Building A Case For A More Robust Network

Jul 1, 2008 12:00 PM, By Paul C. Boucherle CPP, CSC

           

I have discovered what I believe to be a universal truth — every IT person wants a larger, faster, more scalable, and more robust network. Being a “recovering electrical engineer” who has worked on network-centric systems for the last eight years, I can understand this on a very visceral level. This one truth can be used to the advantage of those advocating convergence strategies. Building the business case for a more robust network requires understanding of the best ways to optimize a network from an investment and performance perspective, which include mapping security into the actual business value.

What exactly do we mean by “a more robust network?” Robust doesn't just mean a network with big bandwidth. It also means a system that is capable of coping with anticipated and unanticipated variations in its operating environment with minimal damage, alteration or loss of functionality. Robust also means dynamically flexible and adaptable in cost-effective ways, which will support Return on Security Investments (ROSI). Convergence of physical security systems onto a network, in order to ensure availability and reliability, requires additional bandwidth, routing of data for storage and segmentation from standard network maintenance functions.

Understanding the big picture can help to justify a robust network. New video technology allows for access to critical data in real-time by authorized department heads, thus helping to support faster and more accurate decision-making. Delivery of data to the right people at the right time certainly increases the ROSI potential for any company considering the investment. But first you must understand the company's business.

A common misconception about putting physical security applications on the network is the old argument about “putting all our security eggs in one basket.” With modern network design, the network can be segmented in ways to satisfy even the most stringent performance and data security requirements. Make no mistake: this is a critical step that must carefully outline the user's requirements for availability, privacy, storage reliability and quality of data before proceeding with the network design.

Before a network can be redesigned for optimal performance, one must understand how, when and where various stakeholders will be using physical security system data to manage the business. A good rule of thumb is to begin the design criteria with the end in mind. In other words, what will network loading, storage and delivery needs be in a three- to five-year planning window? What departments will need to access data?

Consider these questions when evaluating building a more robust network:

Why might an end-user consider a more robust network?

Simply put, because there are long-term cost savings associated with installation and maintenance. The days of discretely wired low-voltage systems are rapidly coming to an end because a more cost-effective model — the network — is available.

Working backward from the desired end-state can provide a clear picture of what the network capabilities, nomenclature and attendant cost factors would look like. After the future system migration potential has been projected and agreed to by the end-user, the network building blocks can be accurately estimated to support future migrations; i.e., cost-effective scalability.

What drawbacks to the investment might be encountered?

• Can more services be added, such as wireless access, point-of-sale connection, alarm features, etc.?

  Price vs. Cost - Price is short-term and cost is long-term. The cost becomes relative to the business value delivered by the new network. When analyzing the implementation costs of discrete physical security and safety systems, it becomes apparent that cable installation can easily comprise 35 to 40 percent of the physical security system installation. Multiply this cost for each different physical security system that will now be network-centric installed over a three- to five-year period, and the cost savings of a robust network become the basis for ROSI.

• Size - They say bigger is better, and I can't argue that as it relates to building backbone networks. The cost of high-quality fiber cable has come down substantially while the cost to install conduit, coring and trenching continues to rise based on labor rates. It's a good idea to put more fiber cable in than you think you will need by a factor of three. You won't ever have to say you are sorry later.

• Will it accommodate facility expansion?

  Existing Equipment - Using existing network equipment is a smart move for a lot of reasons, but you must first do your homework. IT “real estate” is precious in communication closets. Whenever a network rack has low port density and relatively new switch technology, there is an opportunity to leverage your current network investment. Racks and their support equipment (power supplies, UPS, cooling systems, backbone network patch panels, etc.) are expensive, take up space and generate heat. So anytime you can optimize existing equipment, it will lower the Total Cost of Ownership (TCO). The key element here: what does the switch technology look like, and does it have dual-plane network connectivity?

• Training Expense - Typically, IT departments have standards for hardware and software so they can minimize additional training costs through standardization of network hardware.

• What about long-term value?

  Operating Overhead - Scalability allows for minimizing the number of people needed to administer the network effectively. Increasing the size and workload of a network can actually reduce the effective overhead costs of operation.

• Maintenance - Costs for maintenance will increase in direct proportion to the hardware installed to support the network.

• Exposure - Larger networks need to be carefully designed and implemented with all the necessary security procedures and protocols. This is especially true when wireless networks are incorporated into standard hardwire systems.

• TCO - As discrete physical security sub-systems such as video, access control, intercom, fire and intrusion detection use network protocol (TCP/IP) to deliver data, TCO factors decrease from both an implementation and service/maintenance cost. In addition, using existing IT resources to manage the network reduces outside contractor costs for normal preventative maintenance and even replacement of faulty hardware.

Want to use this article? Click here for options!
© 2012 Penton Media Inc.

Select an Issue September 1, 2008 August 1, 2008 July 1, 2008 School Security IP Security Supplement June 1, 2008 May 1, 2008 April 1, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 1, 2008 January 1, 2008 December 1, 2007 November 1, 2007 October 1, 2007 September 1, 2007 August 1, 2007 July 1, 2007 June 1, 2007 IP Security Supplement May 1, 2007 April 1, 2007 March 1, 2007 February 1, 2007 January 1, 2007 School Security December 1, 2006 November 1, 2006 October 1, 2006 September 1, 2006 August 1, 2006 July 1, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 1, 2006 April 1, 2006 March 1, 2006 February 1, 2006 January 1, 2006 December 1, 2005 November 1, 2005 October 1, 2005 September 1, 2005 August 1, 2005 July 1, 2005 June 1, 2005 May 1, 2005 April 1, 2005 March 1, 2005 February 1, 2005 January 1, 2005 December 1, 2004 November 1, 2004 October 1, 2004 September 1, 2004 August 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 July 1, 2004 June 1, 2004 May 1, 2004 April 1, 2004 March 1, 2004 February 1, 2004 January 1, 2004 December 1, 2003 November 1, 2003 October 1, 2003 September 1, 2003 August 1, 2003 July 1, 2003 June 1, 2003 May 1, 2003 April 1, 2003 March 1, 2003 February 1, 2003 January 1, 2003 December 1, 2002 November 1, 2002 October 1, 2002 September 1, 2002 August 1, 2002 July 1, 2002 June 1, 2002 May 1, 2002 April 1, 2002 March 1, 2002 February 1, 2002 January 1, 2002 December 1, 2001 November 1, 2001 October 1, 2001 September 1, 2001 August 1, 2001 July 1, 2001 June 1, 2001 May 1, 2001 April 1, 2001 March 1, 2001 February 1, 2001 January 1, 2001 December 1, 2000 November 1, 2000 October 1, 2000 September 1, 2000 August 1, 2000 July 1, 2000 June 1, 2000 May 1, 2000 April 1, 2000 March 1, 2000 February 1, 2000 January 1, 2000 December 1, 1999 November 1, 1999 October 1, 1999 September 1, 1999 August 1, 1999 July 1, 1999 June 1, 1999 May 1, 1999 April 1, 1999 March 1, 1999 February 1, 1999 January 1, 1999 December 1, 1998 November 1, 1998 October 1, 1998 September 1, 1998 August 1, 1998 July 1, 1998 June 1, 1998 May 1, 1998 April 1, 1998 March 1, 1998 February 1, 1998 January 1, 1998 December 1, 1997 November 1, 1997 October 1, 1997 September 1, 1997 August 1, 1997 July 1, 1997 June 1, 1997 May 1, 1997 April 1, 1997 March 1, 1997 February 1, 1997 January 1, 1997

This month in Access Control

• Targeting The Customer
• Electronic Pedigrees
• One Hero Among Many
• Who? What? When? Where? Why?
• More from September's issue