IBM
Why has IBM recently increased its efforts in the physical security realm? 

Sam Docknevich: Client demand and new technology has brought about a greater corporate commitment to aggressively pursue the physical security sector. We are looking to make it more than ‘our little physical security secret.’ Part of that will be the large presence we will have at ISC West. 

The corporate world has been turning to video for a multitude of uses and we have the technology and people in place to focus on and solve these issues. Today, there are more cameras collecting content and digitizing information than ever, and users are looking for uncoupled, open solutions so they can use the same infrastructure for enterprise processes as well as video software management and analytics. 

Can you tell me about the company’s Digital Video Surveillance (DVS) product and the Smart Surveillance System (S3)? 

Docknevich: S3 sits on top of a currently deployed analog or digital video system, or if one is not present we can provide it, and uses algorithms to index objects based on user-defined attributes. It can be used to set automated alerts.

There are other packages on the market that come with very predefined routines, which do have some value. But our approach has been to provide a solution that is more open and programmable so the customer can do exactly what they want, rather easily. The other advantage is we can integrate sensor input from almost anything — chemical, POS, etc. When used for management applications, this can also bring a nice return on investment as well. 

People need to understand what analytics really are: They are not some science fiction-like technology, but merely rules you set up to achieve a particular purpose. We are seeing two markets emerge, one is focused on increasing public safety and security, and the other is geared toward improving operational management efficiencies. 

Is IBM reaching outward to obtain physical security know-how? 

Docknevich: So far, we have grown our business through partnerships with companies such as ADT because they have physical security expertise and a lot of feet on the street. As far as risk assessment, loss prevention, etc., we have skills inside of IBM to deal with these issues. One of the advantages of being a company of our size is that we don’t lack for subject matter experts. 

What do the terms “integrated” and “converged” mean to you and IBM? 

Docknevich: Integrated means doing one thing very well and integrating different products or technology to accomplish the intent. Converged is when you are using one network or one technology to achieve multiple objectives. An example would be many different functions all running over the data network.

Does IBM have plans to delve into other physical security? 

Docknevich: We are actually involved in some currently, like when we set up and relocate data centers we have to deal with access control, intrusion, etc. This is an area where we leverage partners and expertise. It will also be an area where we invest more within IBM, especially as access control gets more integrated and data network-centric. 

Can you describe the typical IBM security solution customer? 

Docknevich: Our typical customer is one with a vision that they want to get more value from video than they are currently getting. They know they can’t just keep building out their video infrastructure as it is; they need scalability, they need analytics. 

Who will ultimately control the enterprise network, security or IT management? 

Docknevich: From an application perspective, you are going to continue having physical security deciding that. And IT has another customer — its own physical security personnel. IT will always have control of the network, so it is critical for physical security to forge the partnership. 

Where does IBM fit in among security product manufacturers such as Honeywell, GE, Pelco, etc.? What about IT firms like Cisco? 

Docknevich: We partner with most of those companies, but we also compete with them. It is an interesting relationship that way. You have to define clear rules of engagement. As for Cisco, my group is Cisco’s largest reseller in the world.

ASSA ABLOY
Can you tell me about ASSA ABLOY’s partnership with Cisco? 

Bret Tobey: Deploying Hi-O, or Highly Intelligent Openings, is the focus of the partnership. ASSA ABLOY has worked aggressively to drive more intelligence into each opening and the market has been asking us to put those openings on the network. When you’re talking networks, Cisco is never far from the conversation. It’s important to remember this relationship isn’t exclusive for either party. We expect other companies, competitors of both ASSA ABLOY and Cisco, to adopt the Hi-O architecture. 

Do IT firms such as Cisco need to reach outward to obtain the physical security know-how they may lack? 

Tobey: Absolutely, but IT-focused firms already know how to learn and move fast. Early on, there will be some movement from more traditional players, but over time the talent pool will grow with both sides learning more about the other. The type of skills needed to design, implement and manage access control systems is growing dramatically. Low-voltage knowledge is still needed, but so are networking skills. 

What do the terms “integrated” and “converged” mean to you? 

Tobey: Integration is about driving real-time data vs. raw electrical connections, and convergence is really about having a more coherent security footprint. Both of those play very well into our efforts to drive intelligence into as many openings as possible. 

What do IT companies like Cisco offer the electronic security industry? 

Tobey: They bring new perspectives, new methodologies and new revenue streams. I’ve seen both IT and physical security projects go well and poorly. The difference is the overall complexity of IT creates a need for more robust deployments. 

The cutthroat nature and extremely high rate of technology change means IT players are always looking for the next product opportunity at the same customer site. That’s a mindshift from many players that are about expanding the installed base and collecting service revenues while offering pretty much the same thing. 

Many installing systems integrators are willing and properly prepared to embrace and deploy these new converged solutions. But the real question is what part of the revenue stream from a project will they see? Some will be acquired, some will expand, some will become subs and others will fade away. 

Who will ultimately control the enterprise network, security or IT management? Will they even share the same network?

Tobey: Economics dictate it will all be on the same network and IT will control it. Look at how fast voice over IP is supplanting traditional copper for telephone service. That doesn’t mean that the IT group will control security. Both networks and physical security are just support infrastructure for whatever is an organization’s core competency. 

In most instances where it does clash, it will come down to knowledge and politics. If a systems integrator doesn’t have the knowledge to address both sides, they lose. 

How do you think IT leaders like Cisco and IBM view physical security product manufacturers such as ASSAABLOY, Honeywell, Tyco, Pelco, etc.? Are they competitors or potential partners? 

Tobey: They probably see physical security players as both. If you do software or services, there will be overlap as the IT players expand. However, IT doesn’t look at competition the way our market does. Take IBM, they probably see more contribution to their bottom line from the services associated with software than the actual software sale. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some IT players aligning with players that sell competing solutions. 

Do these firms tend to look down their nose at electronic security companies with a degree of smugness? Yes and no. They know they can run rings around the physical security channel and probably have a more nimble business model. But the smart ones also know this market will be tough. 

How does the physical security industry principally differ from the IT industry? 

Tobey: In IT, technology changes over-night and that makes those players more comfortable with risks. Some of them will fail spectacularly moving into physical security, but a few will make the right bets and be added to the list of dominant players. 

Adesta
What do the terms “integrated” and “converged” systems mean to you? 

Robert Hile: An integrated system means you have two or more independent systems residing on one graphical user interface, workstation or server. I will take it a step further and add that for the systems to be truly integrated, all of the independent systems must be fully programmable from the head-end and truly function as one system from the user’s perspective. 

What tangible, concrete effects are these trends having on the physical security industry? 

Hile: Convergence is making our industry more intelligent as a whole. In the past, traditional physical security business development people could survive by utilizing good sales skills and being able to ‘talk the talk’ so to speak. Today, you better know what you are talking about in regard to utilization of the customer’s network for communication and how network traffic will affect bandwidth, or the customer will dismiss you and your company and find someone else. 

Our customers are totally different than in the past. You might be selling to the IT director and his staff instead of the physical security department, and in most cases today, the IT department will be involved at some level, so you better be ready. 

On the operational side of the house, engineering and installation of IP-centric systems require a higher level of expertise and understanding than traditional independent physical security components. 

What do physical security players have to do to maintain leadership roles amid this changing landscape? 

Hile: The bottom line here is that all of us must evolve. Manufacturers and integrators alike need to change the way they go about their daily business lives. Old business practices like keeping the customer captive by installing proprietary systems and technology are rapidly disappearing. You are either going to lead the way in this new converged world or you are going to get run over. 

What roll will IT-based manufacturers such as Cisco and IBM and IT-centric VARs play in the physical security space?

Hile: One word: Huge! We are currently at the tail end of our application process to become one of the first Advanced Technology Partners with Cisco. We believe this partnership will help solidify our position as one of the truly diverse and dynamic IT-centric physical security integrators. By sharing expertise and sales leads in an effort to develop and close IP-based physical security opportunities, we are truly stronger than we could be on our own. 

What do you believe the IT industry finds attractive about physical security and vice versa? 

Hile: From the physical security side, IT-based technology will enable us to provide superior service and support to the customer. Our ability to service a customer remotely utilizing the network will enable us to provide almost instantaneous response. Adding additional service options for IP-based video or access control will be relatively easy when the time comes. 

From the IT side, I believe the attraction to the physical security market stems from the money that has and will continue to flow into the economy to protect our country from potential terrorist activities. 

What does physical security really need to learn from IT and vice versa? 

Hile: On the physical security side, we need to learn that technology convergence is not the end of the world. We also need to learn that partnering is not such a bad thing if you choose the right partners. Physical security manufacturers and integrators need to wake up and realize that convergence is going to happen, with or without them. 

One major lesson IT needs to learn from physical security is that there is still a large part of securing a facility that has to be done manually. There still has to be a huge amount of common sense applied to most physical security challenges. When it comes right down to it, you still might have mechanical systems that need to work in conjunction with IT-based messaging to physically protect assets.