While the unified security platform is relatively new and still evolving, it could prove in time to be a more efficient and economical option. “It’s still new, and the interface is limited in certain areas, but when you have an upgrade or system add-on, you’re guaranteed that all of the components within your integration package are going to be compatible with each other,” says Kevin Parisien, project manager of the Security and IT Systems Group with MMM Group Ltd.

With a unified security platform, system upgrades are typically less complicated — they’re often as simple as upgrading a single server and a few client workstations, resulting in little downtime. With one vendor, the integrator has a single point of contact for all technical compatibility issues between system components, he said, which is key when it comes to lifecycle maintenance.

On the other hand, because these systems are relatively new, they may not be well known or carried by more than one integrator, which may limit service options.

“It’s not going to have as many features, and it’s probably not going to be as stable, but many customers would prefer a single-vendor solution,” says Parisien. “The single-vendor systems are typically more user-friendly to operate, upgrade and maintain, and that’s why customers like them, but they don’t always provide the functionality.”

A multiple-vendor solution typically provides more feature-rich systems within a standalone configuration. Most of the solutions that fit this bill have been around a long time and have had multiple revisions of software and hardware, so they’ve grown to become stable, with unique functionality and a proven track record.

But they also require greater attention to ensure integration is maintained. A common problem is that by upgrading one system in the integration package, you often render other systems within the package incompatible unless they’re upgraded as well. This creates a domino effect in its impact on scope, time, budget, project complexity and operational disruptions while the work is being completed.

“Even if you know you have to upgrade, sometimes that upgrade isn’t available, so you run into additional costs,” says Parisien, “especially if one company releases version 8.0 and the company that integrates with it hasn’t written their version 8.0 interface yet and may not have it for awhile.”

While each approach has its pros and cons, it comes down to the customer’s requirements and migration path. “The path of least resistance is to switch everything out to one platform, but if a customer already has a digital video recorder system, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to swap it out,” says Robert Burns, vice-president of systems integration with Total Security Management Services.

Unified security platforms typically have a particular strength in one area, such as access control or CCTV. If a customer is heavily reliant on CCTV, it makes sense to deploy command-and-control software that’s CCTV-based. A casino, for example, with thousands of cameras and only a handful of doors may consider a platform where the command-and-control software was based on video surveillance.

With multi-vendor solutions, the customer gets best-of-breed products, says Burns, but the downside is there are multiple throats to choke. While working with a single vendor is more convenient, most customers are sophisticated users of security systems — into their second or third generation — so they face a long-term migration path toward a unified security platform. But, down the road, this can be used as a way to utilize existing investments (such as their network, for example) and reduce the amount of servers and storage required.

But that takes time and money. Typically customers are looking to solve their immediate needs, such as sorting out an access control issue, and other components are added as budget becomes available.

This is the same debate that’s gone on for generations in the IT world: best-of-breed products versus suites. And there are proponents of both, says Steve Hunt, an analyst with SecurityDreamer. Those who like best-of-breed products believe they’ll get the best performance by picking the best individual components. Others believe a package of pre-integrated components will be easier to deploy and maintain, and may offer a better cost for performance.

But, as in the IT world, the debate has yet to be resolved. IT security vendors such as Symantec offer a variety of products they’ve developed or acquired over the years. “Symantec has learned they can build a suite, but they still have to sell the components individually,” says Hunt. “This is really a religious question more than a technical question — it depends on the philosophy of the integrator and the comfort level of the customer.”