Open and closed protocoles ???

[Benzerari]

I do not know if every body agree that the meaning of open and closed protocols have changed a little bit. In the past I had heard that open protocols systems are systems using i.e. Apollo or Hochiki devices and their softwares are available for you for free once you buy a control panel like Morley or advanced ones, but it seems that other Companies are using Apollo open protocol stuff but their softwares still not obtainable, i.e. Static systems of Static Company...  and some others too...

What do you think?

What is the point to use open protocol of Apollo or Hochiki, if your software is not obtainable by every body?

[David Rooney]

I think some companies have modified the term to "managed" protocol.... its a way to convince the client (or more often a consultant/architect) who generally recommend these systems for some strange reason... usually money and free lunches allegedly.... (or am i just being cynical !).

Anyway... they convince the client that its far better for them so no "outsider" can come in and interfere with their system.... because as we all know, responsible building managers are repeatedly letting strange men with laptops in to their buildings to tamper with their fire alarm systems.

[Wiz]

The problem is that it is often possible to totally **** things up by using panel configuration software. If an engineer doesn't really know what he is doing with the software he could cause all sorts of problems.

Most panel manufacurers will supply a panel with a BS5839 configuration pre-loaded into it, but allow subsequent major changes to be made via the panel keyboard or by configuration software.

I think that 'closed protocol' or 'managed protocol' systems trap customers into a non-competitive situation and they would be foolish to choose it. Totally 'open' operating and configuration protocol/software is the ideal, but with some regulation.

I don't think many 'closed/managed protocol' panel manufacturers would agree with me, but I would like to see the following:

1) Control panels capable of supporting the 'open protocol' devices available from device manufacturers and pre-loaded with a BS5839 compliant configuration. Allocation of device 'labels/messages' and zone allocations and none BS critical changes to be easily inputted by panel keyboard/laptop software by anyone following panel-supplied instructions.

2) Configuration software for 'advanced' functions or changes that may result in a non-BS 5839 configuration available only to engineers that have been suitably trained in it's use (competiively priced training available to any engineer who might want it)

3) Indication on the control panel display of a unique reference number confirming the last change to the configuration software. This number could be recorded by the engineer upon completion of any changes to the configuration and referenced on his next vist to ensure that someone else had not subsequently 'tampered' with his previous configuration.

[Graeme]

as what Wiz mentions.

Open protocol means that the end user is not hand cuffed to one supplier of any future equipment needed and a select handful of installers.

Chosing open means that they have much more options on selecting maintenance companies and can shop around.

[Benzerari]

One of my colleagues tried to contact Siemens technical support one day after taking over new site for maintenance with Siemens system, the manager from Siemens said to him, you are not allowed to touch the system we have contracted it for ten years, even a different company have rented the building with that existing Siemens system, the Company was obliged to carry on the same contract till the end.

As result my colleague lost the new contract!

I do not know why open and closed protocol's matter is not the priority of any body to sort it out in the simplest way?

Neither the law and legislatyion nor the standard wants to sort it out or unify it in a simplest way! :/

Have your say!

[Benzerari]

Closed protocol's systems such as Gent and ADT-Minerva...etc, can be dealt with only by a Gent engineer and ADT one... or some engineer of some company member of Gent and ADT...etc

But open protocol's systems such as Morley and Advanced using open protocols of Apollo or Hochiki... can be dealt with by 'any engineer', the fact that even if you have never ever bought a panel from Morley or advanced you still get a free technical support from them and that is the best way for any one to learn their softwares and systems...

But what is called "managed protocol's systems" are then systems using open protocol of Apollo or Hochiki but  closing them to suit their own business only...or trying to close what is been designed to be open.

Sounds like 'Holding a knife from the middle' ... isn’t?

In fact now there are three kinds of protocols: Open, Closed and managed (the Grey one)

I would love to hear one day, BS5839 setting up the basis of fire alarm system's protocols to be the reference for any manufacturer of fire alarm systems, just to unify these protocols to only one protocol of communication...

What do you think?
What are the major obstacles to make it happen one day? And
Who are they, the major part involved into making this decision?

Have your say!

[David Rooney]

Major obstacle is what makes the world go round......... money !

[Allen Higginson]

One of my colleagues tried to contact Siemens technical support one day after taking over new site for maintenance with Siemens system, the manager from Siemens said to him, you are not allowed to touch the system we have contracted it for ten years, even a different company have rented the building with that existing Siemens system, the Company was obliged to carry on the same contract till the end.

As result my colleague lost the new contract!

I do not know why open and closed protocol's matter is not the priority of any body to sort it out in the simplest way?

Neither the law and legislatyion nor the standard wants to sort it out or unify it in a simplest way! :/

Have your say!

Unless the system was rented (which Siemens don't do) then I can't see how this is the case, apart from the fact that it was installed by the owner of the building and they negotiated the price for installation of the fire alarm system dependant on a long term maintenance contract.This being the case then I'd take it up with the owner.

[Benzerari]

One of my colleagues tried to contact Siemens technical support one day after taking over new site for maintenance with Siemens system, the manager from Siemens said to him, you are not allowed to touch the system we have contracted it for ten years, even a different company have rented the building with that existing Siemens system, the Company was obliged to carry on the same contract till the end.

As result my colleague lost the new contract!

I do not know why open and closed protocol's matter is not the priority of any body to sort it out in the simplest way?

Neither the law and legislatyion nor the standard wants to sort it out or unify it in a simplest way! :/

Have your say!

Unless the system was rented (which Siemens don't do) then I can't see how this is the case, apart from the fact that it was installed by the owner of the building and they negotiated the price for installation of the fire alarm system dependant on a long term maintenance contract.This being the case then I'd take it up with the owner.

Who ever installed it the closed protocol system of siemens can be serviced only by siemens engineer, and the new tenant were obliged to carry on with the existing contract till the end of 10 years, otherwise the none cost effective option was not the best choice for them that time which was to replace it by brand new open protocol one...

[Benzerari]

Major obstacle is what makes the world go round......... money !

In some how I would agree with that, money are more important than human and property safety sometimes, and that’s the way it is actually!

[JonnyG]

Benzerari, I take your point about minerva and gent. I work for a large company in Northern Ireland, and we have a couple of ex-Thorn engineers working for us, and they specialised in minerva. I maintain a few minerva systems and have found that they are all starting to fail in different ways. We would use Adt to purchase parts off and have never had any problems.

But Gent have always been a different story. I also maintain a number of Gent panels, and without knowing an engineer from Gent I would have been very lost on a couple of occasions.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but i've always diagreed with taking on any maintaince contract on a Gent system purely to do with the fact that as an engineer, I feel that I can't maintain it properly. Do you think a service contract should be taken out for a closed protocol system that the service company really can't maintain??

[Benzerari]

Benzerari, I take your point about minerva and gent. I work for a large company in Northern Ireland, and we have a couple of ex-Thorn engineers working for us, and they specialised in minerva. I maintain a few minerva systems and have found that they are all starting to fail in different ways. We would use Adt to purchase parts off and have never had any problems.

But Gent have always been a different story. I also maintain a number of Gent panels, and without knowing an engineer from Gent I would have been very lost on a couple of occasions.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but i've always diagreed with taking on any maintaince contract on a Gent system purely to do with the fact that as an engineer, I feel that I can't maintain it properly. Do you think a service contract should be taken out for a closed protocol system that the service company really can't maintain??

Not totally, definitely you have to have the right engineer to deal with the right system, there is no doubt that the business has to run any way and that's the bottom of the line thought.

I have learnt about Gent and ADT systems through their engineers colleagues of mine and I have never ever been trained by Gent or ADT Companies or their members, my own view does not withdraw totally closed protocols systems, but I rather hate the politics of closed protocols companies, even I agree they are right to run their own stuff the way they want... also I enjoy some features of closed protocols systems i.e. the one based on soft addressing which probably you do not find it in an open protocol system... and many other features...

I think a new strategy of investment towards helping open protocols systems to spread throughout while improving them to take advantages of the closed protocols ones, this may help so lot any service company to gain more contracts also give more opportunities to new beginners engineers to put their feets in fire industry... other ways how can you explain the lack of fire alarm engineers then?... I think among the major causes of this lack are:

1. The none availability of the free technical support to help engineers to learn more closed protocols systems
2. The none availability of the guides of closed protocols systems, and unfortunately
3. Their expansive training courses, and possibly you have to work with some company member of Gent or ADT to get their training course...etc

But this remains just my own view

[Allen Higginson]

Benzerari, I take your point about minerva and gent. I work for a large company in Northern Ireland, and we have a couple of ex-Thorn engineers working for us, and they specialised in minerva. I maintain a few minerva systems and have found that they are all starting to fail in different ways. We would use Adt to purchase parts off and have never had any problems.

But Gent have always been a different story. I also maintain a number of Gent panels, and without knowing an engineer from Gent I would have been very lost on a couple of occasions.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but i've always diagreed with taking on any maintaince contract on a Gent system purely to do with the fact that as an engineer, I feel that I can't maintain it properly. Do you think a service contract should be taken out for a closed protocol system that the service company really can't maintain??

I have to disagree on that one - a competant engineer should be able to service and maintain most systems is spares are readily available.
As long as you are changing like for like in the event of a fault then it shouldn't be an issue.
PS - The support on your falling over Minerva's (I assume you mean 16's and 80's) is being withdrawn in 2010 so you need to be making your customers aware of this.
As it is, the price for Minerva equipment is getting scandalous (due to supply and demand), even to ADT (who buy it from TPEG.
You work  arond the corner from ADT mate??

[Benzerari]

Benzerari, I take your point about minerva and gent. I work for a large company in Northern Ireland, and we have a couple of ex-Thorn engineers working for us, and they specialised in minerva. I maintain a few minerva systems and have found that they are all starting to fail in different ways. We would use Adt to purchase parts off and have never had any problems.

But Gent have always been a different story. I also maintain a number of Gent panels, and without knowing an engineer from Gent I would have been very lost on a couple of occasions.

Sorry to hijack your thread, but i've always diagreed with taking on any maintaince contract on a Gent system purely to do with the fact that as an engineer, I feel that I can't maintain it properly. Do you think a service contract should be taken out for a closed protocol system that the service company really can't maintain??

I have to disagree on that one - a competant engineer should be able to service and maintain most systems is spares are readily available.
As long as you are changing like for like in the event of a fault then it shouldn't be an issue.
PS - The support on your falling over Minerva's (I assume you mean 16's and 80's) is being withdrawn in 2010 so you need to be making your customers aware of this.
As it is, the price for Minerva equipment is getting scandalous (due to supply and demand), even to ADT (who buy it from TPEG.
You work  arond the corner from ADT mate??

That's good news Buzz, we have got many customers of first priority with ADT minerva the 80's systems, we may have a good deal, in two years time then!

[JonnyG]

I have to disagree on that one - a competant engineer should be able to service and maintain most systems is spares are readily available.
As long as you are changing like for like in the event of a fault then it shouldn't be an issue.
PS - The support on your falling over Minerva's (I assume you mean 16's and 80's) is being withdrawn in 2010 so you need to be making your customers aware of this.
As it is, the price for Minerva equipment is getting scandalous (due to supply and demand), even to ADT (who buy it from TPEG.
You work  arond the corner from ADT mate??

I maybe should have explained my self better, I have no problems maintaining Gent systems, its just when I attend faults etc I am never truely 100% sure that what I'm doing will rectify the problem. Maybe it's just that I lack the confidence I would have if it were a Morley or an Ampac. It is the unfamiliarity with the prototol that I find annoying, I like to really know the ins and outs of the programming side of things. But with Gent I doubt thats ever going to happen.
Thanks for the info about Minerva.
And to answer your last question, I work for Chubb.