Open system vs open protocol - where is the lock in? Part 1

[@glennjohnston3185]

I have pondered this for some time and done some research into this topic as well, as it is a pet peeve of mine and I would love to see the industry changed. To achieve standardisation would need vendors to fully comply to ISO 16484 Parts 1-6. However there is currently NO vendor that fully complies to these requirements because why should they? when there is no pressure for them to do so!! I would love for BMS Consulting Engineers start to introduce these standards as a requirement for compliance.....then there may be a shift in the balance of power away from the vendors, who currently dictate the direction of the industry.

[@bryceanderson17]

I have never heard of that standard, I'll go check it out. Thanks for sharing.

[@Dogga10001]

Bryce, I hear what you are saying, BUT. There are always going to be the multi national providers installing systems and the smaller companies installing systems. The smaller do it cheaper with less overheads and a cheaper product. The customer still wants a system that is going to meet their expectations and do what it is designed to do. But this is based on what is specified in the beginning and what has actually been installed. When do clients actually have the say on what system is installed , as it all goes by the Mechanical they will use the cheapest price so even if the client wants a specific system they will end up with the cheapest and then they are about making money as they dropped their price to win the job. How do you have any company just come in and manage whatever system is installed. How do they know how the system was setup in the 1st place. Is the functional description which was originally written around a lose specification upto date? It doesn’t matter if it is BACnet or whatever. How can any servicing companies other than the original systems manufacturer have any idea about the system other than the original functional description which maybe right or wrong depending if it has ever been updated from the original spec. And that is based on the original spec being of any value. Have done enough projects in my lifetime that the original spec is useless as the client wants it to work completely differently, so why are we installing systems this way ! Why does the building owner ask for an open system ? They have the perception that anyone will be able to look after it…..wrong, that does not happen. And in todays systems, who is going to keep it updated with security fixes etc and let alone system updates that included graphics etc. You only get what the builder paid for ! Not what the customer wanted.

[@nejcbrelih-wasowski6281]

Hi Bryce, you made a very good point. I would also add that BACnet is not that ubiquitous at all, at least in Belgium where I work. Many BMS vendors still want to use proprietary protocols, especially when they don't just take care of the automation level but also of the management level. Just think of Metasys, Niagara's Fox protocol, etc. In our specifications we must therefore explicitly specify the BACnet objects that we want exposed so that potential 3rd party apps can then make use of them. The argument that we hear vendors using again and again when they are talking with the building owener is that web services over HTTPS/TCP are easier to implement and maintain from IT point of view than BACnet/IP over UDP, which is actually true, not to mention that BACnet/IP is not secure at all. I am just waiting for BACnet/SC to become the industry norm so that this argument can be easily debunked. I am looking forward to what you will say in the 2nd part of the video.

[@bryceanderson17]

Thanks Nejc. I am sort of okay with proprietary protocols as long as there are companies that can support the product. E.g., it doesn't matter that Niagara uses the proprietary Fox protocol, because we have loads of Niagara agents. And, would anyone care if a BMS system was completely locked down to one supplier if that one supplier did what was right by the building owner? I.e., they were an awesome contractor. We only need options because there and many bad behaving companies out there.

[@Dogga10001]

Bryce, like major companies, there has to be a limit between what programs they are using compared to what other companies are using. If a system is completely open then any person can come in and alter the original software to what ever. In the beginning the s/w was written to meet a spec, whether that was right or wrong. Now company B comes in and changes it to what they think is correct or told to install. Owner or manager of the building has a mate that works in BMS and says yes I can change this system to suit what you want, whether that is the correct way to go or not. As you know, BMS is customised to suit what ever the spec has been written about in the original build. From what I have seen is that this changes considerably after the end user takes over the building. So next part of the equation is that Joe comes in and alters the software to suit whatever he thinks is correct and breaks the system as it was originally designed. From an engineering point of view, the system is written to do a specific type of control sequences as specified originally. As we all know, this may not be the correct way of doing things but the original equipment provider has installed the system as per the original spec. Then comes the new FM etc that wants it all changed to suit what they or other parties believe is the correct way it should work. It is a never ending circle that may never be finalised due to the system being fully open. If all automobile manufacturers had open software and anyone could enter their thoughts of how it should work then who is liable for the end result if it fails and causes human death or the like?

[@bryceanderson17]

I think the point, Dave, is that owners want options. It's not about having someone come in and change all the software. Last year I was trying to help negotiate between the owner and their BMS company. The BMS company was charging $500k per year for BMS maintenance (that is not a typo, half a million, BMS only) and then charging an additional $1k to replace a room temperature sensor. And wanting a work order to go see why the FCU controller was offline. I am not sure that you are across just bad some companies are behaving. If the BMS was multivendor, then the client would have options. I have many many examples of this sort of bad behaviour. Although, earning half a million bucks and not being happy with that, was one of the worst.

[@owenmilner9700]

So if a freely available set of engineering tools isn't considered sufficient because people might have to learn how to use them......what is? What product has no learning curve?

[@bryceanderson17]

Hello mate. I see your point. Firstly, I am more pointing out that even if you have free engineering tools, it doesn't always specifically mean that you have a system that many companies can maintain. Especially if you have a combination of three different products in one building. I.e., don't be fooled by free engineering tools. What we want is a BMS product that has 3 or 4 reliable, ethical, BMS compaies that can modify and maintain the full set of controllers used in that building. I actually don't mind if the system is proprietary with locked down engineering tools, proprietary protocols etc. If 3 companies can support that product, then tick in the box. It's not about the openess, its about having options. Of course if BMS companies did the right thing by their client, then we wouldn't need options.