Who's who in the TSB market, or a look from behind the mirror.

Characters and the ultimate goal
The main actor in any industry (the TSB market is no exception) is the customer. All actions are directed at the customer, and it is with him that suppliers, designers and installers build relationships. The customer is the main figure in the interaction and influence on this chain. The success or failure of a project depends primarily on the customer, as paradoxical as it may seem. The supplier, designer and installer are the tools, the resources for achieving the final goal defined by the customer.
At the beginning of the conversation, we suggest giving a precise definition of the actors and performers. We began to consider the chain customer — designer — supplier — installer.
The customer has its own working structure, which needs to be optimized, and maintenance costs need to be reduced by installing security and automation systems.
The designer, based on the initial data (TOR), prepares a package of documents taking into account GOSTs, SNiPs and other requirements.
The supplier produces/delivers/sells equipment of the configuration specified in the project.
Installer – and here, in our opinion, it is more appropriate to use another word – fitter. The fitter carries out the assembly, installation and commissioning of equipment in accordance with the project.
All these actors live by their own rules and at their own pace. They interact only when one needs the other. They are not interested in each other's problems and act almost independently. Customer – designer – supplier – fitter…
That is, there is clearly a missing link in this chain that will take on the hard work of uniting everyone into a single organism based on the implementation of the system that fully meets the customer's needs. Someone who can effectively organizationally adjust the working organism of the customer's enterprise, who is motivated to reduce the customer's costs at all stages, including the final result, taking into account the features and specifics of the work of other participants. Someone who earns money by reducing not only visible costs, but also hidden ones, arising both in the process and after some time. The absence of such a link determines all the conflicts that arise during the installation of systems.
Installation is a composition. A composition created for a specific purpose, through a set of objects, using their states, locations in space, filled with a single logical meaning. The words «goal» and «logic» are key in the definition of «installer».
Customer – designer – supplier – installer should actually sound like customer – installer – (designer – supplier – installer).
But, alas, this is not practiced here, so we will continue to call the installer an installer. Let installation mean “installation” – to screw on, to connect. Let’s return to the original chain customer – designer – supplier – installer and to the final goal of this interaction.
If we put all this into coordinate axes, we will get a certain graph, where the X axis is the time from the beginning to the end of the project, and the Y axis is the display of the amount of errors made in the project. On the X axis, we will arrange the project participants in chronological order:
The customer defines the goal.
The designer prepares a project, i.e. a document that clearly defines the structure of the system, the interaction of its parts, installation locations, composition of equipment and materials, i.e. the materialization of the customer's goal on paper.
The supplier ensures the availability of equipment and materials in accordance with the project.
The installer (fitter) performs installation and commissioning of the system based on the project and the supplied equipment and materials.

Have you imagined it? Now let's «apply» an error equal to one to each of the four points in turn. What do we see? The closer to the beginning of the project this «force» is applied, the higher the beam goes up. An error made at the beginning of the project has the greatest impact on the success of the entire project, rather than errors made along the way. At the beginning of the path, we have a customer with a formulation of the final goal.

Who is the customer and his relationship with security systems?
As a rule, the interested party in installing the system is the security service. The education and status of the employees is determined by the word «security». Most of them are people with a legal education, who have gone through the school of life in various law enforcement agencies. People who know and are literate in the processes of organizing the security of the territories entrusted to them, who are able to work according to academic templates and build their «agent network» for collecting and processing information based on human resources and classic document flow. But their knowledge of how to replace a person with «hardware» and what benefits can be obtained from this is often clearly insufficient.
Human resources are a thankless task, they constantly want money, get sick, reproduce, do not perform their job duties properly, make mistakes, in other words, they are very expensive and restless. Naturally, the security service is always under the threat of optimization. One of the optimization areas that has been worked out over the years is replacing part of the personnel with the simplest security systems: security alarms (sensor — light/sound signal), security video systems (camera — recording device). Due to such systems, it is possible to optimize the number of personnel by replacing observation posts and data collection with cameras, and the patrol patrol performing the inspection of the territory — with all kinds of sensors.
We remove five security guards, put five cameras or sensors, put an observer and a senior person behind the monitors. We remove three guards, put three turnstiles and one guard. The number of personnel decreases, but directly depends on the number of checkpoints.
The security service moves to the surveillance monitors and takes a strong static position at the checkpoint (or central control center, central monitoring station, etc.). This design is good for small enterprises with a small number of points: for video surveillance systems no more than 10-20 cameras, for security systems — up to 50 control points. This product is mainly offered on the Russian market. This design and material part are well known to both sellers and customers. Under such conditions, the functions of our actors supplier — designer — installer are painlessly and very effectively combined into one person, into an installation company with some intricate and sonorous name. The main problem for the customer when buying and installing such systems is choosing from a variety of offers from seller-installer companies the only one that meets the reliability requirements and fits into the allocated budget.
For the customer, the guarantee and key factor in choosing a particular organization can be arguments such as “we served together,” “an acquaintance of mine installed it, everything works for him,” and the technical specifications are shortened to a simple but comprehensive phrase — “find me something cheaper, but more reliable.” Such systems are called “boxed.” Open the box, take out the hardware, read the instructions, connect everything together, plug it into the outlet. Everything works.
And complete idyll and mutual understanding from all sides reigned on the market… The functions are minimal, and they are “sewn up” tightly, the final equipment is coordinated with each other and within the entire system does not require special fine-tuning, and therefore knowledge.

A little bit from the life of such systems. One security guard, who is also an operator, who is also a video engineer, can very productively (read — responsibly) monitor and react simultaneously to no more than 16 cameras and no more than 30 minutes. Then the person's attention is scattered, and he needs to be replaced for at least half an hour. Naturally, no one does this, because it would be necessary to double the staff. The operator sits out the shift with short breaks, and to be honest, in practice, one observer sits and «tracks» events on N cameras for 12 hours with breaks for food and relieving oneself. The managers are sure that it works. But in reality, the results of such observations are very modest. It is a stretch to talk about the effectiveness of such a security solution. This path, of course, has its meaning, and one cannot say that it is completely wrong. This design is good for small enterprises with a small number of checkpoints and a small number of events. Although the absence of events for a long period of time also weakens the observer's attention. Imagine a 3-meter-high fence with barbed wire, which someone might decide to climb over once a year. Naturally, after watching this calm for a month, the observer begins to do other things that are different from the main task. The same thing happens in the opposite direction, for example, in a shopping center, where thousands of people move chaotically. In such situations, operators quickly refocus their attention on the events that are most important to them. There are few such events — no more than four. The first and most important thing is to control the approaches to the security post in order to take on working order in time (turn off the TV, put away the phone). The second is to track the arrival/arrival of the bosses to the territory and notify whoever needs to be there so that they take on working order in time (turn off the TV, put away the phone). And several more of the same «important tasks» of operational surveillance.

The situation is completely different with systems that significantly exceed the parameters mentioned above. For example, let's take a facility where the capacity of security systems is from 150 to 300 cameras and about 200-600 protected zones.
If a «box» system is used for such facilities, we will get a very large staff of employees, a huge data archive (however, it is not a fact that it will be a single array, since «box» systems have their limitations).
Thousands of all kinds of events per day that will have to be handled: filter them by importance: routine, abnormal, critical, emergency, criminal, etc. A certain prescribed response of the personnel must be carried out for each event. The rules of the game will require a quick, accurate, controlled and responsible response from the security service. Using the usual algorithm of actions (saw — reported to the senior — received instructions — recorded — performed actions — recorded — reported to the senior — the senior checked the execution) is no longer suitable. After all, the senior, of course, will not cope with such a flow of information. One senior is no longer enough. As soon as there are more than two seniors, a senior is put above them. As a result, the security service can take the form of a clumsy, slow-witted monster. Naturally, the question arises of what to do with this.
The customer learns from friends who and how solves these problems, studies the material part, communicates with the manufacturer, visits exhibitions, reads literature, studies the capabilities of the systems and their settings, the principles and possibilities of interfacing various systems. Based on the knowledge gained, he begins to look at security systems differently. He comes to understand that this is not just a tool for recording events, that with its help they can be classified, and according to the rules set in advance. Using these rules, you can delegate some of your functions to subordinate personnel, receiving an independent assessment of their actions. Using the resources of the systems, observe everything that happens not constantly, trying to catch events that deserve attention, but observe only what is necessary, and therefore increase the efficiency of personnel and optimize its number, including the superstructure.
There are quite a few systems and installers on the market offering installation and commissioning services for such systems. Relying on the installer, the customer often cannot assess all the risks associated with the choice of a particular system. That is, the nature of the risks, on the one hand, lies in the customer's insufficient knowledge, in his desire to save on everything, and on the other hand, in the installer's insufficient knowledge and his desire to earn money on everything as if it were the last time in his life. Here they are, the dominant forces in the relationships between the actors. These forces, alas, often far exceed the power of reason.
Let's talk about the systems offered on our market. For obvious reasons, we will not name the brands, but we are sure that the reader will agree and understand what we are talking about. So, there are two types of systems on the market. Narrowly specialized (pure security, access control/management, video surveillance) and complex systems that combine everything from the previous point in a «single» product.
Narrowly specialized systems meet 85% of the end user's needs. That is, they perform the main tasks that meet the customer's expectations, have good performance, and a predictable cost. All equipment within the system works in a coordinated manner and without critical errors. The system itself is highly secure (both hardware and software). A high level of knowledge on the part of the end user is not required. The missing 15% of the capabilities expected from the system can be easily adjusted by the user by changing their usual order of actions. In the majority of cases, these are exactly the same «boxed» systems. The main disadvantages are the need to interface different systems with each other and problems with scaling. In practice, they remain separate, independent systems. The databases of such systems have nothing in common with each other. Events are searched for using the user's intelligence at an elementary level: «I know that an event occurred during a certain period of time, I go into each of the databases, get a list of events from these databases, and then independently analyze the received lists, adjusting for the time difference on the database servers.»

Complex systems (according to the manufacturers) cover the entire spectrum of security tasks of security systems, have no restrictions on the size of databases, are easily scalable, have an intelligent component, both pre-configured and the ability to adapt to the client. The manufacturer also offers more detailed solutions. By «security», the manufacturers of such systems mean everything that can damage the building and the people in it. This is monitoring the condition of equipment and the system as a whole, managing the building's engineering and the security systems themselves. Manufacturers offer both their own unique product (usually «unique») and «ready-made» integration solutions between their own systems and systems of third-party manufacturers (at the level of receiving equipment protocols). The logical part and management of end devices looks like some kind of independent software product, slapped on top. These solutions are not ideal and have a whole set of pitfalls that the buyer will have to face. If such a system is disassembled into its components — a security system, video surveillance, control of engineering systems, it may turn out that in one part the manufacturer offers clearly outdated equipment, in another the performance leaves much to be desired, and in the third the logic of operations and event registration is so complex and out of touch with reality that you need either a very expensive specialist or a great desire to install such a system, so as not to pay attention to this fact. Also, we must not forget about the performance and response of the system to an event (signal — display on the user interface), the reliability of the system when communication with any component is lost, the self-healing ability of the system, and operation in autonomous mode when power is lost. The cost of such systems is determined not only by the cost of purchasing hardware, licenses and implementation, but also by the ownership of such a system. Moreover, the concept of «ownership» includes not only the cost of technical maintenance, but also the cost of personnel (and with its rotation — the need for training), the cost of system modifications (and they will definitely be with the knowledge of the essence of the purchased product and its «hidden» capabilities), with scaling and increasing workplaces, etc. As a result, customer satisfaction with each of the parts will be from 40 to 60%. A simple mathematical calculation gives «customer satisfaction» for the entire system of about 50%. This is not much, and a simple reorganization and adjustment of personnel to the system will not do. But in return, the manufacturer offers a single automated system. That is, in fact, an all-seeing eye.
The pitfalls of complex systems are a consequence of the process of their birth. To create them, simple, highly specialized systems are used, to which additional options from other systems are screwed, or they try to connect two systems from different manufacturers. Most often, this happens either because the customer purchased two systems and, having decided to “make friends” with them, hired a developer. And the developer company, having received a product tested at the customer’s testing ground for his own money, offered a new solution to the entire market. These systems sometimes resemble a jacket sewn from scraps, and the seams differ not only in stitches, but also in the color of the threads. Moreover, sometimes the sleeves are sewn to the collar through a paper layer, which gets soaked after the first rain. But, in principle, in form — a jacket. And you can’t immediately assess the content. But that’s another story.

Where does the whole process begin?
From the object and the technical task (TT). How does this happen in practice?
The security service knows «where to look and what to close.» Operations knows that, in principle, a fire alarm and notification system are needed. Then they remember that there is a parking lot on the site. The relevant inspection authorities come and say that the escalators and elevators must be constantly monitored by the operations officer on duty. And so, with great difficulty, a list of what needs to be installed is compiled. But then the main problem arises — the customer does not have specialists to set tasks. As a result, the customer often shifts the responsibility for formulating the task onto the shoulders of other participants in the process. The result is easy to predict: the system does not meet the customer's expectations. Why? The technical specifications are formed by the customer in the form of a small package of documents, consisting at best of floor plans and a general plan with marked installation locations of the final equipment, or even without them. This is passed on to several installers with a request to provide specifications. And installers are different. They either represent the interests of certain brands of equipment, or are selected according to certain set rules (we will not consider personal mutually beneficial relationships).
Installers compete with each other to tell about the advantages of their equipment, surprise with the price, technical and marketing parameters of the equipment. Marketing parameters mean parameters that sound proud, but reflect the real state of affairs with a big stretch.
The customer is ready to trust the installer and purchase the best integrated system in the world. But without deep knowledge of the hardware and software parts of security systems, he is not able to formulate the technical specifications in detail. And what happens? The installer, without studying and understanding the internal structure of the customer's structure, begins implementation, relying on the installation locations of the final equipment, expecting that the logical part of the customer's technical specifications will not differ from the algorithms programmed into the system. The supplier starts from the capabilities of the system he sells, and does not always fully know its resources and limitations. This mainly concerns representatives of foreign security systems in the Russian Federation, but sometimes it also happens with representatives (resellers) of domestic systems.
The worst situation is with the algorithmic component of the future system. In our memory, not a single installer bothered to inquire about the organizational structure of the security service and the order of interaction of the interested services. There is no talk at all about the standard set of actions of the participants in the process. There was not a single question about what final parameters the customer wants to receive in the end, what set of reports the system should issue for the security service to work with them directly.
Finding out what the customer really wants is not that difficult, but it places some responsibility on the installer. The most unpleasant thing for the installer after such questions and answers is to admit that the system he offers does not meet the customer's expectations.
How to make the customer formulate the final task of the system? What does the customer ultimately want from the system?
For example, what is the purpose of a video surveillance system? To obtain a clear, distinguishable, recognizable photograph of a suspicious person and a recorded sequence of the event that occurred.
That is, not where and how many cameras, sensors, what monitors, how many gigabytes of information are stored in Raid arrays, how the wires are switched — all this is interesting to the customer only from the point of view of pricing. What is important is what set of reports and opportunities for direct work with them the security service will have.
It is important for the security service to have material on hand on the «suspect», which can be further worked with both independently and by contacting law enforcement agencies. It is important to take measures to suppress/prevent possible actions of the «suspect». Finally, to have the necessary material — a set of documents of the established (either internal regulations or legal requirements) sample. These can be photographs of a certain type, size and resolution, a video recording of the actions of the «perpetrator», also of a certain quality, size and with the necessary attributes (date, time, format, quality), a printout of the registration of alarm events in real time. What events and how will the security service respond. As for security video surveillance, as practice shows, 95% of events are detected after some time. That is, a whole squad of observers sits at the monitors and sees nothing, and the main work of the «security officers» begins with the victim contacting them and digging through the archive in search of the event.
Therefore, the technical task, if prepared correctly, begins to form when a set of reports, documents, actions and interactions of the security service are defined. Then you can move directly to the object itself: division into external and internal contours, which are determined by the physical features of the building, walls, windows, doors, etc., to the classification of the protected components of the object.
Thus, from the customer's point of view, the sequence of iterations in creating a security system should look like this:
defining the tasks that the system must solve;
a list of reports indicating the forms of documents issued by the system;
defining critical and important points of the object, 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 GOST, SNiP and other documents.

(To be continued)