Mike Rose, VP, Sales at IDIS Americas, explores the considerations organizations need to take into account when evaluating surveillance systems.

Surveillance systems

When inquiring about what end-users prioritize when choosing a new video security system, a common response includes concern around pricing.

As such, systems integrators often feel backed into a corner as they strive to balance customer budget constraints with other key factors that contribute to an effective surveillance system.

With so many hidden costs and unforeseen challenges that can arise during the lifespan of such systems, making a choice based solely on initial purchase price is a no-win scenario for both end users and integrators alike.

So how can all stakeholders avoid falling into the price ‘trap’?

Calculating cost

It starts by acknowledging that total cost of system ownership (TCO) extends beyond the mere acquisition of surveillance cameras and hardware.

Within the video security system framework, a significant portion of hidden costs often reside in the head end.

This is where many companies, particularly those functioning in cloud-based environments, implement recurring charges via service and maintenance agreements.

Take for example the use of cloud-based storage.

Cloud storage eliminates many of the headaches of video management, but many also include fees to register, store or even retrieve video.

These hidden costs can add up fast if users are not familiar with their storage contracts.

The cost of storage also relates to the size and amount of files being stored and are especially critical considerations for industries such as cannabis, law enforcement and firearm sales where the storage of video data is mandated by law.

The goal here is to reduce the amount of data being stored by utilizing new compression methods to make available storage last longer over time.

Compare the costs of storing more than 40 terabytes inside of a recorder that is already owned versus the same 40 terabytes rented from a cloud storage company.

In instances where video data must be stored for at least 90 days, as is the case with some cannabis-related ordinances in California, the cost savings could be significant.

Organizations also need to consider their specific security requirements and infrastructure when it comes to evaluating cloud versus on-site storage.

Many cloud storage companies require a fee to both store and retrieve video with any unpaid fees risking accessibility.

Moreover, some organizations feel strongly about the security of their own networks and VPNs, choosing local storage as a more reliable, secure option versus a cloud provider.

It comes down to where the video data will be the safest with any potential breaches potentially costing more than the system itself.

Then of course there are the potential hidden fees and costs associated with video management software (VMS).

This includes the initial cost of the software, licensing fees and costs to upgrade.

Users should be aware of all applicable costs before committing to a VMS provider and know that there are many providers who do not charge for their software or licensing.

Lastly, consider the costs of any additional analytic functions provided by the hardware, software or otherwise.

Such analytics, like motion detection and object classification, are changing the way organizations address and respond to incidents, making it a no brainer for modern enterprises.

However, many video analytics are available to users only through a recurring fee or per-camera surveillance license.

Whatever the case, be sure these costs are well understood and calculated over the estimated lifespan of the system.

The intangibles

The costs outlined above are often considered hidden costs as they may not be readily visible on a final sales invoice.

However, both end users and integrators should also think about the truly intangible costs that come with implementing a new video surveillance system.

For integrators, intangible cost savings are realized by reducing time spent installing, programming and integrating system components as many of these services are not billed on an hourly basis.

One way to reduce such labor-intensive efforts is by deploying systems that take advantage of direct IP infrastructure.

Direct IP effectively ensures secure and efficient communication between surveillance cameras and recorders, significantly reducing the time and complexity associated with device installation.

By automating the configuration process, direct IP eliminates the need for manual input of IP addresses, usernames and passwords.

This level of plug-and-play functionality allows installers to connect and program devices seamlessly, saving substantial time in large-scale deployments. 

For end users, time, and thus cost, savings are realized by reducing the time it takes to learn and utilize a new video security interface.

Some of the most expensive VMS solutions available today will justify their cost by providing a plethora of tools.

However, if those tools are not easy to interact with, let alone find, are you really utilizing the full value of that solution? Likely not.

A system’s ease of use also impacts labor costs by extending training times and initiating turnover.

To determine ease of use prior to investing, users should ask for a free demo to see how the interface works based on the components deemed most critical to the application.

Finally, there is the ease with which new surveillance system components integrate together or with existing or future systems.

It may seem enticing at first to source various system components from different providers based on their unique capabilities and system integrator’s preferred product lines.

The diversity of suppliers may even allow some corners to be cut, providing what may turn out to be artificial reductions in equipment costs.

However, sourcing a complete end-to-end solution – from surveillance cameras and recorders with their native accessories to management software – can eliminate many of the long-term headaches and unforeseen expenses that come with integrating individual products from various suppliers. 

For example, when it comes time to upgrade the system or a single component at end of life, there are added costs related to the labor and time spent restoring all components to full operational status.

A security patch or firmware update may cause additional system downtime and even create cybersecurity risks.

Conversely, a full end-to-end solution offers plug-and-play functionality and streamlines maintenance processes for enhanced efficiency and cost savings.

Long-term useability

The benefits and drawbacks to many video security systems may not be realized well into the future, meaning users need to take a look at many of the secondary features afforded by a system that may not prove to be of value until necessary.

One such example of this is the ease and accuracy of video transport.

Many organizations invest in video surveillance as both a deterrent and real-time detection tool, not considering the practical requirements of video for investigative purposes.

Here, the ability to recall video and prove its authenticity can have a big impact on an organization’s ability to adequately engage with applicable legal procedures.

The use of advanced video technologies, such as embedding videos within their own player, compressing files efficiently and encrypting a watermark onto every file, ensures that video data can be authenticated and remains untampered.

This approach not only simplifies the process of sharing and viewing files across different systems without the need for additional software but also strengthens the chain of custody by providing end-to-end encryption.

The lack thereof could have costly consequences including legal non-compliance, loss of evidence, failure to prosecute and more.

Consider also the consistency of interface when it comes to evaluating a system for its long-term use.

Consistency of interface refers to the uniformity of the user-facing platform across a provider’s entire product range, regardless of the product’s cost, age or technology.

Systems with a consistent interface allow changes and updates to a system, as many have done from analog to IP, while enabling users to still interact with the same interface that they were using more than 20 years ago when the system was first installed.

With a consistent interface, there is no cost to upgrade, no ‘deluxe’ versions required to utilize all available tools and no various product families to navigate.

The enduring nature of the consistent interface contributes to the system’s adaptability, empowering organizations to expand the system horizontally without impacting the user experience or requiring costly retraining.

A holistic approach

The considerations outlined here are certainly not an end-all be-all list for evaluating surveillance systems, as every integrator and end user has their own specific needs.

They do, however, provide a foundational understanding of the broader implications of cost, technology and operational efficiency that will not be reflected on the initial invoice alone.

This holistic approach to evaluating video security systems emphasizes the importance of looking beyond upfront costs to consider long-term value, benefit and practicality.

In doing so, stakeholders can make more informed decisions that ensure both immediate and future needs are met for a more reliable and, yes, even more cost-effective surveillance solution.

This article was originally published in the April edition of Security Journal Americas. To read your FREE digital edition, click here.