Ensuring Best Value In Fire Detection
Specifiers and users need some understanding of the way in which fire detection technology has evolved to make the correct choice of fire detection system, evaluating what is currently available and the direction in which the technology is likely to evolve in the future. This includes keeping up to date with new legislation such as the RRO (Regulatory Reform Order), under which the responsibilities of building owners and occupiers have changed significantly.
System extension or upgrading should also be considered when calculating best value. Depending on the choices made at the original point of purchase, necessary extension or upgrading of the system to meet new regulations or changes of use may not be straightforward due to, for example, a system being obsolete or product incompatibility.
One major factor
that can influence the whole life costs of a fire detection system is the type
of 'protocol' used - i.e. the language used by electronic products to
communicate with each other. Protocols are often referred to as 'open' (if they
are compatible with other manufacturer's products) or 'closed' (when the
manufacturer makes both the panels and the devices needed for a complete
system). Understanding the difference between open and closed protocol can have
a significant bearing on achieving best value.
Weighing up the cost
The differences
between an open and a closed protocol in fire detection are not simply
technical. The commitment to a fire detection system based upon one or the
other can have enormous implications for building owners and facilities
managers further down the line.
The initial capital
cost may be attractive, but specifying a closed protocol system does tie the
user/specifier to a single manufacturer for the lifetime of the system. If a
problem does occur with the system, the owner is not at liberty to try another
manufacturer's products as a solution because they will not be compatible with
the rest of the system. There is also the possibility that products based on an
old system are no longer readily available.
Some might consider
that combining products from different manufacturers, as may happen with open
protocol systems, would inevitably mean that the system will not work as well
as one where all the components are sourced from a single manufacturer. This is
not the case - consider most Formula 1 cars, which consist of a combination of
components from various manufacturers. Companies like Apollo run dedicated
testing and certification regimes to ensure that products developed using their
open protocol are fully compatible and reliable.
There may actually
be advantages in going with an open protocol when it comes to negotiating the
full fire detection package. With a number of different parties all offering,
in effect, a similar product (because they are using the same open protocol)
there is more competitiveness on price and service.
Basing fire system
development on partnering rather than exclusion encourages longevity.
Manufacturers may come in or occasionally drop out of the partnership but
products compatible with the open, shared protocol will always be available - for
example, the protocol that Apollo fire detectors use has been available since
1986, the year the company introduced its first range of intelligent fire
detectors.
This ensures
forwards and backwards compatibility between products, simplifying the
extension of systems and making it easier to source component products to
accommodate changes of use or upgrades.
Final considerations
A closed protocol fire
detection system entails being dependent on a single manufacturer for all spare
parts, servicing, modification and upgrading of the system. An open protocol system,
however, means being free to choose a different company to service the system,
supply a different control panel or any other component.
© Copyright 2011 Means Of Escape Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy
Copyright © 2011 Think Agency - Website Designers Kent