All for one

Traditionally, security and building management systems (BMS) have been regarded as two separate entities and, as such, have been kept operationally distinct. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that integrating aspects of these two strands – including access control – offers the site owner or end user a far more powerful means of operational control.

Keeping track of the people coming onto a site, when they arrive and when they leave is not just of interest to the security manager. Today, it is of increasing concern to the facilities manager who’s desperately trying to ensure that all of the right building services – whether heating, lighting or cooling systems – are supplied to the people that need them, and when they need them. Knowing that there is a certain number of people in a room at one end of the building, but no-one in another room 50 metres away, can allow the facilities manager to provide heat and light within the occupied location, but not to the empty room.

Put simply, they can save on both energy and money. A great result for the Board!

While it’s true that linking the security and building management systems can be of benefit to the building manager, does that process really offer any benefits to the security systems manager?

Actually, yes it does. Rapid changes within the internal building environment, such as a sharp rise in temperature, would register quickly on a BMS. Indeed, it might be the first indication of a fire. Similarly, occupancy-switched lighting would alert the security manager to a person’s presence in a particular location. The benefits, then, are two-way.

For service providers such as Johnson Controls, the opportunities available to clients through further integration are clear. Customers frequently ask us to meet performance specifications in the most cost-effective way without sacrificing either security or Health and Safety. Security, access and BMS monitor different access of the overall activity on site. While they run separately, the kind of synergies outlined in the examples above cannot easily develop.

As an example of what is already possible, however, we are using BMS as an aid to fire control on a number of our contracts. If a fire breaks out, we can use the air conditioning system controls to stop or even reverse the fans, thus reducing the airflow feeding the fire and bringing it under control.

Convergence… and integration

The way in which technology is now developing is also making convergence and integration a possibility rather than a pipe dream. For example, systems architecture is becoming more and more alike. Distributed intelligence means that more functionality is actually stored by the control devices which are physically connected to individual items of equipment. These are then linked back to the head-end PCs via a local network.

Should the network fail, the controllers will still work on a stand-alone basis until all network links are restored. This adds to ‘system security’, but also reduces the need for duplicate cabling and redundancy strategies.

In the past, the philosophies underpinning security systems and building control differed. Security systems were largely concerned with the management of risk, while building controls were all about maintaining a comfortable working environment. Those philosophies are now beginning to converge

Putting all of the systems on a single network means that they can all be monitored from the same PCs in the central Control Room. As systems have gradually become more user-friendly – and this comment applies equally to security, access and BMS – so developers have adopted common presentation protocols for the operator.

Different priorities in view?

From the end user’s point of view, the displays on the computer screen will look fairly similar. In addition, the responses required to exception points and alarms are also clearly outlined. A BMS alert will require confirmation of the fault, possibly an attempt to reset the control and, if that path doesn’t work, a call-out to an external engineer.

From the security systems perspective the steps taken would be similar, with perhaps a visual check on the problem before security staff (either on-site or external) are dispatched to tackle the problem. For the Control Room staff, there are of course set sequences for dealing with alarms on the different systems. They do not need to be specialist engineers. That is the task of the support services.

So why not have all of the systems available on the same PC, and monitored by the same Control Room personnel?

That is not to say that everyone has equal access rights to all parts of all of the systems. Password protection of different security levels is standard practice for every type of system in this day and age. Levels of admittance to different parts of any system are easy to police, and robust enough to make bypassing very difficult. Of course, Health and Safety legislation will still mean that some items – such as fire alarms, for example – have to remain independent, but these are the exception rather than the rule.

In the past, the philosophies underpinning security systems and building control differed. Security systems were largely concerned with the management of risk, while building controls were all about maintaining a comfortable working environment. Those philosophies are now beginning to converge.

A security review of any given client site will grade the risks to the various functions and facilities. Thus a large computer room processing credit card transactions, for example, will clearly have a higher risk attached to it than a basic storeroom. The BMS and access systems can be used to reduce that risk, though key cards or swipe cards can log entry and exit. Passive infrared presence detectors routed to the BMS for lighting control will also serve to alert Control Room staff of any movement in given areas.

For their part, the BMS environmental controls will help in ensuring that the internal environment remains within acceptable limits – as previously mentioned – in the event of a problem such as a fire scenario. In this case, the BMS can also be used to contain the situation as it arises. In short, risks may be reduced by optimising the interface between all three types of system.

Distributed intelligence means that more functionality is actually stored by the control devices which are physically connected to individual items of equipment. These are then linked back to the head-end PCs via a dedicated local network

It should also be remembered that fire, security, access and BMS all come with a price tag attached. By making the most of the available synergies, not only may the overall site management be improved, but duplication of effort can also be eliminated – with a resultant saving in terms of both capital investment and running costs.

The implications for operators

There will be implications for building owners and operators. Integration does not just ‘happen’. It has to be planned, and planned very thoroughly. The various assessments which would normally be carried out on requirements for different systems will need to be brought together. An assessment of the potential savings to be made from integrating different facets of a given building’s control regime must be made, and this will then have to be set against the potential extra costs of linking the software and control systems.

By way of example, new system architectures may need to be introduced if compatibility is going to be ensured.

Completing this exercise for the first time can be a long and drawn out process. It may well be appropriate for the in-house security professional to make good use of a consultant or specialist service provider with a proven track record in systems integration such that they can map out the different stages involved, the critical paths that must be followed in order to achieve optimum results and the likely timescales and costs.

An initial scooping study should provide some ballpark figures upon which an initial assessment can be made.

Opportunities are being missed

It is often said that many client organisations only use a fraction of the functionality available on their security and building automation systems. The advantage of increased integration is that the systems themselves are able to draw upon the functionalities of the others, delivering more effective asset management. Not only does integration offer savings by cutting out the duplication of hardware and services, it can also offer a ‘productivity bonus’.

One suspects that most security managers’ Board members will be keen on that!