IT Vs Security Responsible For Video Surveillance Infrastructure?

What? This sounds like you are asking the forum to make a business decision for you. It's less about "department" and more about the people in those departments. Without any of us being in your organization we cannot answer your question-- not to mention two identical departments in name may look completely different at two separate organizations.

Thanks Tyler, but I was hoping I could some valuable feedback or generate dialogue regarding typical physical security managers vs IT managers making the decisions and being accountable when it comes to surveillance infrastructure...adding also that the company is a F500 with over 100 locations around the world and over 1000 IT team members supporting a global network.

Some info here:

Converged vs. Dedicated Networks For Surveillance

Axis IT Study - 5 Points Misleading

What are the top pro's and con's of having IT be responsible for a company's video surveillance infrastructure (servers/storage) versus leaving solutions in the hands of the security manager?

the company is a F500 with over 100 locations around the world and over 1000 IT team members supporting a global network.

#1, this is a good topic. Thanks for asking.

With 100 locations, IT will definitely be involved because of the scale of the operations and network. The only questions are how much and in what areas?

Network: Because of the distributed nature of the company, you will have to use IT's corporate network rather than building a dedicated security network.

Cybersecurity: Because it will be on the corporate network, IT will almost certainly want to review / ensure the video surveillance system meets their standards.

Server/storage: That is a really interesting one. Some large organizations seek to centralize video surveillance storage and that typically means a storage infrastructure that is more complex than security managers want or can deal with. To the contrary, if the system is hundreds of turnkey appliances, IT could be less involved.

Btw, Tyler I think you are misreading his question, e.g., you say:

Should IT be solely in charge of security for say a utility company that is heavily regulated by NERC and FERC rather than say compliance and safety? No. Should they be at the table? Yes.

#1 is not asking whether IT should be in charge of security in general, he is asking about "infrastructure (servers/storage)." 

Finally, #1, I'd encourage you to learn more about the organization's IT department historical approach to managing devices for other departments. Some really want to be heavily involved, for better or worse. Some just want to give IP address, and verify bandwidth capacity and cybersecurity is not put at risk. Depending on where this company's IT department stands, that will largely dictate what to do here as it is unlikely one will fundamentally shift them.

We are not even close to having much experience with this type of enterprise environment. Any enterprise installs we did were at one off locations like manufacturing/distribution facilities for some Fortune 500's.

We are working with a company now that the IT department handles all surveillance needs, and they spec everything. Currently their priority is management and they like how they can manage a Ubiquiti surveillance network. The fact that they are capped at 1080P cameras, can not use vandal proof domes, can not use cameras with various lens sizes, etc does not matter. They just want that micro management.

So I think they are trading off security for management features.

I find them to be a little too involved. In this vertical, with clients having 10-30 cameras, there is no need for such detailed management. We replaced 2 cameras on a service call the other day, the IT department had to add the cameras back to the users view because they did not have permission to view the cameras, even though they had the same IP as the old ones. This is not an issue with our equipment.

So I believe it would be best to have a security minded team, and an IT team involved.

I saw response for F500 with 100s locations. Well try 1000s location with over 150000 people.  How do you maximize performance and reduce cost.  IT should not own anything since they are a cost center, But they should be providing the services to which they have the core competencies and under specific server level targets defined by the stakeholders. 

"What? This sounds like you are asking the forum to make a business decision for you"

I'm tired of people responding with lines like "Oh you just want us to help with a project you're on" or "you just want help with your homework". Knowledge is knowledge and the more questions that are asked the better, whatever the information is going to be used for.

I've seen this on sites like Stack Overflow. If you have a helpful response, then sing it, otherwise move on to a question that you are sure your insightful answer won't be ever used for business or homework or in anyway to help someone else out.