The Case for Using a Communications Systems Integrator
by Bill L. Parker
| Bill L. Parker is Vice President and General Manager, Western Region, for RCC Consultants, Inc. This article is abridged from a comprehensive analysis on Systems Integrators. For a copy of the author's complete paper, send a fax to 415/357-3618 or send your business card to: RCC Consultants, 74 New Montgomery St, Suite 200, San Francisco CA 94105-3419. |
| Illustrations: (select thumbnail to view detail image) |
 Columbus (OH) E9-1-1 calltaker. Ken Kerr  Columbus
(OH) Fire Alarm dispatcher.Ken Kerr |
This article can be found on
page 32 of the Nov/Dec 1997
issue of 9-1-1 Magazine.
There are several important questions every communications system owner must consciously answer whenever planning for new communications system capabilities, new facilities, total replacement of an existing system, or major augmentations to existing systems.
Each communications systems program has a distinct personality. It is composed of a unique combination of users' needs, functional requirements, technical issues, economic limitations, and owner's policy considerations which transcend technology.
Almost every program decision from start to finish is dependent upon true baseline needs ("must have") and incremental needs ("nice-to-have") which must be balanced among available funding, tradeoffs in operating procedures and policies, accommodation of all users' needs, as well as many compromises which occur along the way. Not to mention shifts in budgets, needs, and policies that occur during the lifetime of a program.
There is never enough time or funding for everything the user truly believes is necessary, let alone everything the user wants.
Major communications systems programs usually happen once in a user's career. The senior policy makers as well as rank-and-file have struggled with the limitations of the present system for several years. The natural tendency is to take the biggest possible bite out of the apple, because there won't be a second opportunity in their career lifetime.
Communications systems developments are often influenced by factors besides the "best" technical solution to the users' requirements. This is true because in most instances a communications system serves multiple users, each of which has needs that are often highly resource or feature-competitive with those of other system users.
In addition, because the marketplace is so competitive, vendors have developed sophisticated outside influence mechanisms which promote their own goods and services, often at the expense of competition and an integrated program.
The major thrust of such an approach is to influence the owner to keep a program fragmented into its component parts. Thus, the vendor maintains client control and doesn't have to work through a third party as a lower tier subcontractor.
These influences often combine in such a way to lead owners to an erroneous decision that they can self-perform the program using a combination of in-house resources, field engineering assistance from the vendors, and perhaps a limited amount of external consulting assistance.
If the owner is not adequately staffed to accomplish this work, the situation quickly devolves to one in which the program becomes highly vulnerable to influences which are not aligned with the real needs of the owner, the system, or its users.
This discussion is true whether one is considering a limited scope of work such as replacing one subsystem with a newer version, or if an owner is planning a major system upgrade that includes several technical subsystems and a new facility.
In the former case, the owner and vendor are likely staffed to manage such an undertaking with little, if any, outside assistance. However, whenever the program is complex and contains several technical disciplines and subsystems, the owner may be well advised to consider using a systems integrator.
Systems integrators are experts in engineering and delivering complex communications systems, and are also quite knowledgeable of the technical vs. operational factors of the owner's business as well. Practical experience repeatedly demonstrates that aided by 20-20 hindsight, most owners would overwhelmingly rethink their decisions in favor of using a systems integrator instead of attempting to self-perform the program.
Seven Decision Factors
There are at least seven important factors to be considered in making a systems integrator decision. These are:
- Program cost is determined by several factors. Adding a systems integrator does not add unnecessary cost. In fact, the services of a systems integrator often result in cost savings to the owner.
- A systems integrator gives the owner a responsible party to guarantee system performance at completion.
- A systems integrator assures adequate program staffing in terms of quality, technical mix, and competency without incurring cumbersome staffing and destaffing procedures and costs.
- Systems integrators provide their services under a contract. This assures both the owner and the contractor that program changes will be controlled by means of contract amendments.
- When an owner has used a programming consultant during the early definition phase, there is a critical transition point at which a systems integrator assumes program responsibility.
- Facility considerations are absolutely fundamental to the success of every major communications program. The systems integrator must possess solid skills with regard to the technical system, the facility, and the operational scenario that personnel in the facility will have to meet while using the technical system.
- Systems Integrators are obligated to provide unbiased system design services to the owner. This is a double-edged sword that cuts both ways to the owner's benefit. Owners are assured that, due to the systems integrator's broad experience, the owner's ongoing program requirements will be constructively challenged and validated by the systems integrator in light of technology, cost, and reality in the operational environment.
Cost Factors
It is generally believed that adding staffing to any program must, of necessity, increase cost. The truth of the matter, however, is that whenever a program is sufficiently complex to warrant using a systems integrator, their services often result in significant cost savings to the owner. Sufficient technical, specialized, and support talent are needed to execute a program. Systems integrators are in business to provide experienced people, whereas most owners are not.
An important fact to be recognized is that the value-added services of a systems integrator often result in lower total program costs to the owner.
These savings accrue from several factors, including:
- Well managed staffing costs;
- Maximum equipment discounts; and
- Risk mitigation expertise.
Risk Management
Both government and private companies are increasingly sensitive to the need to formalize a management approach to mitigate risk. Owners may implement effective risk management measures in many different ways. The most obvious method is for owners to place solid terms and conditions in otherwise well written contracts which enhance their control while simultaneously making vendors assume a proportionate share of the attributed risk.
Systems integrators are successful because they anticipate, plan for, and solve problems. An aggressive, competent risk management plan is essential to a successful program. For a large, complex program, one of the best risk management tools an owner has is a systems integrator.
There are several reasons for this:
Expertise: there is a significant difference in program risk when it is being executed by a competent specialist who guarantees system performance versus being conducted by an in-house led consortium of ad-hoc employees and vendors with their own vested interests.
Risk base: systems integration companies contract their expertise to make a reasonable profit. Risk is an acceptable factor in their business because they have the business base to spread risk across and the experience to be successful.
Program Staffing
Staffing is one of the most critical areas to successfully completing a program, and is perhaps the single area many owners have thin spots, if not complete voids to fill.
There are three significant factors to be addressed in staffing a major program:
Obtaining quality workmanship - When assigning in-house individuals to systems work, personnel experience and expertise levels rarely match the requirements of the program. Because these persons were hired by the owner to perform another job, they often cannot be totally released from that job to be dedicated 100% to the project.
Maintaining work effectiveness - Throughout the life of any program the needs for any given expertise will vary. The owner's most significant error in this situation is to assign whomever is available. This almost always creates an expertise deficiency. The solution lies with having a relatively large, diverse talent base to draw upon.
Accounting for indirect staffing costs - While specific cost elements vary, they include recruiting costs, enrollment in and administration of employee benefits programs, orientation training, job specific training, and those inefficiencies which are implicit in an employee coming up to speed in a new assignment.
In this context, an owner has three basic staffing options available:
Staffed from within - Most owners are not staffed to execute a major program because budgets simply preclude having unassigned personnel sitting on the bench, so to speak. Therefore, most owners cannot staff a major program without going through a rapid and relatively low selectivity recruiting process.
Augmented Self-Performance - If the owner decides to self-perform, but plans to augment the program staff through personal services contracts, consultants, and outside contract employees, considerations such as supervision and accountability, unacceptable work, and short-term needs for specialized expertise must be carefully evaluated.
Systems integration - Few owners, even those with extensive engineering departments, enjoy the luxury of having such a complete staff available. This is precisely the type of service provided by systems integrators.
It is undeniable that having the right staff is absolutely essential. Few owners enjoy the luxury of having an unlimited in-house staff. Of the options available to an owner, a systems integrator often provides the lowest risk solution.
The Discipline of Having a Contract
This particular issue is subtle, yet the net effect upon a program can become profoundly negative. A well-developed contract between the owner and the systems integrator serves several useful functions. In multi-user and multi-department programs, owners often need the discipline imposed by a formal contract in order to remain on track. Internal management alone, no matter how competent and aggressive it is, often proves to be powerless to prevent divided controls and manage competing needs among users.
Objectivity
Objectivity in making critical decisions and in selecting hardware and software vendors is another critical factor in running a successful program. A systems integrator's most solemn responsibility to an owner is to deliver absolute, candid objectivity. This often precipitates delicate situations that strain even the strongest mutual trust relationships. But a strong owner - systems integrator team must be formed and maintained if success is to be realized.
The systems integrator's responsibility to be objective is manifested in two ways:
- The systems integrator must facilitate an owner's acceptance of a balanced technical solution to a mutually agreed statement of well defined, realistic operational requirements;
- The systems integrator, with the owner's active participation, must engineer and design the most acceptable, balanced, vendor-independent technical solution.
The systems integrator must evaluate all of the owner's stated requirements in context of his experience, knowledge of existing products, emerging technology, possible alternative operating policies and procedures, and fundamental reality. He must have the integrity and fortitude to assist an owner through the painful process of critically examining present policies and procedures with the objective of making adjustments and changes in order to take better advantage of technology.
The Respective Roles of Programming Consultants and Systems Integrators
Owners frequently use programming consultants during the preliminary stages of establishing a program. Often, that point at which the programming consultant's responsibilities should transition to whomever is going to design and install the system is not well defined. This lack of clarity leads to difficulties which can be obviated by understanding the relative roles of the owner, the programming consultant, and the systems integrator.
If an owner used a programming consultant early in defining the program, particular attention as to how any continuing role into system implementation must be given. Programming consultants assist an owner to establish a program. Systems integrators are responsible to the owner to make the whole program come together as a reality. These are mutually exclusive activities which have no functional overlap.
Owners must decide what a consultant's continuing role will be, if any, and subordinate it to the program accordingly.
Facilities as Part of the System
The facility that houses a communications system also houses concomitant operations that utilize that communications system. It takes considerable experience to anticipate every nuance of integrating a technical system with a facility. Standard architectural and engineering approaches are not adequate and costs to remedy oversights after the fact are great. Experienced systems integrators possess the expertise necessary to marry facility design with technical system design and manage that highly interactive process to the benefit of owner and the operations housed therein.
The Final Conclusion
Every program and every owner's capacity to self-perform it has its own unique personality. The owner is the only party who can evaluate all of the factors and arrive at an informed decision. In the final analysis, major programs, for a variety of reasons, would receive significant benefit by a systems integrator's active participation in them.
