A question of protocol

2 March, 2010

It seems that cost is still king when choosing a fire safety solution. A recent survey of leading systems providers undertaken on behalf of Morley-IAS found that price is maintaining its dominance over other product attributes, such as independent product approvals, supplier endorsement or the right choice of protocol, as hard-pressed end users shop around for the best deal.

However, this is a risky strategy. Failure to adopt such third-party endorsement, for example, runs the risk of a lack of protection for the building operator or ‘responsible person’ in the event of an incident occurring as a result of poor installation or maintenance.

Though the latest official figures from the Office for National Statistics show the UK economy to be emerging from recession at last, many analysts expect the road to recovery to be a rocky one. And there is no doubt that the building sector in particular continues to face tough economic pressures, with businesses continuing to look to cut costs wherever they can.

This impacts directly on those responsible for the provision and maintenance of fire detection and evacuation systems. Yet, as 77 per cent of the systems providers questioned confirmed, only a minority of their customers consider issues of risk versus cost when choosing the most appropriate protocol.

Evolving options
Historically, companies selling life safety systems directly to end users offered closed protocol systems, in which only the product supplier was authorised and capable of supplying and servicing that solution.

In the drive for greater flexibility and cost savings, some equipment manufacturers and suppliers have offered an alternative in the form of open protocol systems. With this model, manufacturers of fire alarm control panels are able to support multiple devices available through numerous distributors.

In turn, end users have complete freedom of choice in determining who can install, service and maintain the system. This has not, however, been universally recognised as a positive move and has given rise to concerns regarding the level of training undertaken by some providing these services. Responsible service and maintenance providers ensure their engineers are fully familiar with, and competent to work on, any product they may be likely to come across.

So, is there a problem of definition here, which is reflected in a lack of end-user understanding of ‘protocol selection’? The answer would seem to be yes.

In another key survey finding, three-quarters of respondents believed that most of their customers had heard the terms ‘open’, ‘closed’ and ‘managed’ protocols. Yet scratching below the surface, the picture changed dramatically as only 28 per cent confirmed they actually understood what these terms meant in helping them identify the most appropriate fire safety system.

Open protocol
For the purchaser, buying an open protocol system offers a number of important benefits. First, it adds value by opening everything up to competitive tender, as you can choose between several distributors in competition with each other and so potentially secure a lower price.

Second, unlike a closed protocol which ties the end user to one supplier of maintenance and one supplier of spare parts, for example, the choice of an open protocol system ensures ongoing flexibility and choice of maintenance provision. As a result, the building operator retains full control throughout the lifetime of the system.

Many highly professional distributors, installers and maintenance companies have adopted the open protocol model. However, from the perspective of the building operator, the main disadvantage of an open protocol system is that there is no guarantee that those offering them are adequately trained or competent.

This has become especially important following the introduction in 2006 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order (RRFSO), which switched responsibility for maintaining an appropriate fire safety system to the building operator and introduced the concept of the ‘responsible person’ – typically the building operator or nominated deputy.

From a compliance standpoint, the buck now stops with the ‘responsible person’ in the event of an incident occurring as a result of poor maintenance.

And the right training is critical here. Reputable open protocol manufacturers will actively encourage their customers installing the systems to undertake appropriate training; comprehensive product knowledge benefits both the distribution chain and the end user, as it ensures that installation, commissioning and maintenance are undertaken quickly and effectively.

This is not an area in which it is possible to cut corners in the drive to save money. As a result, the most responsible providers of open protocol solutions provide easily accessible, free factory training to their distributor base. However, it is important to remember that, even if a professional advisor is recruited to help in the assessment of a fire systems installation or service provider, the ‘responsible person’ remains exactly that. In other words, you can delegate authority but not responsibility.

Who chooses?
The Morley-IAS survey found that, in the majority of cases, the solution provider rather than the end customer raises the issue of protocol selection in choosing a life safety system. Reinforcing this, there is limited understanding among end users as to the options available and the importance of making the right choice.

Specifically, 72 per cent of the systems suppliers surveyed confirmed that only a minority of customers raise the issue of protocol selection at all as one of their decision criteria. And even when the customer does take the initiative in including protocols within their selection criteria, in only 29 per cent of cases is making the right choice seen as very important or critical.

Yet the picture is changing. In today’s highly fragmented fire safety systems marketplace, now coming under greater regulatory pressures, the issues of independent systems and installer accreditation are becoming increasingly important. Such third-party endorsement also provides the building operator or ‘responsible person’ with the necessary degree of confidence that they are selecting the most appropriate solution. In the case of an open protocol system, for example, this reinforces the value of selecting a technically advanced and independently verified solution from a global manufacturer backed by a similarly accredited installation and maintenance partner.

An informed choice
The problem with a single-minded focus on cost is that end users may opt for fire safety solutions which appear to save money, yet are unsuitable or poorly installed and thus rendered unfit for purpose. In the case of protocol selection in particular, each option has distinct advantages and disadvantages affecting its appropriateness for particular applications.

What is clear is that end users need help in making informed decisions. At the same time, product and service providers do not have all the answers and the onus is on manufacturers and fire installation and maintenance companies to provide the expert advice essential for the right choice to be made in each case.

Today’s closed protocol systems are typically provided by major international manufacturers, and remain popular with similarly large multinational end users as they operate in a more familiar environment. In addition, a life safety solution is likely to be integrated with other building services, simplifying maintenance and fault resolution through a single supplier point of contact.

In contrast, by selecting an open protocol system, the end user retains the ability to change provider and shop around, if service levels prove inadequate or they find that annual service and maintenance contract costs start to creep upward. This may seem especially attractive at a time of economic downturn, when budgetary constraints mean close scrutiny of buying decisions, both in terms of capital and operational expenditure.

The key, therefore, is for the end user to do their homework and so understand fully the benefits and risks before making a decision.