately 450 feet. I am hoping you can provide me with the knowledge to accomplish this task. Thank you in advance for any assistance you can give.

SAMUEL BELL, CCTV Technician Manager
Kickapoo Lucky Eagle Casino
Eagle Pass, Texas

SOUND BITES

“We will diligently defend against any ordinance that significantly impacts response times to emergency fire signals.”
Stan Martin, Executive Director
Security Industry Alarm Coalition (SIAC)

“The end users drive this [open system architectures], not the manufacturers.”
John Moss, CEO S2 Security Corp.

“We’ve never met a school administrator who thought having security was a bad idea. The challenge is finding the money.”
Bill Ford, Vice President
Education Sonitrol Corp.

CONTRIBUTING TECHNICAL WRITER ROBERT GROSSMAN RESPONDS:

Don’t be concerned about a lack of knowledge in running aerial RG59 cable for a parking lot camera. Particularly in casino installations, it isn’t done very often.

The reasons for not doing it are, first and foremost, that it can be easily sabotaged. An extendable tree-trimming saw can easily cut the wire, circumventing camera coverage. Second, if the camera is powered at the pole, you are likely to get 60Hz ground noise since the equipment in the building will have a different earth ground. Our preferred method for such cameras would be to run underground fiber-optic cable. This has the added benefit of eliminating the danger of a lightning strike taking out the rest of the equipment.

However, if you must run aerial cable, I would stay away from RG59. First of all, the aerial RG59 cable you purchased is likely designed for CATV installations, with a copper-clad steel center conductor (for strength) and an aluminum shield (for the higher frequencies found in CATV, or cable TV signals). If this is the case, it will likely be very susceptible to noise and interference.

You’d be better off using a twisted pair cable and UTP baluns, such as those provided by Nitek, NVT, Pelco, or other manufacturers. They will eliminate the grounding issue and you can use communications-grade cable (such as that used by the telephone company), which is extremely rugged and will hold up well. It is often bonded to a steel wire for strength and they make strain reliefs to support the cable.

As far as the physical installation, you’ll need to contact the cable manufacturer or an experienced phone company installer for specific tricks and tips. I suspect that a cash payment will get the job done quickly and professionally, without the learning curve.

www.securitysales.com • MAY 2008

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

Detailed in a recent newspaper article, the city’s 68-camera system routinely fails to provide video streams capable of being used for evidence that could lead to arrests.

City officials told the San Francisco Chronicle the cameras, many of which are deployed on high-crime street corners, achieve only 80 percent of the resolution they are capable of, and that they generate, at best, two to four frames per second because the city lacks the data storage space to accommodate more footage.

However, neither the cameras nor the data storage are likely to be the true culprits of the faulty system, says Robert Grossman, president of R. Grossman and Associates, a consulting company specializing in project-based work for large integrated systems.

Paint a bulls-eye on the network infrastructure or better yet, the person who designed the system says Grossman, who learned about the city’s video woes after reading the recent newspaper article.

Some cameras are getting decent frame rates while other cameras in other areas aren’t, which points me away from storage and more toward network design, says Grossman. To me it is clearly a bandwidth issue.

San Francisco’s beleaguered 30-month -old surveillance program is a prime example of the huge responsibility systems integrators, specifiers and consultants assume when taking on a project. While the article never discussed who designed or installed the system, Grossman says the responsible parties should have warned the city its network infrastructure would not be capable of providing sufficient frame rates.

The integrator had to know this wasn’t going to work right and should have warned the city about the repercussions of this design, he says.

The surveillance system, which so far amounts to $900,000, includes megapixel cameras manufactured by San Juan Capistrano, Calif.-based IQinVision.

Whoever integrated this system just loused it up, IQinVision President Peter DeAngelis tells SSI. They didn’t necessarily listen to the customer and determine what their needs for the system were.

The city has budgeted an additional $200,000 for 25 more cameras, the newspaper reported.

The message in all of this is if you have a problem project, then raise the red flag or don’t take the project, Grossman says.

www.securitysales.com March 2008