Users need to consider the 'whole life' cost of systems, says Paul Walsh

Even in these austere economic times, improved and more efficient detection and alarm technologies can mean users don’t have to compromise on quality. Paul Walsh of Gent by Honeywell explains.

Let’s face it when designing or maintaining a building, a fire alarm system is unlikely to be at the top of the shopping list and is more likely to be considered a grudge purchase.

However, like it or not since the introduction of the Regulatory Reform Order 2005 (RRO), the onus is on the person responsible for the building to conduct a fire risk assessment and decide how to address the risks identified, while meeting the standards set out. Failure to do so could land the individual in court or even jail! It is therefore more important than ever that end users understand and take an active interest in the fire system they are getting.

The temptation during a challenging economic climate is to cut capital expenditure and, for many, fire alarm systems fall into this category. However, clients and end users need to be aware of the total cost of the system not just initial outlay. A contractor installing the equipment may only be interested in the lowest cost solution, sometimes leaving customers with an inappropriate system or tied into costly maintenance agreements that last well beyond handover.

Typically, a client could be looking at an initial capital outlay of £10,000 compared to say £20,000 but when you scratch the surface, the ongoing maintenance costs are going to bring the total outlay closer to £50,000 in real terms, compared to £25,000.

A matter of protocol?
One could argue that the issues outlined directly relate to protocol. There is still widespread confusion over the question of protocol, with many customers insisting on ‘open protocol’ systems without truly understanding what they are asking for. However, I believe the issue is not really about protocol at all, but about choice of maintenance and support providers. ‘Closed protocol’ systems usually lock an end user into a single service provider whereas ‘open protocol’ or ‘managed protocol’ solutions give choice, providing competition and therefore usually lower ongoing costs.

However, choosing and installing a fire alarm system is only the start as end users need to look at the long term maintenance and relevance of the system. Often, end users are not aware of their maintenance responsibilities and unwittingly hire an untrained technician, rather than a fully qualified fire alarm specialist who has knowledge of the system.

There has also been a significant rise in imported products, in particular from the Far East, that on the face of it are cost effective alternatives but have poor technical support in the UK, leaving clients in a difficult position if they have technical issues or equipment failures. We are in the serious business of saving lives and the difference between good technical support and bad support could quite easily be the difference between life and death. It is no use having a system installed which is impossible to maintain due to lack of available expertise and spare parts.

As time marches on and technology advances, business needs change and even legislation is updated, so the need to upgrade and alter the original system will be necessary. It is vital that contractors and end users check out manufacturers’ backwards compatibility track records from the outset.

I have dealt with many disgruntled end users who have been left with a ‘white elephant’ as manufacturers have stopped producing the necessary devices that fit their system, even though it is only after a short period of time. A responsible provider will protect an end user’s investment by offering backwards compatibility with products up to 20 years old.

Efficiency
But the onus is not just on the end user. As manufacturers we also have to reflect the pressure on cost by providing increasingly effective and efficient fire alarm systems.

Thankfully, equipment for fire alarm systems has enjoyed a reduction in price over the past 10 years. Developments in fire system innovations have actually made systems more efficient and, as a result, more cost effective. Technology can indeed save money.

Multi-functional sensors and sounders have reduced the number of devices required for fitting, with newer models including a sensor, sounder, voice alarm and strobe all in one device.

Instead of three cables being needed for individual sensors, strobes and sounders, these device innovations have reduced the cost of installation by requiring just one cable termination at one device – after all time is money – making the pressured final installation process towards the end of a building project far simpler and quicker.

Another factor that saves cost towards the end of a project is the flexibility to easily switch devices. If a basic sensor is causing false alarms – for example if steam is present in a specific room – with a carefully chosen system it should be a simple process to replace the device with a more sophisticated model. Similarly, if increased audibility, a voice message or a strobe is required, then a simple device change can meet this requirement.

Contractors and end users need to recognise that capital outlay on equipment is not the only factor to consider when selecting a fire alarm solution. Carefully choosing the right supplier can deliver both higher quality and lower costs. With the obligations under the RRO and pressures of the current economic climate never has this been more important. 

Paul Walsh is southern business sales manager for Gent by Honeywell