Who's who in the TSB-2 market.

(Continued. Start in No. 1–2011) In the first part, we deliberately did not provide equipment parameters, go into detail about technical solutions, or show off our knowledge of security systems and statistical measurements. We wanted to look at all these problems from above, with an ordinary view, not burdened by the limitations of technical and generally accepted cliches of system construction and other taboos. We hope to continue to follow this rule. We do not claim to be pioneers and that our conclusions are indisputable and must be applied. All we wanted was to talk about our experience and the events we had to face. Naturally, we will give our assessments of what is happening, how could we do otherwise. We will be right and wrong, but we hope that our thoughts will allow us to look at this market from a different angle. Maybe this will be useful to someone, maybe it will cheer someone up, which is also important for us. Everything that is written here is not a fictitious story, all the characters and characters are not fictitious.

So…
We settled on what the customer sees as the sequence of iterations when creating a security system:
 Definition of tasks that the system must solve.
 List of reports indicating the forms of documents issued by the system.
 Definition of critical and important points of the facility, including the prescribed logic of visitor flows, personnel movements, interaction of services, etc.
 Technological task, list and classification of possible events (alarms) for each event, algorithm of personnel actions.
 Technical task.
 Project and working documentation.
Then all other steps that are described in GOSTs, SNiPs, and other documents.
All of the above, with the exception of the technical task, project and working documentation, we will call in one word «Task». As we have already written, it is natural for us that no one can formulate the task better than the customer. When defining tasks, the customer is not insured against internal conflicts between the interested services. Moreover, the larger the company, the more global the conflicts can be. But that is another story.
So, the task has been defined, a package of documents for the preparation of the project has been formed and transferred to the installer.
Note: From here on, by project we mean the entire set of documentation – pre-project, design, working – i.e. the set of documents on the basis of which the equipment is installed.
Designers hired by or part of the installer's structure, even if they are experienced, most often make an «ideal» project on the first try. When studying the document presented to the customer, you will hardly recognize the original assignment. The project and the assignment do not just not match, but are radically different from each other. It is difficult to explain what the designers are guided by, maybe it is a reworked someone else's project, maybe just inattention. The attitude to them is more like to artists — what is going on in their heads and, most importantly, what they will draw, no one knows, and, as we know, anyone can offend an artist. But still, when reading even such a document, it turns out that the system is designed in isolation from the other systems supposed to be installed (or already installed) in the building, without taking into account the materials used in the finishing, suspended structures, for example, advertising or navigation. If this is not taken into account, it will subsequently lead to problems during installation work (laying routes, installing equipment, etc.) and, as a rule, to an increase in the cost of the project.
Here is a hit parade of typical design errors:
Lack of connection to the actual layouts and construction features of the building. For example, during construction, the walls changed, the distance between network equipment increased to critical values ​​- and, as a result, either initially designed errors in the network, or the upcoming purchase and installation of additional network equipment.
For some reason, designers do not take the initiative to go and see the site, to inquire whether there are any changes. They simply work with the documents that they were initially given. The result is always the same: when submitting a project, designers demand additional funds for adaptation, and the customer does not understand what he should pay for. Although all this could have been discussed during the design work, promptly indicating to the customer how his desire to change the layout affects the increase in the cost of the designed system, and the design work itself.
Lack of connection to finishing materials (for example, a floor with a mirror coating provides very high-quality illumination of the image), which leads to the transfer of cameras or their replacement. Often, cameras in black cases are fixed to a white ceiling (which is not very critical from the point of view of operation, but is not suitable from the point of view of design).
Incorrect calculation of route lengths (amount of cable), which in practice leads to the contractor being forced to use additional cable at his own expense and, as a result, trying to save on the quality of materials and work. Lack of connection to other engineering systems of the building and power supply. For example, when commissioning, it turns out that due to the phasing of the power supply of video cameras, the picture on the monitors is of terrible quality. Then search for phases without skew or re-wiring of electrical equipment, for example, ventilation systems taking into account the peak load of electrical consumers.
Having received such a detailed «ideal» document, the customer himself decides what to do next. You can leave the project as is, then you need to be prepared for the result described above. Of course, you can bring the project to a real ideal, taking everything into account, but in our memory, this has never happened. Firstly, the process stretches out in time almost indefinitely, and, secondly, there is no limit to perfection — read, the final version will never be. At the same time, both the design process itself and the errors fall as a heavy burden on the customer. As a rule, design research is stopped by the customer by a strong-willed decision when one of three events occurs: the designer issues an invoice for additional work, the customer is pressed for the deadline for the construction, and also in the event of the occurrence of the two previous events at the same time.
Then events can develop as follows:
The project is thrown in the trash, and the contract with the installation company is signed — install your own equipment, because it won't get any worse.
The project is transferred to another design organization for revision.
The funniest thing is that a project completed by one contractor is always (!) perceived by another as absolutely wrong and unprofessional. That is, if suddenly for some reason the contractor changes, it becomes necessary to redo all the design documentation. The customer pays again for the same thing. But the circle does not close, and the process does not stop, the number of such alterations is not limited. In such situations, there is a feeling that reworking projects is someone's small business. «Small» is a word chosen not as a definition of the cost of such work in the trash, but as one of, as it is fashionable to say now, streams.
I ask the authors to forgive their small weakness — they jumped from satire to lyricism.
So, the project was born, for better or worse. Let's move on to the equipment.
Equipment is the main component. It is decisive for the entire system, the composition of the equipment determines the types of cable products, the presence or absence of network switching equipment, all sorts of restrictions, from the length of wires to requirements for temperature, humidity, purity of the supplied electricity, etc., which ultimately can significantly affect the cost of the project as a whole. Equipment allows you to achieve the parameters specified in the task or forget about them forever.
Installers usually choose equipment based on how many inputs the recorder has, how many outputs, how many and at what frame rate it records, and what the image size on the screen is. Even these simple parameters hide hidden pitfalls that installers, for various reasons, keep silent about or simply do not suspect about them. For example, the description states that the recorder records with a resolution of 720 x 576, and elsewhere in the technical specifications it is stated that the recorder provides a recording speed of 400 fields (i.e. 25 frames per channel — RealTime). But if you look into it, it turns out that the resolution of 720 x 576 is actually available only at a recording speed of 3 frames per second, and at a speed of 25 fps — the resolution is 352 x 288 (CIF).
For example, it was necessary to select a manufacturer of digital video surveillance system recorders with certain technical characteristics for one of the objects. Invited contractors brought equipment, or mock-ups of the system based on three recorders from different manufacturers. Visual display, recording quality, Russification and menu interface were checked. During the demonstration:
one of the recorders showed a delay of RealTime-image relative to the event of 0.5-1 second;
on the second recorder, when viewing the archive of one of the cameras, the image output speed is 24 fps, and when outputting 4 cameras simultaneously — 6 fps, etc. The supplier himself was not aware of this feature of the recorder;
the third recorder corresponded to the conditions declared and required by the customer.
The second most important is the logic of the placement of the sensors and cameras themselves. Installers in projects approach the determination of installation locations based on their own experience. The installers' experience is a combination of recommendations from manufacturers and errors obtained as a result of previously completed projects. Simply put, a certain generalization of knowledge obtained at someone else's expense. In practice, this is not always good. Because someone else's experience is based on trial and error in a system different from the one in which the customer exists. The experience is gained at sites that differ from the specified one both in area and in purpose. Other original organizational structures of enterprises, other principles and rules for ensuring the safety of facilities.
By using standard solutions, the designer does not bother to think about how to replace expensive equipment with simpler, and therefore cheaper, equipment through proper placement. And, of course, if the designer and installer are the same person, the equipment will be more than enough.
For example, at one of the facilities the task was to «examine» the faces of visitors. The flow of people comparable to the flow in the subway, not at rush hour, of course, but still. We were long and persistently offered megapixel IP cameras with the corresponding recorders. Since the building was multi-level and there were wide corridors on each floor, then in order to «cover» the corridor, we counted about twenty of such «advanced» cameras. This entailed recorders, and a RAID array, and a server room with cooling, and a local network with switching equipment, and uninterruptible power supplies, etc. But for some reason they could not assume that in any building there are narrow places where this entire flow turns into streams, and ordinary cameras with certain lenses can be used there. But we saw enough of the super cameras, super recorders and other super for super money.
Semi-final, or the finishing line. The customer has received the documentary implementation of his task. The equipment has been determined, the installation organization has been found. Installation can begin.
The first stage, associated with laying cable communications, is most often problematic. Although sometimes almost anecdotal situations arise: trays are installed, ceilings are completely covered with plasterboard with finishing (naturally, no one provided for inspection hatches for the sake of design).
Project errors:
Installation of outdoor cameras on the facades of the building. The contractor finds out that during the design, the position of the cameras, viewing angles, technical characteristics were indeed agreed upon, checked, and all this really meets the customer's requirements. But the way the route exits to the street has not been thought out. It turns out that the designer considered that the customer's building is a standard concrete/brick box, which lends itself well to the process of perforation and does not require special costs. But in practice, it turns out that the walls of the building are a complex prefabricated structure, which at the time of leaving for cable work is already ready and is not subject to change, and the inner side of the wall does not imply any extraneous bulges, in particular cable channels. Moreover, it is already painted and all sorts of beautiful things hang on it at a cost comparable to the external debt of some developing country.
Interior design. Most often, the customer approaches the design of his child with trepidation and great creativity. The design of the building and security systems are considered only in terms of the end devices visible to visitors or employees. Match the color of the reader or the protective dome of the video camera to the color of the coating on which they are installed. Sometimes the filling is hidden in wooden frames, in niches with natural stone caps, or the cases are made of very expensive materials.
At the second stage – installation of equipment, most often there are no problems. If the cable has already been pulled, then it is easy to install.
Making their way through thorns to the stars, the customer and the supplier got to the commissioning of the systems. But everything turns out as it turns out… The customer is tearing and throwing, the designer makes excuses, referring to the agreed types and types of equipment, and in the end you can’t say that nothing good happened, rather, as always.
Summarizing the entire process from conception to the birth of the system, and repeating those fundamental points that arose in the process of working with many contractors and projects, we will try to formulate the principles of interaction between the customer and the contractor. Moreover, in the order that allows us to avoid numerous mistakes: