#perimeter alarm
Software integration platforms.
A modern security system is a complex software and hardware complex that includes many subsystems. A typical set may look like this:
security alarm: perimeter security, site security, panic alarm, terminals for arming/disarming;
fire protection: fire alarm, smoke removal system, automatic fire extinguishing, notification;
video surveillance: receiving video stream from cameras, displaying and recording video, real-time video analytics and post-processing;
access control and management system: checkpoints and vestibules, vehicle entry points, access points to premises, pass office, time and attendance.
All this should work in a coordinated, conflict-free and efficient manner. In addition, there are often problems with the joint operation of the security system with other systems of the facility. For example, coordinated actions with heating, ventilation, air conditioning, lighting systems. At industrial facilities, it is often necessary to integrate the security system with the enterprise's automated process control system.
Why are integrated solutions needed? After all, you can design, install and use each subsystem separately, independently of the others. That's how it was done before. The answer is extremely simple and, in general, expected: money. Integrated solutions are ultimately cheaper and more efficient. And, besides everything else, they are much more functional.
What does integration give? The answer to this question directly depends on the method and depth of the solution. At a minimum, integration should allow creating unified security workstations so that the operator can receive messages from all subsystems in a single format. It should also be possible to implement reactions in subsystem A to events in subsystem B. For example, in the event of a fire at the facility, the fire alarm should inform the access control system that it is necessary to unlock the doors for the unimpeded evacuation of people. Or, when the security alarm is triggered, the operator's monitor automatically displays an image from video cameras that are in the field of view of the scene of the incident. More complete integration will make it possible to combine subsystems not only at the operator's workplace, but also to build a single system administration space. This provides an additional degree of freedom in configuring and setting up operating algorithms. Even greater opportunities are provided by integration at the hardware level, when interaction is carried out at the level of subsystem controllers. But we will talk about this next time, and here we will focus on the features of software integration.
Who needs this?First of all, all such solutions are interesting to integrators when implementing complex projects where different equipment from different manufacturers is used. The matter is further complicated by the fact that in security systems, unlike, for example, automation systems, the issue of standardization in the field of communication of different equipment with each other is extremely poorly resolved. The recent creation of international alliances for standardization in the field of IP video equipment ONVIF and PSIA is rather an exception to the rule, since in other areas (primarily fire alarm systems and access control systems) such a holiday is not yet expected.
How is this done? If we talk about software integration, there is a special class of software products, which are designed to solve this problem to one degree or another. In Russia, the definition of «integrating software» has more or less become established. If we talk about the rest of the world, it is called Physical Security Information Management (PSIM), i.e. data management in physical security systems. In general, three main levels can be distinguished in such software.
Hardware connection layer: this is a set of certain drivers that allow you to connect a wide variety of security equipment to the system. At a minimum, the software should allow you to receive events from the equipment, and ideally, manage and configure this equipment.
The level of data presentation and storage, as well as the business logic block. At this level, the information received from the equipment must be converted into an internal unified representation of the system. Here, the algorithms for processing the information received from the equipment are also implemented. The algorithms can be either built into the software, usually parameterized using the settings mechanism, or user-defined. To implement user algorithms, a built-in programming language is often used, original or standard, for example, C#, Java. The presence of this function is extremely important for fine-tuning and high-quality behavior of the system as a whole. The user interface (GUI) level. The main task of this level is to present various data from various equipment to the system operator in a unified and understandable form.
Who does this?Based on the tasks solved by integrating software, we can conclude that products of this class are very difficult to implement. And this is true! The versatility, diversity of supported equipment, its heterogeneity greatly complicate the task for developers compared to application solutions designed to work with one specific type of equipment. The most difficult thing is that at the development stage it is unknown what equipment will subsequently need to be integrated into the system. Therefore, there are not so many truly successful examples of the implementation of software integration platforms. Three types of companies can be distinguished that are engaged in the development of integrating software.
Large manufacturers of equipment for security systems, which produce a wide range of their own equipment. The main disadvantage of such companies is that they usually rely primarily on supporting their own products. And this is natural, because, as a rule, they themselves offer equipment for solving all problems in the field of protecting objects, or at least they think that all.
Integrators implementing complex projects. As a rule, the development of integrating software in this case begins quite spontaneously. At a specific facility, something needs to be joined and linked. Standard means do not work. Programmers are hired, integrating software is written. A specific task is solved, then functionality is expanded, more and more new equipment is connected. The result is a product torn apart by internal contradictions, since comprehensive requirements for the task were not initially formulated. Moreover, there is no single software as such, there are many branches of one project, each growing out of its own application object. That is, the software installed at a large plant two years ago is not quite the same, and, most likely, it is even incompatible with the version that was installed at a similar enterprise last year. Moreover, no one except the developers will be able to cope with the installation and support of such software. Such companies, as a rule, also cannot maintain the modern level of software development due to the non-core nature of this area for them. Thus, such a solution cannot be called reliable, mass-produced, and even more so “boxed”. It is worth noting here that the serial production and reliability of the product are directly proportional.
Software companies. Since software development is initially the company's main business, and not a by-product, as is often the case in the first two cases, it is reasonable to expect the most professional approach to business. As for the software development technology itself, its production and support, there will most likely be no questions here. However, there is a downside: quite often the product is spoiled by the «programmer's» approach to the task. As a result, the quality of software interfacing with the equipment suffers, since it can be very difficult, and sometimes impossible, to delve into all the intricacies of the subject area without real experience with this or that «hardware». Users often complain about the excessive complexity of the user interface, both administrative and operator. Companies specializing in software development want to make their product as mass-produced, a boxed solution as possible, which is quite natural. The main consumer — the integrator — needs an individual approach, since everyone has different tasks and, most importantly, ways to solve them. Thus, developers and consumers come into some kind of conflict.
What to do?It turns out that all approaches have their pros and cons. And, in general, this is normal, but what should be chosen as the optimum? In my opinion, the ideal option is when the company — the developer of the software integration platform is also a developer of equipment for security systems, but at the same time considers software development one of its main areas. That is, it has a professional team of programmers and owns modern development technologies. At the same time, due to the complexity of the product and its relative small circulation (there are not so many large objects), the developer does not try to make a boxed product out of it, but seeks to conclude direct contracts with the main consumers — integrators. What will this give? Firstly, each integrator receives not a product «like everyone else», but an original solution in some way, taking into account its working methods, the ideology of implementing large projects. In the end, even the appearance of the software, i.e. user interfaces, can have a corporate look, characteristic only of this integrator, which, you must agree, is important for obtaining additional competitive advantages. At the same time, the implementation options for different integrators will be based on one common, well-developed platform, which is a guarantee of stable and reliable operation. Secondly, the integrator will be able to concentrate all his efforts directly on his business: on the development and implementation of projects. Being confident that if the next project requires software revision, he will have every right to contact the developer and demand that this work be performed in accordance with contractual obligations. With boxed software, you must agree, this is often simply impossible. Software companies will not be left at a loss either, since within the framework of the integration platform there are a lot of applied, separate tasks that do not affect the ideology of the product as a whole. For example, the implementation of various algorithms in the field of video analytics. It turns out that there is a place for everyone in this market, you just need to make sure that everyone does their own thing.
Although, as it seems to me, such a problem in our country exists not only in the security systems industry.