Replacing Access Control Systems

Author: Brian Rhodes, Published on Feb 20, 2013

Q: What's rarer than a two-headed penny? A: An end user who replaces their access control system. Well, maybe it isn't so absurdly rare it never happens, but end users hold on to access control systems for as long as they can bear, often decades, before they make a switch. What finally pushes them to change? We answer these questions and more in the following note.

Sticking with Their Systems

**** ** *** ******* ****** *** ****** ******* ******-***** *** uncommon? ****** ******: ***** ** ** ******** ****** ** ******. Take *** ******** ***** ******** ****** ***** ** *******:

*** *** **** ****, *** **** ******** ** ** ****** control ****** *** ******* ********* **** *** **** ** *******. As **** ** ******* ****** *** **** ** ********, *** goal ** *** ****** *** **** *********.

******, ********** **** *** ***** ************ ******** **** ******** ****** performing, *******, *** ****** ********** ******* ** * ******* *****, the ****** ******* ******** ********* ****** ************ ***** ** * snail's ****.

*** **** ******** ***********, ******* ** ***** *** ***** ** seldom ***** ******* *****. **** *** ******** ****** ****** *** stable *********** ** **** ****** ******* *******, ******* ** ******** to **** ******** ***** ** **** ** ***** ******* ******.

No '********* **********' *** ******

**** **** *** ******** ************ ** '***** **' ****** *******, most ** *** ******** ***** **** ***** ************* ************** ** ***-***** *************. ** **** *****, ***** ******* *** ** ********** ****** for ********** ** **** **, *** ******** *** ***** ** *** great ****** ** ****** **********'***********' ********* ** ****** ***** ****** **** *** ******* **** money **** *********** ******* *** ***** ********** ******.

*** *** ******? **-***** ******* ** *** ***** ****** ********** new ********** ** ******* ******** *******. *** ***** *** *** industry ** *********** '******* *** *********' ** ****** ******* ** ********, *** ******** ****** **********, *****.

Why ******* ******?

** **** *** *** ** ****** ****** ******* *****? *** our **********, ***** ******* **** **** ******* *** ********** ** analog ***** ************ ******* ** ***** ****:

  • **** ** *******/ ****** ******:**** ******* ****** ** * *********** ** *********. **** ************* cut **** **** *** ************ ** '*** ** ****' *********, ***** **** ******* **** ******* * ****** *** ******* and ****** ********** *** ******** **** '******** *************' ** ****, the **** ** * ****** ****** ******* ********* ** **** passes. ******* ** ** ******* ***** ***** ****** ********* ** procure, ** **** ********* ******* ***** ****** ** **** ******* platforms, *** ***** **** ****** ******* ** ** ******* ** an ********* ****** ** *******.
  • *** *********:***** ****** ******* ******* ******* ***/** ********, *** *** *********** need ** ********* **** ***** ******* ******* ** ****** **** remotely ****** **** *******. *** *********** ** *********** ****** *** management ******** ** ** ******** ********* ****** *** **** **** an ********** *********** ******** ** *** ********* ** ** ***** systems, *** **** ******** *** **** **** ****** ** *** serialized *** ****-***** ***** ** ******** ****** *******.
  • *** ***** *************:** *** **** ****, *** ************* ** ***** ************'* *********** with ****** ******* ****** * ****** ***********. ***** ********* ** achieve **** ****** **** *******, ***** *** ** ***** ******* 'out-of-box' ************ **** **** ******* ****** *********. *** *********** ******* of ******** ******* **** ***** ******** *** ******* ** **** systems, ******** ************ ** ****** *** ********** *********** * *************** task.
  • *********** / ****************:** * ****** ******, *********** *********** ** *********** ***** ******. In ***** ** ****** ********* ********-***-**** ***, **** *** ***** **** **** *** ******* ****** support ********* ******** ** ********** ************. ******** ******* **** ******* or *********** *** ***** ******, ** ******* *** **************** ******* different ********* ** ****** ********** ** ** ***-********.

Changes *** ******

*******, *** ******** ********** ** ****** ** *** ********, *** cost. *** ***** ********* ***** **** ********* ** ******* ** control **** ****, ** *********** ** ****** ******* ********* ** price. ** ******** ** *** **** **** ** ******** *** labor, ****** ***** ***** ***** **:

  • ** **************** *********:**** **** *** **** ********** *** ********** ** ***** *** video *** *** ***** ** **************** *** ****** *** ********** weight. **********, ****** ******** ********** *** *******: *** ***** ** access ****** **** ** * ******* ** ********* ***** ** a **********'* ****** ********* ** *** **** *******? *******, *** pressure ** *********** **** ***** ******* *** *** ********* ** a ****** ******** ******** *** *********** * *** **** ** the *******. **** **** *** ***** **** ********** ********** ** their ***** ********* ** ******* ****** ******* *******. ************** ***************** ******* ** '***** ** *******' **** * ********** ** vendors *** *** *** ********* ** **********, ** ****** *********** to ********. *******, ** **** ****, ** *** **** ****** should *** ****** *** ********* ** **** **** ** ******** access *********, *** ****** ********* ************ ** **** ********* ** required.
  • '*** ** *******':*** ****** ** ** **************** ******* ** ******** **** * small **** ** ****** *********** ******** *** ** *** ******. If * **** ********** ** ****** ***, **** *********** ******* the ********* ** * ******* *****. ** *********** ****** ******** ********* *******, ***** ******* **** ** ********* ** *** ***********, *** so **. * *** ****** ********* *** ***** ******** ******* to *** ****** ******.
  • **** **********: ** **** *****, *** ******* ** ** ******* ***** compliance **** ******** ******** *********. ********* ** *** *** ** an *******, *** ***** ** *** **** ** ************* ** hardware **** ** ******* ** **** ******* *****. **** **** employ **** **** ** '**************' ***** *** ********* ******** *** be ************* **** **-**, ***** ***** ***** ***** * ******. As **** ** *********** ******* *** *******, ****** ********** ******* come **** ****.

Cutover ******** ** ********

****** ******** ** ** ******* ** ********* ** ***** **********. Unlike ***** ************, ***** ******** ******* ******* ** ** ******, updating ****** ******* *** **** *** ******** ** ****** ***** are ** ********. ***** * ****** **** *** ''*******" ** an ******** *** ****** ** ****, *** ******** ** ******** for *****, *****-**** *******. **** ********, *** ******** ***** ****** to ******** ***:

************ ** *****:******* *** ****** ** **** '***********' **********, ***** ********** ***** go **** *** ** ************* ********. ********* ***** ** *** change, *** *** ********** ******** **** ******* (**: *********** ** mechanical ****, ********** ** ******) **** ******* ****** ******** **** a ****** ****** *******.

********** *********: *** ******** ** ***** *** *** ******** ****** **** be ***** ** *** *** ******. ***** '******** *******' *** be *********, **** ********* ** *** ******* **** ********* ** 'User ******* ******' ** *** ******** ** ** * **** job ** ******** ***** ******* ** ****.

***** ******** ********** ********* ***** ******* *** ***** ** **** security ********* *** **********, ******* ****** ** ***** **** ******** the **** ********.

  • ****** **********: ****** ********** *** *********, ****** * ****** *** ******** if ********** ******.
  • **** **** * ****: ****** ********, *** *********** ****** **** ***** **** * copy ** *** **** ********, *** *** ******.
  • ****** ** *** '***** *********** ******': ********* **** **** *** **** ***** ****** ***** ***** corruption. *********, * **** ******** ****** ** ******** **** * .CSV ** ***** ***** ***** ********* ****.
  • ** *** **** *** *******: **** * **** ******** ****** ****** *** **** ***** to ********. *** ***** **** ********* ** *****, *** ******* may ******* * *** ** ****. ********** ********* ** * way ** ********** *** ******* *** ****** **** ** **********.
  • ********: ***** *** ****, *** ******** **** ****** ** **** checked ** ******* ************ *** ********.

*** ******** ****** *** ********* ******** ** ***** ** ***** to ********, *** *** ****** ** ******** *** ******** ********** to **** ********. ******* ** *** *****, **** ****** ** taken ** ******* *** ******* ********* ** ************'* ************.

*** ******** ** * ****: ******* ** '******** *** ******' *** ******* ** * new ****** ** *** *****, * ****** ******** ** ***********. In **** ***, ** ****** **** ** *****-**** ******** ** not ******** *** ** **** ** ******* ** ************* ** hardware *******. ********** *** ******* ******* ****** *** **** ******** to ** ********** '****** **' *** **** ***% ********** ****** the ****.

Comments (16)

Brian, All good advice. I have a customer struggling with this decision right now (they want to change vendors, but the cost is basically preventative).

This is a huge selling point for the Mercury eco-system, in my opinion. This at least offers some comfort that you could change software vendors at a future date. Hopefully, the proposed OSDP standard will extend choice to controller hardware as well.

I have been changing out systems for years (since the mid 90's) by using a system that can support the existing readers and hardware. This allows for upgrades to the system and new door locations while maintaining the existing equipment until budget/repairs allows for upgrades at a later date. With this approach you can add remote locations and new features by combine the new and old together. IP based controllers allow for more flexibility and enterprise based access control over dispersed locations. I have amazed some customers who had existing system with how seamless it was to integrate the current systems to their new one. Once a customer get to realize the benefits of the new...up selling is a breeze.

What about the database? Copy over, test, then "click the on" switch?

Hello, Undisclosed:

In my experience, the best approach is to copy the database over and run two concurrent systems during cutover. It may only be for a few hours, or it might be for days - but during this time, cardholder information is typically updated in two different systems.

Efficient? no way. Safe? absolutely!

Testing card reads on each door is important during hardware (re)install, but during cutover it's more of 'Lets make sure it works like the old system did." and the proverbial floodgates are opened with all existing cardholders interacting normally with the system. Once you're confident that the 'micro' system works, you open it up to the 'macro' system test.

Thats pretty much the process I had envisioned. Thanks!

I usually export the Card Holder list or do a Card Holder report. The hardest part of the whole thing is determining access levels etc. So do a Schedule Report and a Access Level report (most larger systems even from the earlier days will do that) and manually setup the access levels ....the system that we use allows for batch card entry so you import the card holders and then have someone manually assign the access levels to those card holders (This is a good time to clean up the database). All of this must be done before the changeover occurs. In my experience it is always better to have a card not work then work on the wrong schedules or access points so error on the not working. (keep high level managers cards working...lol)

One thing I've learned over the years is that if you have anti passback active then you probably want to keep it soft for a few days and monitor the activity. Most customers will understand that there may be a little bit of disruption to the system and once you are sure that everything is 100% then put it into forced mode.

Karl,

I came across these comments while looking for ideas for a ACS upgrade at a hospital. Here are some of the critical facts:

Old system: GE Interlogix/FC-WNx pre-Lenel controllers (101 controllers)

New system: Red Cloud/Avigilon with mercury controllers. (1 for 1 change out)

readers: HID and are compatiable with new system (410 readers throughtout the hospital)

active employees approx 700. data base contains approx. 4000 actrive and inactive personnel.

We are not the current service provider; we just had a better proposal.

Current service provider, as expected, is not cooperating with customer's demands to provide us with a data base in SQL format.

Provider said that customer signed a non disclosure agreement regarding the system. and they will not provide the request.

Customer has no information on the database or access to it.

Here's my question(s) to you:

Any experience with GE Interlogix?

If so,

Is there a way to generate reprot files and convert them to an SQL database? If I were to do this do you believe that this would befaster than just reloading each person?

Pat Heenan, RCDD

This is pretty much the same procedure we use , and have used over the years though we print out hard copies just in case of error and problems

fyi a lot of older systems wont work with new IP based systems & components

Brian, and Undisclosed:

I chuckled a little bit upon reading the comment regarding running concurrent systems during cutover: "It may only be for a few hours, or it might be for days". These must have been tiny sites! I have never seen major cutovers measured in less than weeks.

While you can gradually swap out hardware a little a time, it's much harder to phase out a badging system. Badging office personel tend not to tolerate enrolling people twice for any amount of time.

I was involved with several such cutovers of large airports and facilities while employed with the Honeywell ProWatch group. The least disruptive solution was a continuous data-transfer scheme that fed badging and configuration updates from the old to the new system during the cutover. Once you get to the point where the new system is running all the hardware, and the old system is merely data-entry, only then do you swap out the badging and other user-facing pieces and consider the process complete.

Hello, Jonathan:

Thanks for the feedback. When you write "continuous data-transfer scheme" was that a script of piece of software that entered data into both systems at once?

Do you might sharing a little more about that?

Thanks.

Sure, Brian. Full disclosure is that I am now at Mercury, so the following is based on my own prior field experience, and I am certainly not pitting one vendor over another:

We would use a "data transfer utility" that would feed data from the old system to the new on a regular basis. The tool would help the integration team map schemas from the old system's database to the new, and allow for manual scripts to be part of the process, as there is rarely a 1-to-1 rule for much of the data. The main benefit was that badging personel would only need to enter badges into a single system, and new badges would work immediately on doors conrtrolled by either system.

Alarm dispatch operators would still need to run workstations side-by-side during cutover. While tedious, it had the benefit of allowing operators to get used to the new system gradually, as well as allowing technicians to filter events that might not have existed on the old system.

Cutting over badging offices was perhaps the biggest challenge, because of the human element. In my experience, during cutover of the rest of the system, a test badging station would be used for training. When it was time to cut over the badging office, a planned closure of the badging office (to the facility's population) for a few days took place, as final configuration and training was done. This was followed by a gradual re-opening of the office over the next few days, with the integrator on-hand to iron out any wrinkles.

I have seen different manifestations automated transfer tools. They go by names like "DTU" and "Data exchange" or "data conduit", and are usually part of the software suites.

Data Exchange or Data Conduit tools rarely work as advertised and the manufacturer may not offer much support. If possible I would suggest you go with a backend (SQL if available) sync. This way any DBO is able to read/write to the script. I tried a "DataExchange" and it did not work anywhere near advertised. Many fields and tables were not supported, it was very clunky, and would not run on a schedule. Going the SQL sync is also difficult but with a knowledgable DBO it is a lot easier than an modular exchange.

MEant to say DBA, not DBO

Thanks, Jonathan. Very insightful!

Very helpful as we are replacing our AC system.

Pat Heenan, I notice your question was 10 months ago, so any current response may be long past the need date.

We've not had experience with access control databases, but on many fronts we've had good experience converting reports into structured data. Of course, if you're starting with no prior information at all, yours would be an entirely different challenge.

You left us with a pretty exciting cliff hanger. Is it possible to provide (in the words of Paul Harvey) "the rest of the story?"

Thanks.

Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

Worst Access Control 2018 on Apr 18, 2018
Three access control providers stood out as providing the most problems for integrators. In this report, we analyze the answers to: "In the...
Key Control For Access Control Tutorial on Apr 16, 2018
End users spend thousands on advanced systems to keep themselves secure, but regularly neglect one of the lest expensive yet most important aspects...
Alarm.com Business Market Expansion on Apr 13, 2018
Alarm.com has millions of subscribers, but the company has traditionally been mostly a residential/home focused offering.  ADC's new Smart Business...
GDPR For Video Surveillance Guide on Apr 12, 2018
The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) comes into force on May 25, but there is much confusion and no clear guidelines on...
Axis Launches ~$100 HD Camera on Apr 11, 2018
Chinese manufacturers, led by Hikvision, have come to dominate the low end of the Western market, driven by ~$100 cameras. While Axis has...
Average Access Control Project Size 2018 on Apr 10, 2018
  The most common access control project size is 5 - 16 doors per project. This 2018 result mirrors previous statistics, most recently in 2016...
ISC West 2018 Access Control Rundown on Apr 06, 2018
For ISC West 2018, what is new and interesting in access control?  This rundown will bring you up to speed on the exhibitors, what they are...
Hanwha Mega ISC West Product Releases on Apr 05, 2018
While overall new product releases have been slowing over the past few years, Hanwha is releasing a slew of 6 new offerings for ISC West,...
VMS New Developments Spring 2018 (Avigilon, Exacqvision, Genetec, Hikvision, Milestone, Network Optix) on Apr 04, 2018
What's new with VMS software? In this report, we examine new features and releases for Spring 2018 to track different areas of potential...
Forced Door Alarms For Access Control Tutorial on Apr 04, 2018
One of the most important access control alarms is also often ignored. "Forced Door" provides a vital and even critical notification against...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Last Chance - April 2018 IP Networking Course on Apr 19, 2018
Today is the last day to register for our IP Networking course. Register now. NEW - 2 sessions per class, 'day' and 'night' to give you double...
Rare Video Surveillance Fundraising - Verkada $15 Million on Apr 19, 2018
Fundraising in video surveillance (and the broader physical security market) has been poor recently. Highlights are few and far in between...
'Best In Show' Fails on Apr 19, 2018
ISC West's "Best In Show" has failed. For more than a decade, it has become increasingly irrelevant as the selections exhibit a cartoon level...
Security Camera Cleaning Frequency Statistics on Apr 18, 2018
150+ integrators told IPVM how often they clean cameras on customer's sites and why.  Inside we examine their answers and break down feedback...
Worst Access Control 2018 on Apr 18, 2018
Three access control providers stood out as providing the most problems for integrators. In this report, we analyze the answers to: "In the...
Axis VMD4 Analytics Tested on Apr 17, 2018
Axis is now on its 4th generation of video motion detection (VMD), which Axis calls "a free video analytics application." In this generation, Axis...
Arecont CEO And President Resign on Apr 17, 2018
This is good news for Arecont. Arecont's problems have been well known for years (e.g., most recently Worst Camera Manufacturers 2018 and starting...
Strong ISC West 2018, Says Manufacturers, GSX / ASIS Expected Weaker on Apr 17, 2018
Manufacturers say ISC West 2018 was strong, continuing the trend we have seen in 2017 results and 2016 results. However, those same 100...
Key Control For Access Control Tutorial on Apr 16, 2018
End users spend thousands on advanced systems to keep themselves secure, but regularly neglect one of the lest expensive yet most important aspects...
Best and Worst ISC West 2018 on Apr 16, 2018
ISC West 2018 had strong attendance, modest overall new products, and a surge in Artificial Intelligence marketing. First, here are 20+...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact