Donald McFarlane demystifies the issues behind open
and closed protocol fire systems, and explains why it
has become a topic of long-running debate within the
fire industry
The pros and cons of open and
closed protocDonald McFarlane demystifies the issues behind open
and closed protocol fire systems, and explains why it
has become a topic of long-running debate within the
fire industry
The pros and cons of open and
closed protocol fire systems is
one of the most widely debated
topics in our industry. Discussions are
often fuelled by the fire detection
experts' differing interpretations of
what defines an open and closed
system. The definition is certainly not
black and white, and with an
increasing variety of this type of
equipment available on the market, the
confusion is leading to many
companies making the wrong choices
for their businesses.
When customers choose a fire detection
and alarm system, they need to consider
a range of criteria to suit their individual
requirements, on top of assessing the
capabilities of the equipment. A key part
of that decision should involve working
out which system is going to be the best
long term investment, in terms of ease of
maintenance, ongoing support and the
overall cost. Whether they choose open
or closed protocol, it will have
significant implications for the system
going forwards.
To understand the advantages and
disadvantages of open and closed
protocol, it is important to go back to
basics and look at how the fire detection
systems work. The term 'protocol'
simply refers to the language that
electronic equipment uses to
communicate with each other. An
addressable fire alarm system consists of
a control panel and detectors which
must communicate with each other as
information and data is passed around.
For the components to be compatible, all
of these parts need to speak the same
language or protocol.
Closed protocol effectively means that
one company is responsible for the
entire system. From the manufacturing
and supply process, to the installation,
maintenance and upgrades, one single
company has sole ownership of the
software tool. Access to the software is
restricted, the companies do not disclose
their protocol to other manufacturers so
there is no compatibility between the
different closed systems.
The biggest benefit of a closed system
is that the customer is essentially buying
the expertise of one company. They have
one point of contact, and the added
security of knowing the expert engineers
will be fully trained and experienced in
each specialist part of equipment.
However, the major disadvantage of a
closed system is that any element of
choice has effectively been taken away
from the customer. There is complete
dependency on one company for spare
parts, modification, upgrades and access
to the protocol for servicing. It is often
perceived to be the more expensive
option as the inability to 'shop around'
can put a premium on ongoing
maintenance and prevent the customer
getting the best deal.
Open protocol systems allow
customers access to a wider market.
Various companies manufacture the
different components, such as control
panels and detectors, and anyone can
buy the equipment and have access to
the software tool. The obvious benefit of
open systems is the freedom of choice it
brings to customers, however it is the
open access that also leads to the biggest
disadvantage of these types of systems.
Anyone can work on the system, so
there is no guarantee that an engineer
has received full training on a product or
has the required degree of expertise.
While the definition of open and
closed protocol is fairly clear cut, the
confusion in the industry has been
caused by the fact that there are actually
no truly open protocol addressable fire
systems available on the market. Once a
device is installed, you cannot mix
another manufacturer's device on the
same loop, so the reality is that no
company in the fire alarm industry is
completely open.
The perception of open protocol
seems to come from who can actually
work on the system. Open systems in the
fire industry are about giving customers
a choice as to where they can purchase
and who can install, commission and
maintain the system.
At Gent, we combine the advantages
of both open and closed protocol
systems by having a number of
specialist independent outlets
throughout the country who provide
end user customers with competitive
choice in the market place. The
engineers in these specialist companies
are BAFE or LPS1014 and are fully
trained on the product before the
software is issued. This ensures the
customer has an expert provider on site,
as well as the choice of alternative
service providers if required.
We have also recently launched a new
Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) seminar to tackle the long
running fire industry debate
surrounding system protocols. The
seminar is aimed at helping consultants,
specifiers and fire industry insiders to
understand this complex issue. We want
to work with the rest of the industry and
provide the key to unravelling the
confusion surrounding open and closed
protocol.
Donald McFarlane, is UK business
manager at Gent by Honeywell
