Open protocol

On paper, open protocol should mean greater choice of suppliers and more competitive pricing.  However, in practice it means that crucial fire systems designed to protect people and property are open to potentially untrained service providers.

The debate around open and closed protocol is largely tied up with people’s understanding of the term ‘protocol’.  Most of today’s understanding of the word ‘protocol’ comes from its associations and use within the IT and communications industry.  This means most people see the term ‘protocol’ used in respect to how easily equipment can be integrated with other hardware or software.  However, when used in the context of fire safety, it should be approached from a different standpoint.

Legislative requirement

The Regulatory Reform Order (Fire Safety) 2005 (FSO) came into force in 2006, and replaced over 70 separate pieces of fire safety legislation.  It gives responsibility to those who are best placed to understand, address and monitor fire safety risks - which necessarily change over time. Under the FSO a 'responsible person' (usually the owner, employer or occupier of business or industrial premises) must carry out and maintain this fire risk assessment. This also means that the responsible person needs to be certain that anyone working on their fire alarm system has the required skills, knowledge and experience.

An unregulated market

The UK fire industry is an unregulated market; anyone can profess to be proficient.  Systems manufacturers need to enforce their own safeguards, by training and licensing competent organisations and persons, otherwise there are no real checks and measures.  It is these safeguards that customers may see as restrictive from the point of view of the open protocol argument. But it is such processes that ensure a fire system is safe and fit for purpose – protecting people, property and assets.

British Standard BS5839 details all of the procedures necessary to maintain and service fire detection and alarm systems. There is no requirement under this BS standard for a service engineer to have access to the system protocol to carry out routine maintenance – this is only required for more complex works.

To ensure the performance of systems is never compromised, it is essential that all elements not only integrate seamlessly, but that those who are maintaining the systems, as well as those carrying out alterations, have the skills and knowledge to do so effectively.

The competence needed to make changes to the architecture of a system, for example, its operation and inner workings, requires a completely different knowledge and skill-set to those who inspect and routinely service the system.  It is therefore important that commercial organisations understand their responsibility to ensure the competency of individuals working on their systems; this is something that can be confused by complex supply chain arrangements.

Potential for prosecution

At this point it is worth referring to the Corporate Manslaughter Act. The people ultimately responsible for the safety of staff in an organisation, such as CEOs and Managing Directors, could find themselves prosecuted under the Act along with Facilities Managers or anyone else in charge of maintenance of the fire system in the event of any failings.  This makes it of the utmost importance that board members ensure fire safety systems are being maintained in the correct manner and/or changed by appropriately qualified personnel.

At Siemens, we strongly believe that only qualified service providers should be able to modify our fire safety systems.  Therefore, we only grant software licenses to those who demonstrate expertise and undertake specific training to ensure the system works to its optimum level.  This approach also ensures no additional costs are incurred through unnecessary downtime by faults caused by incorrect modifications or damage to systems by unqualified service providers.

Sophisticated fire safety systems need specialist knowledge to ensure they continue to operate in the manner they have been designed for and offer the maximum level of protection.  It is therefore vital that the issues associated with open protocol are fully understood. To summarise: open protocol is not necessarily a guarantee of competence.