Some intersting points there Bill.
The issue I have is the use of the word protocol in general in relation to whether a system can be worked on by anyone or just approved/licenced contractors - you're still stuck with using the same protocol,whether it be Apollo,System Sensor,Honeywell/Gent or TYCO.Yes,you have the option to change all your field devices from Hochiki to Apollo and either select from a different control panel or upgrde the loop cards but thats as close to having to rip out an MX2 and all it's field devices as you can get.Don't get me wrong,I will design a system using Advanced with Apollo for certain sites that don't need the whole package of C&E that we can provide but you'll not see me throwing in a Quadnet ever!
I'm not aware of anywhere, or anyone, where "open" protocol has been taken to mean you can use a device from any manufacturer at any time, irrespective of what's already on the (analogue) system. I guess that's what you're saying "open" protocol should mean?
I know there's a generality in the industry as to referring to the "system" as open or closed protocol, but that's effectively the case, depending upon which comms protocol has been selected by the designer. The point is, and is well understood by the industry I think, that an "open protocol" system will generally be maintainable by anyone with access to fire industry suppliers.
I sort of get your point, I think - though I'm not sure how you'd refer to a system using a closed protocol over an open one, or vice versa if not by defining the nature of the protocol in use.
The real issue is in the licencing - it would remain far cheaper to rip out an XP95 installation and replace it wholesale with Hochiki or Nittan stuff than to remove a closed protocol installation and replace it. Each protocol available has advantages and disadvantages. The balance is really in the cost of maintaining the system over time in the end - cost of ownership.
As previously said, for most of us, there are clear identifiers at design as to whether an open, or "general licence" protocol, or a closed or "limited licence" protocol will achieve the required results better.
As far as high overheads etc. goes,the company I work for is a multinational so yes,our hourly rates are higher than the one man and his dog operation but even he is getting it tough when PAT testing companies are pricing for fire alarm maintenance with no training. I am also aware that within the bigger organisations that they try to tie the customer in to maintenance and who wouldn't - a lot of people don't like to say it but if it's done right it is the proverbial money for rope (and,by done right,I mean the maintenance visit is done right,not the selling of the contract) and gives returning revenue.
Ah, for that ideal world. Multinational, and doing it right don't often go hand in hand when it comes to maintenance - and trust me, having run a service department for the other big blue one for a number of years, I know. And I disagreed. And I run my own business these days.
Taking the case of large company maintenance and doing it better - when engineers are effectively turned into sales men, and targeted on a revenue stream, it's never, ever, going to make for properly carried out maintenance - it will make for a nice, shiny installation with no component older than the last service visit, though.
Equally, I take your point 100% about operations moving from PAT testing into fire maintenance with no qualifications or training - we all see examples of that time and again. And sadly, to me, it's often a very similar mentality to that the larger nationals have been guilty of many times - drive service quality down to maximise return on revenue. Very many of these outfits employ, or indeed, are ex "big blue" lads from both camps, some of which never got the chance to find out how to service a fire installation properly.
Interestingly - of that service department I took over, only one out of 37 engineers had a calibrated meter. Eleven of them didn't have a meter at all, yet were able to replace faulty batteries based on current readings taken by, I guess, necromancy of some type.
As far as my comments go on pricing,it wasn't meant as a marketing ploy but just a statement of fact and for that reason I won't be naming our product or company.We are currently developing a scheme were the customer gets the software specific for their own site so that they can go elsewhere but they will be 110% to blame if Mr "Numpty with laptop" gets at it without training and mucks it up.
Ideally,no one should have an issue if the software is available to those who are proficient and competent in using it but there has to be a return on the R & D work put in by total system providers,rather than componant manufacturers.
Okay - your initial post (you said "our detectors") seemed like you were working for a manufacturer - this one make it clearer that it's one of the big blue ones (I guess the one with an A) - and indeed, Minerva stuff at cost isn't really any more expensive than Discovery - its the costs that come down the line - again, cost of ownership long term.
I'm not adverse to paying for the "right" to work on a specific protocol - and indeed, we have discussions in place with two or three just now, with a view to full and proper access to the protocol and commissioning of devices, support, etc. Against that, most of that is something I get for nothing from Apollo, Hochiki and Nittan - the three primary protocols we use these days. Okay, I do pay for it in terms of detector cost, limitations of technology, and I guess in the insecurity of losing contracts at renewal - to anyone else with access to a general trade supplier.
Taking Minerva as a case in point - if I had a business need for it, then I'd happily pay a royalty to ADT/Tyco for the training and use of the protocol. It is purely the differences in business model - closed protocols will generally not recoup development costs due to lower volume of sales, whereas the "open" protocol manufacturers have opted for volume of sales to recover development cost.
And sadly, I think Mr Numpty with Laptop is also a feature that will always be with us - both numpties and laptops are cheap these days. They'll screw up an Advanced MX4000 running Apollo as easily as a Minerva MX2 with full, intricate C&E covering every device on the installation .
I agree totally, with you, however, that rights to work on a protocol developed under a limited licence (and hence controlled), should be released only to those with full understanding and training - and indeed that said software should be released the the controlling company to the maintaining one, not the customer, and only on proof of training, agreement to maintain that site, and ongoing development training as the protocol further develops and advances.
That's pretty well the Gent 24 program works, the Autronica one used to, Coopers Menvier does, and so on.
