Security consultant Michael Silva shared:
Received angry call from an integrator this morning because I advised a client not to accept his proposal for a camera system covering the parking lot. Didn't think installing cameras was a priority and advised client to improve lighting and fix perimeter fencing instead.
Thoughts? Lighting and fencing are fundamentals.
Not to just be an echo-chamber honk for Silva, but I violently agree with him.
A security camera isn't a magical talisman that wards off evil-doers. A fence, though, just might.
Even as an integrator I would agree with that, and several times have pushed our own projects back to advocate for changes like that. It doesn't do us any good on the integration side to force our project through ahead of others- especially in this case where cameras may have left the client unsatisfied (and therefore put the future relationship in jeopardy or lessened their perceived value of security cameras as a whole). Sure you get that initial easy sale but then risk losing years of partnership there by doing it in the wrong order
That integrator sales person (or owner) just lost a job or commission. There’s no telling how much work they put into the proposal to get there.
This most likely would have gone better had the end user worked with Silva first and the bid never hit the street.
Consultants aren’t too happy when they work out original concepts through numerous free selection committees and an integrator steps in and says “Hey, dump him and we’ll just use the concept for the last project for your location, it’s going to meet your CFAST requirements and save you money.
I can find no reason to disagree with the decision aside from profit motive or squandered time investment. Someone may have seen a commission disappear.
Mike consulted his client on the priorities of a given security project. That's Mike's job as an independent consultant. Integrator needs to pull up his big boy pants, or get into the fencing market too. After the fence and lighting is done, then do cameras as funding allows.
Generally I would agree with Silva. The integrator put in a lot of time into the proposal. Dumping the camera deal should not have been an option. Adding the fencing and lighting should have been a part of the total deal. Subcontract if necessary.
It may have been a budget issue. If the budget is exceeded then subcontracting will only make the issue worse with another tier of mark-ups.
Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.
