8 · d e t e k t o r i n t e r n a t i o n a l
Security News Every Day
www. securityworldhotel.com
voice of
the security market
compatibility of all functionality
across a range of products, PSIA
and Onvif compatible systems
do not necessarily provide instant
integration, rather they promote
interoperability within IP-based
security systems.
For large to midsized deploy-
ments and government or critical
infrastructure sites, the differ-
ence between integration and
interoperability is particularly
important. Larger sites are more
likely to own and operate security
solutions incorporating a number
of different products that need to
work together.
Whilst solutions that are fully
integrated can sit comfortably on
one company server, interoper-
able solutions often sit across
multiple servers. This can make
managing the system a complex
operation for security or IT
personnel. In addition, unlike
integrated systems, interoperable
solutions will often be covered
by multiple maintenance and
support contracts, making the
upkeep of the system a complicat-
ed task. It is essential that security
professionals working in these
kinds of organisations understand
exactly what they are buying,
and the impact it will have on
the employees responsible for its
operation and maintenance.
There is an important place
for both interoperability and
integration within the security
industry. As companies of all
sizes increasingly seek products
that can work in cooperation,
manufacturers are driving in-
novation designed to deliver an
effective solution to their secu-
rity challenges. Equally, industry
groups are promoting inter-
operability and setting out the
standards that will govern it in
the future. As we move forwards,
our customers are best served
by a clear understanding of the
benefits and limitations of both
approaches. n
made to support the cost of doing
the work. For that period the
products are incompatible. This is
an important difference between
an interoperable system and one
that is integrated.
Open standards-based inter-
faces are also an important com-
ponent of the interoperability and
integration issue. For many in the
industry, compliance with PSIA
and Onvif, which have been set up
as standards to which manufactur-
ers develop integration, means
a product can make up part of
an `integrated` system. How-
ever whilst this is true to a point,
systems that comply to such in-
terfaces are still restrictive in their
functionality, often only providing
guaranteed access to a basic, rather
than a complete, feature set. Hon-
eywell is a supporter and member
of Onvif and PSIA, however for
full integration that provides
erable systems will work together
in harmony in their existing state,
future upgrades, developments
or improvements to any of the
products can cause interoperability
to cease. Put simply, interoper-
able systems work together now,
integrated systems work together
full stop.
Although manufacturers
everywhere are striving to offer in-
tegrated solutions, an overly liberal
use of the term has bred confu-
sion. For example the practice of
manufacturers making interfaces
and SDKs (software development
kits) available to third parties is
described as supporting product
integration, however, in reality this
is not the case. A common exam-
ple is when a product is working
with a third party product via a
SDK. If the product is updated
by the manufacturer, they will
normally provide the third party
with an updated SDK to allow
them to adapt their own offering
to ensure it continues to work in
synch. However, in spite of the
SDK allowing this to take place,
the speed with which the third
party actually executes the upgrade
can sometimes represent a time
lapse of several months or more.
This is partly due to technical
reasons and partly because it may
require a new business case to be
As IP adoption continues to
increase in the physical security
space, an important misconcep-
tion has started to sneak into com-
mon parlance; the synonymous
use of the term interoperability
with integration. This misconcep-
tion is based on the understand-
able assumption amongst security
professionals that when it comes
to IP-based technology, in contrast
to analogue, `everything talks' and
any product can connect with
another. Therefore, in the age of
IP, interoperability and integration
are essentially thought of as one
and the same. The truth however,
is that integration and interoper-
ability are two different terms that
describe two different things, and
to use them interchangeably can
cause customers serious problems.
Integration is arguably the
`truest' way that a system works
together. Often best understood
in the context of PC software, an
integrated solution is one that not
only allows a series of products to
talk to each other in their current
state, but also provides backwards
and forwards compatibility with
future versions of each product.
In contrast, interoperability
reflects a more immediate form
of functionality between different
products. Whilst a set of interop-
The difference between
integration and interoperability
Two words are seemingly on the tip of every manu-
facturer's tongue; integration and interoperability,
and often used interchangeably. Jeremy Kimber,
Commercial Operational Marketing Leader EMEA at
Honeywell Security Group explains the difference
between the two terms, and why it matters.
By Jeremy Kimber, Commercial Operational Marketing Leader EMEA at
Honeywell Security
Jeremy Kimber, Commercial Opera-
tional Marketing Leader EMEA at
Honeywell Security.
"Interoperable sys-
tems work together
now, integrated sys-
tems work together
full stop."
"Integration is ar-
guably the `truest'
way that a system
works together."
"Integration and
interoperability are
two different terms
that describe two
different things."