Page 102 - Security Today, November/December 2019

“Integrated life-safety systems
create many operational and
economic advantages.” By Bob Teta
Saving a Life
MC
puses are typically large and complex. Most continue to develop throughout time, with additional buildings added and others lev- eled. Campuses are not always contiguous, and sometimes spread throughout cities, states and even entire countries.
Even more, communication protocols and infrastructure between buildings and sys- tems may not be current, as it may have been acceptable when a campus was first con- structed to have general local annunciation of off-normal events in each building. That means on-site attendants and central stations needed to relay information in order to initi- ate a response.
Integrated systems and software technology combined with the fastest, modern high- bandwidth and high-speed communications available, allow us to make campuses safer by responding to off-normal activity in millisec- onds. This along with our advanced commu- nication infrastructures and graphical displays make first responder actions not only fast, but pinpoint accurate and efficient. In turn, this saves lives and mitigates property damage.
Integrated Systems
Systems integration is a continuing goal for many life-safety system manufacturers and facility managers. Integrated life-safety sys- tems create many operational and economic advantages. Critical incidents are not often singly focused, meaning safety staff involved in large-scale events are typically receiving input from several systems simultaneous- ly. During these demanding emergency situ- ations, large amounts of seemingly conflict- ing information must be processed in order to respond appropriately and effectively.
Developing a response plan for any single event is challenging. Processing several dif- ferent life-safety events at once can be even more confusing, and the chosen response plan potentially critical to the lives of those involved. Having multiple life-safety systems
ake a campus safer with integrated systems and software technology
ampuses can present a unique chal- lenge when designing and installing a life-safety system. Buildings and structures on corporate, university, government and metropolitan cam-
42 campuslifesecurity.com | NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2019
integrated into graphical systems will make the situation clearer and the response plan- ning quicker and more accurate.
The more advanced commercial monitor- ing systems today will provide integrated on- premises and distributed reporting. This gives local and remote staff the equipment and reporting infrastructure to address con- flicting messages. For instance, the fire alarm system is telling occupants to evacuate the building while the shooter detection system is issuing a shelter-in-place advisory. This is a conflicting message that requires more intricate planning, but many commercial monitoring systems do not have the capabili- ties to provide staff with further information required to ensure a proper decision is made.
Integrated systems will give both textual information and a graphical depiction of the entire situation. If there are cameras in the facility, these will automatically stream live video of the area with the greatest danger and highest priority. These features allow for more nuanced and effective staff decision making.
The introduction of advanced sensing technologies has certainly provided better situational awareness, but at the same time has made decision making more complex. Using graphical integrated systems that pro- vide intuitive interfaces helps clarify the
machine-to-man translation and in turn cre- ates better responses to life safety threats.
Integrated System High-Speed Communication
After it is decided that life-safety integration will be implemented on a campus, the issue of finding a way to make the disparate sys- tems communicate intelligently becomes the challenge. System integration requires com- munication standards and careful adherence to these standards. In many cases, the solu- tion consists of combining several communi- cation methods into a cohesive communica- tion strategy.
The dry contact input as a method of interfacing to legacy technologies continues to be a common approach, having the advan- tage that it is simple. However, its simplicity is also a disadvantage. The dry contact input tells you that there is an off-normal condi- tion in the system but fails to pinpoint the root cause of this event. For some system integrations this is the only feasible option and may have to suffice.
A more sophisticated integration would require a more advanced design and installa- tion, but also provide a more precise analysis of the emergency event. There are many viable communication standards in the industry,
Life Safety
genkur/Shutterstock.com