Open systems: working with fact, not fiction

BMS, BEMS, control, Honeywell Building Solutions
Understanding the choices — Matthew Eastwood.

Incorrect assumptions about open systems prevent organisations selecting the right building-management solution for their specific needs. Matthew Eastwood of Honeywell Building Solutions offers guidance.

When building owners, facility managers or consultants want to specify a new building-management system (BMS), they invariably say they want an ‘open system’. But what is meant by the term open?

Here, we discuss three potentially overlapping open system types.

• Open-protocol

• Multi-vendor

• User-managed.

For building owners, operators and consultants, a clear understanding of the difference in these concepts and how this affects the success of the system and the facility, is crucial to choosing the right solution.

What is an open protocol?

A building management system generally is made up of field controllers and a software head-end, which consolidates and presents all data from the controllers to the system operator for them to view and change the operation of the system and building.

A communications protocol is the set of rules that devices use to communicate over a network.

In particular, an open protocol is an industry standard for communication that enables the software head-end of one manufacturer to communicate with field controllers of any manufacturer that supports the same standard. This capability provides the building manager with freedom of choice in selecting and matching the software systems and field devices.

However, there are limitations.

Because all devices have to look the same to the software head-end, any unique, often advanced, features may not be supported by the protocol. This reduces system functionality to the lowest common denominator.

Also, open system protocols normally apply only to the real-time day-to-day running of the systems. Set-up, programming and commissioning of devices is usually still done with manufacturer-specific tools. This means that the promise of infinite choice is impractical as facility managers often don’t want the hassle of maintaining multiple, different configuration systems.

Single-vendor versus multi-vendor systems

Every software head-end contains proprietary technology and is the original intellectual property of the manufacturer — even those systems that support open protocols.

Once a building manager has selected a particular software head-end, it makes operational and economic sense to continue to use this platform; they are therefore committed, or ‘locked-in’, to that one manufacturer.

When choosing a software head-end system, a building manager generally purchases either a single-vendor system direct from the manufacturer or a multi-vendor system through a distribution channel, selecting a value-added reseller or system integrator that offers the system.

Some building managers like multi-vendor systems because it gives them a choice of service providers for installation and support. However, as these systems are always custom engineered to meet the requirements of a particular site, the result is an operational system that is as unique as the site itself.

As the complexity and criticality of the engineered system increases, the tie to the service provider who has the knowledge of how the system is set up also increases. It becomes increasingly impractical to consider changing service providers, even for multi-vendor systems and choice of service provider for single or multi-vendor systems becomes increasingly important.

Risks can escalate when using smaller integrators whose engineering skills, record keeping and financial stability may not as reliable as those of a larger business — particularly system manufacturers whose longevity, skills, resources and commitment to delivering the solution are more certain.

When working with system manufacturers, there is clear responsibility for delivery, maintenance and longer-term upgrades. When a system manufacturer and an installer are involved, responsibility for causing and fixing faults can be unclear and time-consuming to resolve.

User manager versus closed systems

Arguably, user-managed systems that include the capability to make additions or changes without extra tools or applications provide the greatest flexibility for the building manager. They can engineer the system themselves, use their FM provider to make system changes, or call in their system provider to make these changes for them.

Whilst selecting multi-vendor systems gives building managers a ready choice of installers and service providers, selecting user-managed systems gives the building manager and their FM team the ability to engineer the system themselves or to call in the expert support of the system provider as appropriate.

User-managed systems provided by the manufacturer also give the building manager the confidence that they are dealing directly with the technology developer. They are best placed to deliver solutions to requirements that the building manager cannot solve themselves, or to provide the end-to-end, full life-cycle solution the building manager requires.

Making the right choice

Choosing a building management system creates a raft of technology and supplier choices that will have a big impact, not only on the upfront purchase price, but also on the system’s life-cycle costs, reliability, flexibility and on the risks and issues it creates or avoids.

The starting point is to ask these questions.

• What system will work best in my environment to meet my needs?

• How complex are my requirements and how critical is the system to my business?

• How is this system delivered and how will it be maintained and upgraded over time?

• Who will be the most cost-effective and technically-expert partner over the long term?

Matthew Eastwood is managing director of Honeywell Building Solutions UK.

 

Honeywell updates EBI

Honeywell has updated its flagship BMS Enterprise Buildings Integrators (EBI) to enable facilities managers to view and enhance core building technology with greater ease and precision. EBI R430 helps improve efficiency and reduce energy and operational costs by simplifying setup, scheduling and control. New features include a more robust automation engine, comprehensive mobile access and a redesigned user interface to speed up routine and advanced tasks.

This latest version of EBI addresses the growing trend of smart, integrated buildings where automated systems are merged and managed across the enterprise network. According to the US General Services Administration, a smart building can trim energy use by up to 14% and raise energy efficiency by up to 12%.

As a result, over a quarter of the facility construction and retrofit projects Honeywell leads now involve some level of integration — a 5-fold increase over the last decade. The EBI engine provides the necessary interface and intelligence.

EBI communicates with open protocols such as BACnet, OPC and LonWorks.

Over 20 000 EBI systems have been deployed in more than 160 countries over the last decade. Current customers can easily migrate to the latest release, providing them with the new functionality. 

 

 

For more information on this story, click here: May 2014, 88
Related links:
Related articles:



modbs tv logo

New Sustainability Director for Wates Group

Wates Group, a family-owned development, building and property maintenance company, has appointed Cressida Curtis as its new Group Sustainability Director.

Domus Ventilation appoints new contractor sales managers

Ventilation systems manufacturer Domus Ventilation has announced the arrival of three new Contractor Sales Managers.