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 didn’t attend ASIS 2011, and I suspect many of you didn’t either. No, I didn’t boycott the show, and I think it’s a great industry event. But, like you, I have had to focus on why I attend trade shows and how many of them I need to attend. Money doesn’t grow on trees, but that’s not entirely it. Time doesn’t grow on trees either, and I find that is often the more difficult sacrifice.

I attend trade shows, first and foremost to see what’s new, what has improved, and determine trends and directions that allow me to guide our clients. I look at large manufacturers and small ones, touch products, and try to judge what is “real.” I compare my notes to previous years, to see who keeps their promises and who specializes in “vaporware”. I also get a good feel as to how many manufacturers are offering similar products to gain a better understanding of what is truly unique.

Networking is also important. I look for old friends, meet new ones, and put a face to the people I’ve talked to over the phone throughout the year. Many of the names are familiar, even though the business cards and logos shuffle around a bit. No one admits to listening to gossip, but this rich current of information and speculation has been the source of many truths and half-truths over the years.

Training classes and workshops are also important. There are no other learning opportunities that are as varied in depth and breadth than the education programs offered at ASIS and SIA events and others. There truly is something there for everyone, you’re never too old to learn — stop learning, and you’ll get old quickly.

But enough is enough. For me, I have found that one major industry show a year is plenty. The stories, products, and business cards don’t change often enough for me to justify more than that. So I’m looking forward to ISC West in Las Vegas in the spring. And I only missed the excitement of ASIS a little bit…

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

“Mystic Lake Casino is known for gambling, concerts and buffets, but it’s also known for having one of the best surveillance systems in the world.

Mystic Lake Casino surveillance experts watched over the Prior Lake casino. Tribal officials have installed the latest technology, typically used by police, at the casino, and they’re helping to nab bank robbers and solve crimes…

‘In our experience, Mystic Lake stands alone in terms of video surveillance, and not just in comparison to other Native American casinos,” said security expert Robert Grossman.

He was a consultant for a $10 million overhaul of Mystic Lake’s surveillance system in 2005, when he called it “one of the most sophisticated surveillance systems in the world.’

The tribe has since invested in more surveillance, including the license-plate-recognition system installed last fall, but officials won’t disclose how much was spent on upgrades for the resort complex.

Grossman said Mystic is more effective at protecting games than any other casino his firm has worked with, including casinos in Las Vegas, Atlantic City and around the globe…”

Click to read the full article here – Mystic Lake’s Gold Standard

or

Download in PDF format – Mystic Lake’s Gold Standard

The four that should raise few objections (and will likely earn some praise) include limiting support to authorized dealers (with some exceptions), adding support personnel, offering factory support in a number of areas, and upgrading its phone system to accommodate call-backs and appointments. While I certainly don’t want to take away from the significance of these points, particularly when you consider they are adding people at a time when other firms are cutting costs, there’s nothing groundbreaking here. A number of other companies offer similar services and have for some time.

But one of the things it mentions is “paring of support for obsolete equipment.” Doing this frees up resources to support current product and improves support by reducing wait times.

I can hear the objections rising, and if you are expecting me to jump on the bandwagon and criticize them for this move, you’re — wrong. In fact, I applaud them for being up front about this, instead of doing what so many other companies do. It sure seems like the industry standard is to claim you support obsolete product when in fact there’s no one on staff who has ever even seen this older equipment.

Assuming the plan for eliminating support is reasonable, and that the definition of “obsolete equipment” is one we all agree upon, this company joins other high-end firms that have a support lifecycle policy. Microsoft is notable for publicizing this well in advance; their policy can be seen at http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifepolicy. It’s been known to make exceptions, as I am sure the company in question will, but Microsoft recognizes that there’s a point where it would be better for all if it replaced the product and stopped nursing things along.

I am reminded of a phone call I received when I was responsible for tech support at a large CCTV manufacturer. The end user called me to complain that he couldn’t get parts to repair his 17-year old pan/tilt/zoom (p/t/z) camera. “It’s working great,” he said, “and I could keep it going forever if you guys still sold parts.” He was upset that we no longer had the parts in stock and wouldn’t make new ones for him, despite the fact that this was a 15-inch dome camera in a 7-inch dome camera world.

“How about if the camera had died after 15 years and was unrepairable?” I asked him. “Would you consider a 15-year lifespan good for this type of product?”

“Sure,” he replied. “Fifteen years is more than I ever got from one of your competitors’ products.”

“But you got 17 years and you’re unhappy because you can’t get a few more, since we no longer have parts left for this product.”

“That’s right!” he exclaimed. And went right back to complaining about parts availability.

Sometimes you just can’t win. But I admire this company for their honesty – and for taking the high road.

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

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 two biggest shows — at least in the United States — are ISC West in the Spring and ASIS in the Fall. While ASIS is historically an end user show and ISC West a dealer/integrator event, in practice, the functions are similar. Both are great networking opportunities, offer a wide variety of products to see, and include extensive training sessions and educational panels. So why choose one over the other? For me, it’s simple. ISC West is held in Las Vegas each year, while ASIS changes cities annually. Sometimes the ASIS venue is great, sometimes not, but Las Vegas is always the premier convention destination with inexpensive flights and hotel rooms, plenty to do after hours, and the comfort of familiarity.

That being said, the show this year, at least for me, was more about what wasn’t there than what was. If 2010 was the year of incremental improvement, 2011 was the year of the copycat. With very few exceptions, I didn’t see much that was new, but I did see a wide distribution of a narrow set of ideas.

Take media converters for example. Last year there were a small number of companies making these devices — essentially black boxes that take one kind of signal and turn it into another, converting it back at the other end. There were converters that send Ethernet over fiber optic cable, Ethernet over coaxial cable, Ethernet over CAT3 UTP, Ethernet range extenders, wireless Ethernet. If you’re like me, you see a pattern emerging. There were Ethernet network switches, power over Ethernet (PoE) injectors, you name it — and every third booth was showing it. I think there were more RJ45 connectors than there were escort service solicitations at the show this year, but maybe that’s just my perception.

My point is that none of this was new. Almost everything we saw was there last year, just in fewer booths, flavors and colors. It was almost as if everyone spent 2010 looking at the competition, and this year everyone essentially became the competition.

In some ways, this is good. There are more choices as to vendors, more mature products, and more competition means better pricing and support. With little to copy this year, manufacturers better put their thinking caps on or there won’t be much to show next year.

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