ACS: what do they sell, what do they buy?

ACS: what do they sell, what do they buy?.

The head of the Russian representative office of the Dutch company NEDAP, Evgeny KIN, and the commercial director of the Russian company Relvest, Sergey STASENKO, reflect on this on the pages of the TZ.

The functionality of access control and management systems increases year after year. But can these innovations motivate a purchase? What functionality is really interesting to users?

Evgeny KIN:
I don't have any general market statistics — unfortunately, no one else does, but I will still risk saying that today a reasonable customer chooses what best satisfies his security needs. I say this because the security market is not much different from other markets where there are buyers and sellers. General laws apply the same everywhere, and exceptions, as we know, almost always ultimately confirm the rules.
I remember the smart words about our market being B2B, but I will still give this comparison, although scientifically it seems not to be entirely correct. Comparison with the automobile market. When you come to a car dealership, you will probably first look at the especially chromed bumper or the unusually beautiful spoiler of the new model. Then, you will probably listen to the manager's story about the unique windshield wiper system, which is automatically turned on by the driver's eyelashes. And — buy a car based on your absolutely earthly needs: a spacious interior, if you have a large family, a powerful engine, if you are planning long trips, etc. And this is correct, because normal buyers do not need toys, but tools for performing specific tasks.
Indeed, the functionality of access control and management systems increases year after year, but for quite a long time now, having balanced supply and demand, the market has developed – I will involuntarily continue the comparison with cars – an ACS, if you like, of a basic configuration. That is, the set of functional capabilities without which you cannot buy a system nowadays, because they are simply not produced. This set includes control of algorithms for movement of card users along a protected area depending on their powers granted by the system, related to the ability to visit these premises, and at a certain time. The next point is the presence of a set of functions that allow the above actions to be accompanied by some system reactions: blocking or unblocking certain actuators, doors, turnstiles, turning on the lighting on the stairs, transmitting a signal to a security alarm, a fire extinguishing system, etc.This basic set, I repeat, has a tendency to expand quantitatively and qualitatively. Often, the innovations that manufacturers and sales companies try to attract potential buyers with are those very baubles. Frankly speaking, I don't see anything wrong with that, because these baubles are usually harmless, and are also sold as an option (if you don't want it, don't take it).
Can they become a lever for increasing sales? Globally — no, but they can arouse curiosity among potential consumers. Speaking from my personal experience, at the moment most of the requests coming to our business partners almost certainly contain an interest in biometrics that is as lively as it is naive today. Forgive me, manufacturers of biometric systems, in my deep conviction, the mass application of biometric systems in the security market is still very far away. This segment still remains inevitably necessary only for ensuring the security of individual restricted areas, buildings, rooms.
So, after customers learn what biometric systems can do – which fingers, retinas and other body parts can be cleverly scanned – they get down to business. And it turns out that, in principle, they need completely different things.
It also often turns out that the customer cannot always find what he needs, if we are talking, for example, about a large-scale system. By large-scale in this context I mean not two large buildings in which it is necessary to close 100 doors, but transnational companies with a network of offices in a country, for example, such as Russia. Or around the world.

Sergey STASENKO:
The expansion of functional capabilities is dictated by the emergence of increasingly diverse and complex requirements for ACS. In addition, previously a number of tasks that already existed at that time were not yet possible to solve the technological base. With the development of network technologies and microprocessor technology, these tasks have now become quite feasible.
As for the motives of consumer demand when choosing an ACS, they can vary greatly. For some, an ACS is an increase in the level of security of an object, for others, it is an increase in the efficiency of the enterprise (working time accounting, optimization of business processes), for others, it is just a fashionable toy, etc. Not every consumer will be attracted by the serious functionality of the system. For some, the price is most important, for others, the design…
But if we really talk about serious systems at large facilities, then, of course, the question of the functionality of the ACS will be far from the last place.
What functionality of the systems is the customer really interested in? Anti-passback, time tracking, video verification of access points, automation of the pass office — today these are already standard requirements for almost any customer when choosing an ACS. Integration with other security subsystems and external applications (for example, with 1C) is also increasingly required.
In addition, of course, sometimes there are unique requirements for both the hardware and software parts of the system. Several years ago, there was an order for a reader made in a real gold case. The customer was not at all concerned about the price.
The second funny example concerns software. At one of the facilities, the entrance door to the building was controlled by a grandmother. It is clear that her relationship with the computer was, to put it mildly, not very friendly. And then the customer of the system asked to write a software module that would visually represent a window dividing the monitor screen into two halves: green and red. Pressing the green part would mean unlocking the door, and pressing the red part would mean locking it.

Today, experts are talking about clients reconsidering the role of ACS in business processes and operational procedures. Is this true? Or is it a matter of the desire of manufacturers and integrators to go beyond their security budgets?

Evgeny KIN:
I will say something that may be criminal: ACS, as such, was probably of no interest to anyone initially. Like any other security segment into which we conditionally divide the market — video surveillance, security alarms, etc. — an access control and management system is an integral part of business management. This is my deep conviction. Ultimately, detaining a person at the door or granting him some rights is not an end in itself. The ultimate goal of the entire range of activities is to ensure that the business owner makes a profit. ACS should organically integrate into the system of business processes existing at the enterprise. And, having secured and streamlined the business, help the investor earn more money.
Do customers understand this? Are my colleagues and I being disingenuous when we talk about this? And are we not driven by the desire to master a new layer of budgets, and not just security budgets? A logical question that requires an honest answer.
Major customers are beginning to understand this. I used to like to say that it is a completely normal situation when the end customer is surprised at how little biometric systems have advanced. Because many watch spy movies and are sincerely convinced that a running person should be identified from the back of the head using one camera. Today, I say this with full responsibility, major customers come to us with their business management concepts, into which an access control and management system must be organically integrated. In terms of streamlining the movement of personnel between offices in a city, country, in several countries, business trips of employees with certain powers of communication between a visitor and the employee who invited him, etc. One of these customers told us with annoyance that we were no longer the first place he turned to, and that he expected much more from an information processing system in terms of access control.

Sergey STASENKO:
Initially, almost the only task of the ACS was to restrict access to the territory and premises. However, it quickly became clear that events about employee passages can help automate a number of business processes. The simplest example is timekeeping. There is no need for timekeepers. The system performs this routine work for a person very quickly and much more accurately. Recently, there has been an increasing trend towards integrating security systems, including ACS, into the overall IT infrastructure of facilities. It is no wonder that many large IT companies are creating or already have entire departments dealing with technical security systems. This is due to the fact that there is a trend towards ever deeper integration and interconnected operation of technical security systems with other information and engineering systems of facilities.

What is in greater demand today: new software or hardware solutions? Is it possible for such a trend as the widespread use of software development kits (SDK) to emerge?

Evgeny KIN:
The customer, especially a large one, in addition to blocking doors is interested in subsequent prompt and detailed analysis of the processes that took place. People want to receive correct information about what is happening in a remote branch, but not overloaded with unnecessary information. HR departments want to have transparent and substantiated recommendations on the powers of a business traveler when visiting a branch. People want to know that their contractors (cleaning companies, etc.) have the right of access not only because they have been issued passes, but because these companies have everything in order with contractual documents and obligations to the company in whose territory they work. Is it possible that such a trend as the widespread distribution of software development kits (SDK) will appear? I think that this is unlikely to happen in Russia in the foreseeable future.

Sergey STASENKO:
In terms of hardware, I don't think we should expect any technological breakthroughs in the near future. But as for the software component of the system, this is where the main development of the functional capabilities of the systems takes place. As a rule, it is at the software level that the main functions of interaction of both various security subsystems and the system as a whole with external business applications and information systems are implemented or configured.
As for software development kits (SDK) for embedding products into third-party systems, today almost every Russian manufacturer provides them in one form or another. The level and functionality provided by the SDK can vary greatly. One manufacturer, for example, provides a description of the information exchange interface at the upper software level, another — a description of the low-level protocol for direct work with its equipment, etc.

The prevailing trends today: buying new systems or supporting and expanding existing ones?

Evgeny KIN:
If the customer finds an opportunity to expand and improve their system on the part of suppliers, they will definitely do so because they will not want to spend additional funds. But the fact is that most security systems installed a long time ago do not have either software or hardware capabilities for high-quality integration with the enterprise's business processes. There are two possible solutions. The first is to purchase a new system, leaving the door peripherals (contacts, readers, actuators) unchanged. One of the main requirements of today's market is support by new systems of any ever released formats of reading devices and their identifiers. The second is to purchase a solution for the general integration of the security subsystem into the enterprise's business process management system using external software.
Manufacturers of such upper software shells announce that, upon agreement with ACS manufacturers, they will be able to “hook” an ACS with any name into their control shell. But, firstly, not all manufacturers are ready to give away the protocol for interacting with their own system. Secondly, you have to pay for everything. Powerful “upper” software that controls your ACS can cost much more than a new system.

Sergey STASENKO:
If 10-15 years ago the percentage of facilities equipped with ACS was very small, today even in private homes such a security element is often present. As the number of installations grows, so does the demand for support and maintenance of these systems. Although most customers are extremely reluctant to enter into post-warranty service contracts and seek help only when something “burns out” or “falls off”.
At the same time, of course, new and/or existing facilities are being built and equipped with security systems, and questions of replacing worn-out or obsolete systems with new solutions are increasingly arising.