Axis ROI, again

[CameraMan]

This (http://www.info4security.com/story.asp?sectioncode=10&storycode=4121043&c=1)story returns to the whole "ROI on IPVS systems are super awesome" thing.

And, you know, I rolled my eyes until I saw this:


With a standalone analogue-based CCTV system the college’s estates management team would have been obliged to purchase a system maintenance contract with a traditional CCTV specialist at an annual cost of £72,000 because they do not have the skills in-house to keep it running, Axis said. However, because the new surveillance system operates on a data network the college could give its own in-house IT team responsibility for ensuring the system is properly maintained.

Leaving aside the fact that they are confusing ROI with TCO (a common problem with surveillance systems, of course), they have a pretty good point. It's more expensive to install IP cameras but cheaper to own IP cameras because you already have an IT department that can handle any problems. Especially if the alarm company is going to charge you $108,000 a year (!) for maintainance.

What say you?

[integrator97]

Uhh, yea, could I see the notes and all the facts & figures on this one?

All the numbers seem out of whack to me. Why can all the axis cameras be POE, but the analog cameras need 240 volts? Are they comparing a 1972 camera that draws 17 amps? (Bill Warnock might remember a camera that used that kind of power ;)).

They were willing to put 324 cameras on there existing network? Or had a redundant network just sitting there unused?

And that annual maintenance cost? Even if that was a reasonable number, it probably includes replacement parts. What is the reasonable comparison of parts and man hours doing it in house?

And if their maintenance /IT guys can't handle a routine swap of an analog camera, what makes them think they can swap an IP camera? Either would involve ladders and screwdrivers, focusing and pointing.

I don't see it.

[CameraMan]

Good point, but we already know that everything that comes from Axis is garbage. I just pointed out the small kernel of truth in a steaming load of PR talk.

If you have nerds working for you, you don't need the camera guys to set up and maintain the network, which is the biggest expense and the biggest headache involved in IPVS.

[integrator97]

I can't speak for the quality of Axis, but I will take your experienced word for it. I don't think of seen an article yet touting IP that wasn't slanted more than a cable news network story on a presidential candidate. :D

Do you think any of the equipment is any more reliable or have a longer lifespan with IP versus analog? What is the savings in cost of ownership based on? Is it just labor, being able to do it yourself?

[CameraMan]

It isn't so much as being able to do it yourself as knowing that you're able to do it yourself that is so valuable with IP cameras (and the biggest reason why IP cameras are the wave of the future- not many customers have installed cameras but plenty feel comfortable with troubleshooting IP devices because when a computer or a printer goes down they can fix it themselves).

My rough guestimate of the TCO is based on the fact that when a camera goes down, some nerd can determine what the problem is and may well be able to fix it (probably better than a lot of the trunk slammers running around today giving the industry a bad name). Also, the customer is more flexible with moving cameras, adding memory to the system (because of aforesaid nerds).

Also, while there are plenty of horrible analog CCTV manufacturers, most customers who go IP will choose a reputable manufacturer (Axis, Panasonic, what have you) so pretty soon IP cameras will be perceived as "higher quality" and more reliable because most people's experience with IP wil be with, say, a Panasonic product, not a No Name Made in Inner Mongolia from Recycled Soviet Era Clock Radios (NNMIMRSECR) product. Just like "everyone knows" that burglar alarms suck and send false signals and never stop burglaries because most peoples' exposure to burglar alarms are ADT or Slomins horrors.

[Silva Consultants]

Many of my clients are major corporations which have their own in-house IT departments. They are usually glad to provide support to the security department for any IT-related security device, including IP cameras. However, this service is rarely without some type of cost.

Most IT departments obtain a large portion of their operating budget by cross-charging other departments for their services. In many cases, they establish a "level of service" agreement with the department that is requesting the support, and the cost varies depending on what level of service is desired. For example, if you can get by with next day service, that would be one price; if you need same day service, that would be another price; and if you need four-hour service, that would be yet another price. As you might imagine, the quicker the response is needed, the more expensive the price. Because most security systems need 24/7 service, they are usually charged the highest price. Also, many IT departments charge a monthly fee for things like disk storage space, at prices that you or I might find ridiculous.

I think the bottom line is that, just because something is provided by an in-house department doesn't mean its free. In many cases, the cost of in-house support can be much higher than the cost of services by an outside provider.