Genetec And Milestone NOT Good For Central Monitoring?

I am an integrator and I have a Central Monitoring Station and we do Video Monitoring for our customers. I have no experience using Genetec or Milestones which are regularily covered on IPVM which may explain the reason for my questions.

We use two types of automation software that both have Video Integrations. We use Immix by Sureview for Remote Guarding Applications (eg. using Videoiq analytics) and use Manitou by Bold for Video Alarm Verification type accounts. This software along with others (eg. Dice, IBS, MAS, Microkey) are the main platforms for Central stations and have integrations to the many cameras, DVRs and NVRs covered on IPVM, yet a search of any of this software is not covered on IPVM and my discussions with other Central Station Companies is they don’t use Genetec, Milestones or ONSSI either.

A search of subjects like video alarm verification and remote guarding doesn't seem to have any hits on IPVM either.

Q1: What are the limitations or reasons why Genetec, Milestones and ONSSI are not able to satisfy the needs of Monitoring stations for Video?

Q2: There is a large variation between the various CS automation software with respect to Video (eg. no standards, emerging technology hiccups, interface, # manufacturers integrated) and our industry does not have the in-depth analysis and testing done; like what IPVM does. Is there a reason why IPVM does not cover this space? Is there a possibility in the future to cover these video applications and this other software?

Robert, good questions!

Both product groups (the CMSes like Bold, Sureview and the VMSes like Milestone, Genetec) are moving towards each other. The CMSes want to do more with video. The VMSes want to do more with access and intrusion.

However, VMSes started with video and still lack most of the core intrusion management capabilities of CMSes like Bold and Sureview.

In terms of why we do not cover the CMSes, that's because we started with video. Now, we are aggressively expanding into access control (see 98 posts and next month's course). Plus, we are considering expanding into intrusion detection next year.

The central station market has a lot of requirements that are just different than typical VMS usage. It's very event-driven, and for every event you want to pull up site info, customer contact info, event handling scripts, etc. Also, you usually want to have some coverage in case an event is claimed to have not been handled properly, so it's common for CS platforms to have a lot more logging of stuff, including ALL the operator actions.

Bills are frequently event based as well, so you want to be able to count events per account, ensure they did not go over limits and so forth.

You're right about the video, SureView and iViewNow both address that gap by hooking into the common platforms (DICE, et al) and adding a video handling ability.

Thanks for your responses.

Hopefully, to not confuse the matter further, I see the space called PSIM (which is covered by IPVM) is very similar to the CS automation software space except it appears that PSIM tries to unify different systems in one interface, as if that would give a better picture of site situation awareness. I have no experience using PSIM software, but I don't agree with its premise. We approach it differently, we would seperate the different systems (video, building security alarm, fire monitoring, access control) into seperate accounts so that the operator can manage the situation better and not have clutter from the other systems unless it made sense to do so. For maintenance, putting one of the systems on test (which could be for hours) you don't want to deactivate all the systems by mistake.

PSIM and CMS are typically used by different organizations for different purposes.

A PSIM is generally used internally to manage a single organization's physical security

A CMS is generally used by service providers to manage the security of customer organizations.

There certainly can be overlap and certain providers like Sureview now offer both.

Thanks John

The reason why Genetec and Milestone are not used for Remote Central Monitoring is that they are not made for that purpose. A VMS is essentially developed with a server and multiple client architecture for a Systems deployment , as against a Remote Services approach, which would need a single server architecture and more capabilities to handle big data, create an escalation matrix, a advanced search , file management etc.

I took what you guys have suggested and have expressed it as a picture. Do I have it right?

FYI- the image icon on the task bar doesn't appear to work.