A

few years ago, finding security, In- ternet technologists and building management

experts talking

around the same table might have been a rare sight. However, with innovation in building automation technologies and the growing push for more energy efficiency and con- trol over costs, necessity is making fast friends out of once strange bedfellows. “Usually, we start with a push from one

domain or the other; either HVAC (Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning) or security with a problem to solve,” says Greg Turner, Honeywell’s director of global offerings, from his Toronto office. The challenge can come from either side, either security needing more lighting for their cameras or building management people getting pres- sure to reduce lighting costs and so need to know when and where people are in the building, and able to get metrics on building usage.

“As one realizes there is a need and a dependence there,” he adds, “that’s when it’s important to sit down and it’s impor- tant to have IT there as well. Often, they are the people who provide the bridge.” Ron Zimmer, president and chief exec-

utive officer of the Continental Automated Buildings Association (CABA), says the building automation industry has grown significantly in the last 21 years, largely in the residential sector, but with significant growth being seen in the industrial and commercial space as well. A recent

study commissioned by

CABA, authored by U.K.-based market re- search firm BSRIA Proplan,

indicates

growth in the market of converged sys- tems involving security and fire and life safety products. “Not surprisingly, economies of scale allow more development and progression in the large building segment to move at a rapid pace,” says Zimmer, adding initia- tives such as the United States Depart- ment of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Smart- Grid program, are aimed at reducing large building costs through energy efficiency. “The discussions got the attention of just

people not in North America but

around the world with the fact that we are seeing higher energy costs and interests in alternative energy,” he notes. “That

WWW.SECURITYMATTERSMAG.COM

strong interest is going to drive technology and interoperability of buildings.” Additionally, fire and life safety is a $20 billion industry, Zimmer says. With that, CCTV makes up a 28 per cent share, in- truder alarm, 11 per cent, access control, 13 per cent, and fire protection and alarm, 14 per cent. With any building automation project,

the problem often lies in getting disparate systems to work together, suggests Patrick Straw, Gunnebo Canada’s general manager in Toronto. “When you get into full large buildings,

there is a complete industry

around building software. The difficulties that come about are in the area of respon- sibility. If you have four different systems working from four different vendors on a single platform and something goes wrong, it becomes very ambiguous as to whose area of responsibility it is. You have four trucks rolling out so it becomes a question of who is responsible for what, who has to reprogram what and who gets billed for it.” As little as five years ago, this concern meant keeping the separate functions – HVAC, lighting, energy management, access control and security – separate. However, the call for greater efficiencies both in en- ergy usage and streamlining operational costs, and the opening up of technology, has resulted in a new focus. Honeywell’s Turner says there has been greater advancement among security equipment manufacturers toward the use of open source technologies. Also, there is a greater ability to use tradi- tional security technologies, such as asset and building management sensors, to per- form actions like counting people in the lobby of a building to justify the usage of el- evators or access control assisting in the billing of after-hours utility costs. “For Honeywell, we have a single common system so you have the software on one server. It’s the role of the user that determines what is seen on screen,” ex- plains Turner. “So the HVAC manager sees the HVAC usage, the security person sees security data and a building manager might see everything. One of the benefits you see is in talking to IT [departments]. By combining the two, it’s one less system to qualify, one less worry about patches and updates and it

reduces overall IT

overhead and expense which means a greater savings for the company.”

He predicts this trend to continue and to see smarter devices, such as IP-based cameras and access control devices, pro- vide even more operability in a more dis- tributed manner, rather than all moving to a single server and then data going out from there.

Much of it is “easy” to do now, says

Straw. Most devices have an output. The goal is to configure the system that output goes into so that each action will result in a particularly desired result. For instance, if there is an alarm, the right lights will come on and allow security to see what is going on in a particular area using the CCTV cam- eras, or that a safe path of lighting will pro- vide access to areas for technicians to solve a problem. It will also set limits on who can go where in a building, depending on the identity of the person. And all of it can assist in the goal of providing greater accounta- bility for departments and individuals. As with all technologies, there are pit- falls to be avoided, which for many ex- perts, can be bypassed by education. “I think that is the biggest problem – not asking the right questions or knowing the technology that’s available and what it can do,” believes Zimmer. “You can do some very modest things in a building to increase the value and quality of life for the occupants.”

Straw says there is a responsibility at

the system integrator level too in the sense that they are not making too many prom- ises about what the technology and what the company can do. “We are very careful in what we commit to,” he says. “It’s not a case of saying don’t do it. It’s just important that a con- sultant not go about making promises without a lot of verbal clarification and contractual clarification about who’s re- sponsible for what — once you commit to something, you’ve committed to fixing it, reprogramming it or replacing it.”

Andrew Wareing is a freelance writer in T

oronto, Ont.

SOURCES

CABA • www.caba.org Gunnebo • www.gunnebo.com Honeywell • www.honeywell.com

MAY/JUNE 2010 • SECURITY MATTERS 27 Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42