Does PSIM Have to Support 3rd Party Systems?

Published Oct 20, 2010 00:00 AM
PUBLIC - This article does not require an IPVM subscription. Feel free to share.

In the last year, the number of companies claiming to be PSIM has increased significantly - video, access, security, etc, all have accelerated the use of the term.

While no 'standard' definition exists and each vendor will tell you that PSIM is whatever trinket they sell, what should PSIM mean?

While most agree that PSIM requires integrating various systems and providing ways to optimize threat response, a very big point of disagreement exits in the industry:

Does PSIM Have to Support 3rd Party Systems?

A lot of companies calling themselves PSIM have no 3rd party support. They only support their own access, video, and/or intrusion products. Another common variation is a 'PSIM' from a VMS provider who only supports their own VMS (I'm looking at you OnSSI). If you have any other DVRs or VMS systems at any of your sites, you cannot use them in the PSIM.

What Do You Think?

Vote in the poll below:


Our Recommendation

We strongly believe that only solutions supporting third party systems should be called PSIM.

  1. Many, if not most, users who need system integration and workflow optimization have multiple system vendors. A PSIM without 3rd party support will not meet their needs.
  2. Adding 3rd party system support is usually costly and complex (despite the sales claims to the contrary). Lacking 3rd party support cannot be simply overcome.

At the very least, they should call themselves "Proprietary PSIM" though I know this is not happening since such a term is pejorative in our industry.