All together now

Before starting work on any major project, and even before submitting a tender, security installers have an important decision to make – is it best to go with separate systems for CCTV, access control and intruder detection, or would an integrated system be a better solution?

More and more often this decision is, of course, taken out of the installer's hands, because an integrated system is a requirement of the specification. However, let's suppose for a moment that this isn't the case. What are the arguments for and against integration?

Probably the biggest plus-point for an integrated solution is acceptability to the end user. These days, very few end users are, for example, willing to accept the need to use separate display monitors for each aspect of their security installation – what they want is the convenience of one central point. But convenience is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of the benefits that integrated systems can offer: integration opens up a whole range of new and useful possibilities.

For example, it makes it very easy to provide interaction between a card-swipe or other access control device and a nearby CCTV camera, allowing the camera to monitor the access point every time it is used. The recorded images are particularly useful if an unauthorised person attempts entry.Interaction with the building management system (BMS) can also be provided. Why not use the PIR detectors fitted for intruder detection to determine whether or not a room is occupied and in use? If it isn't, a signal from the detectors to the BMS can turn out lights and reduce the heating – a potentially huge saving to the end-user.

Then there's the cost of the installation. Compared with separate systems, an integrated solution invariably involves far less cabling, which can not only reduce spend on materials, but also on expensive on-site labour. The overall time to install the system is also less, an important consideration in an era when tight completion dates are a feature of almost every project.

Further, the amount of system hardware required may well be reduced. Instead of equipping the security room with separate monitors for CCTV, access control and intruder detection, for example, the same monitors may be used for all of these functions. Hardware savings can often also be made on control units, terminal boxes and the like.

Installer benefits

Most of the benefits so far discussed principally concern the end user, but what's in it for the installer? A big plus is the opportunity to submit a more attractive tender because of the cost and time savings made possible by integration. Wise installers will, however, not see integration simply as a way to cut prices. Instead they will take the opportunity to explain to the end user the benefits which integration can offer, making their tender more attractive from a functional as well as financial point of view.

Well handled, this approach creates opportunities for installers to increase their profit margins – after all, the extra functionality provided by an integrated system has a value to the end user. It can, therefore, be used to justify a price premium, even though the cost to the installer of adding this functionality is often minimal, as in the case described earlier of CCTV used to monitor an access point. If the arguments for integration are so compelling, why do installers continue to offer separate solutions? Part of the answer is that integration is not the best approach for every project. For small, single-premises applications, central management of the security installation and the ability of its various components to interact are issues of little importance. In these cases, separate off-the-shelf systems are all that's needed. But even for larger installations, some installers are still offering separate systems, largely because an integrated system will take them outside their comfort zone.

This is very understandable. An installer with wide experience of CCTV systems may well feel daunted at the prospect of taking on a system which also includes access control and intruder detection. This is especially true for those installers whose primary experience is with conventional analogue installations rather than the IP technology that is almost always used in integrated security systems. But ignoring the spread of integrated solutions is not a sound business strategy for any installer. Fortunately, the better companies in the market are ready to provide installers with the support they need to successfully widen their expertise.

What to choose?

Hopefully, except for very small projects, the arguments we've already made in favour of integration are compelling. The next issue to consider is what type of integrated system to choose. A possible approach is to choose a CCTV system from one supplier, an access control system from another and even maybe an intruder detection system from a third, and then link them all together with some sort of higher level supervisory system. This is certainly one form of integration, and it can provide end users with unified control, monitoring and possibly data storage facilities for all of their systems.

It also allows installers to scour the market for the 'best value' systems for each individual security function. However, leaving aside that 'best value' all too often means cheapest, and cheapness is rarely synonymous with either quality or reliability, this pick-and-mix approach has other major drawbacks. Interoperability is surely the most important of these. Systems from different manufacturers almost always communicate in different ways. Some may use proprietary communication protocols, but it even pays to be a little wary of those that claim to use 'open' technologies. Such devices may be able to communicate with one another, but that's no guarantee that they will be able to exchange all of the information needed.

Protocol converters, which enable otherwise incompatible items of equipment to be connected together, are available, but they add to overall costs, they're often difficult to set up and, in many cases, they offer only limited functionality.

The real deciding factor, though, is: who are you going to call if your hybrid installation, made up of equipment from several different manufacturers, doesn't work as it should? None of those manufacturers is likely to accept responsibility for the problem unless it is proven to be related directly to their equipment. Which leaves you, the installer, completely on your own to come up with a solution. The problem of responsibilities divided between various manufactures doesn't only relate to the initial phases of the project. If a component fails during the lifetime of the system and a direct replacement is no longer obtainable, it can be a very big problem trying to find a suitable substitute for use in a hybrid installation.

Nor is interoperability the only issue in hybrid installations; the available functionality is also likely to be limited. It may not be too difficult to arrange for CCTV images to be displayed on the same monitors as those used for managing access control, but it's likely to be a lot more difficult to arrange for the CCTV system to interact with the access control so it automatically records images of events, as was discussed in our earlier example.

All of these issues are readily addressed by choosing a supplier that offers a full range of security systems that are designed from the outset to support integration. There are guaranteed to be no compatibility or interoperability problems; the integration will be tight, ensuring the maximum possible functionality; and, if something should go wrong, you know exactly who to call!

The supplier will have taken care of regulatory issues, which can be a pitfall when attempting to link separate items of equipment. For example, if the system is set up so that the intruder detection controller can make decisions that affect the operation of the CCTV equipment, it may well be possible to meet regulatory requirements. If the situation is reversed, however, with the CCTV controller affecting the intruder detection system, chances of meeting those requirements are slim.

There's one more key benefit for those installers with limited previous experience of integrated solutions. The best suppliers of equipment intended for integration offer excellent technical support. Some supplier provide practical advice and assistance, including on-site support, to make it easy for installers to be confident about tackling the challenges associated with implementing their first few integrated solutions.

Just how integrated?

A significant issue that we have not yet addressed is how much integration installers should offer.

Up to now, we have mentioned the inclusion of CCTV, access control and intruder detection. Along with links to the building management system, these remain the most obvious and most useful candidates. But what about fire protection?

In practice, because of the very specific regulatory requirements that apply to fire alarm systems, complete integration is almost impossible at present, although this situation may change in the future. However it is possible to integrate a fire warning system. We should also consider the upgrading of existing installations. Is it feasible to upgrade existing security installations – which are in all probability independent of one another – to provide a building with integrated security, without completely replacing the existing systems?

The answer is a qualified 'yes', although much depends on the age and condition of the in-situ equipment. It will always be recommended to replace the existing control systems as, even if it were possible, the cost involved in linking up what is almost certainly ageing equipment of uncertain future reliability would be impossible to justify. The cabling may also need to be replaced or augmented, although it is always worth examining the possibility of piggybacking the security systems on the building's data network, if it has one.

When it comes to equipment like cameras and access control, however, the situation is different. The best suppliers of control equipment for integrated systems offer products that support a wide variety of standard protocols, allowing any reasonably modern cameras or access control to be connected. This versatility allows some of the existing items to be retained and re-used.

This approach often provides a very convenient way of spreading the cost of a project. The first phase is to install the new controllers and cabling, and the second phase – replacing the accessories – can be delayed until more budget becomes available. Equally if the supplier is able to provide multi-protocol hardware, such as cameras, the installer could take the reverse approach and replace failing equipment i.e. cameras, readers, PIRs etc (under current control equipment) with a view to updating the control side later.