Following a controversial CENELEC BT decision we are now faced with the prospect of the European intruder alarm systems standard EN 50131-1 being introduced to replace BS 4737 at short notice, before its five-year revision is complete and without the relevant product specification standards available.
Standards should increase confidence
You would be forgiven for thinking that standards are being 'imposed' on the sector rather than being designed for the benefit of businesses and their customers – as is meant to be the case. And you would be totally within your rights to ask who is making these decisions and why?
I aim to shed some light on this for the beleaguered installer, and suggest that we get 'back to our roots' in terms of producing standards to set quality benchmarks that are advantageous to UK industry.
No lesser source than the recently published National Standardisation Strategic Framework (NSSF), put together by the Department of Trade and Industry, the Confederation of British Industry and the British Standards Institution, states that standards should 'create competitive advantage', 'increase market confidence', 'open international markets' and be 'a platform for innovation'. The NSSF has been designed to ensure that the 'standards system is flexible, responsive and efficient at national, European and international levels'. Perhaps the authors of this document ought to compare those principles with the developing EN 50131-1 scenario; this is not what standards are meant to be about.
You will, no doubt, be familiar with the particular problems posed by the premature introduction of EN 50131-1. However, to re-cap briefly, there are two main factors to consider. Firstly, EN 50131-1 is part of a series of standards – it does not stand-alone. The other complementary standards are not yet available. So its introduction in September would only be the introduction of part of a standard – installers would have to continue referring to sections of the existing British Standard 4737.
Manufacturers would have to produce new products without the product specification guides. Further, no rolling period has been allowed for old stock to be used up and new equipment to be re-engineered. In addition, there is the re-labelling, documentation and marketing costs. Thus BSIA manufacturers estimate that the introduction of EN 50131-1 in September would cost in the region of £100-600,000 per company.
Rules could change again!
This cost would have to be passed on to installers, who would have their own re-training costs to consider. And ultimately these costs would have to be passed on to the customer. This isn't good news for anyone in the supply chain, or indeed the wider UK economy. The impact of standards is supposed to be a key consideration of the NSSF, and the negative impact of EN 50131-1 could be greatly minimised if it was delayed for a reasonable period in order to allow the industry to adapt its systems and procedures.
The second factor to consider is that EN 50131-1 is currently being revised. So, shortly after its introduction it would be withdrawn in favour of a new version, which may change the rules again! For these reasons, the BSIA has strongly objected to the September 2003 Date of Withdrawal (DoW) for BS 4737. There has already been much press coverage of our stance because the BSIA is usually very supportive of British and European standards development. But, as readers will appreciate, this is a very exceptional case.
Hugely detrimental
We represent over 100 installation companies and 20 manufacturers (including a high proportion of small to medium sized enterprises) and this decision could be hugely detrimental to them – and the rest of this sector.
Consequently we followed the proper channels of complaint earlier this year by lobbying our UK representative body, the British Standards Institution (BSI). The relevant BSI committee GW1 was tasked with representing the UK industry's reservations about the DoW at the recent meeting of CENELEC BT (the technical board of the European Committee for Electrotechnical Standardisation). However, the industry's view was not presented to CENELEC at that meeting.
Why not? Good question. Without going into the minutiae, it seems to me that GW1 finds itself with something of a conflict of interests. Somehow these interests need to be reconciled for the ultimate good of all the stakeholders. Others have expressed a similar view recently in this magazine. GW1 does not 'speak' cohesively on behalf of the industry it is meant to represent. The BSIA and the National Security Inspectorate (NSI) are represented on GW1, but on this issue we find ourselves having to argue the industry's case against other stakeholders on that committee. Their needs must also be considered, but we should not find ourselves in a position where their needs outweigh the needs of the industry to which the standards will apply.
Grading for alarms
So what is EN 50131-1 and how is it different to BS 4737? The main difference between the new European standard and the soon to be extinct British standard, is the introduction of grading for alarms. The grading element of the standard is incorporated very much to the delight of insurance companies; and it will make their job easier. They will be able to specify the grade of alarm they wish customers to have installed, depending on the risk faced. This risk must be determined by the installer, which means installers will have to be trained to assess risk in a more formal capacity than under BS 4737. The risk levels are based on the type of intruder that the premises is likely to be targeted by. Grading is:
Grade 1: Low risk
Intruders are expected to have little knowledge of intruder alarm systems and be restricted to a limited range of easily available tools.
Grade 2: Low to medium risk
Intruders are expected to have a limited knowledge of intruder alarm systems and use of a general range of tools and portable instruments.
Grade 3: Medium to high risk
Intruders are expected to be conversant with intruder alarm systems and have a comprehensive range of tools and portable electronic equipment.
Grade 4: High risk
To be used when security takes precedence over all other factors. Intruders are expected to have the ability or resource to plan an intrusion in detail and have a full range of equipment including means of substitution of vital components in the intruder alarm systems.
Not much time to prepare
I would again like to make it clear that it is not BSIA policy to oppose the introduction of a new European standard, especially when it does have the potential to improve the quality of security systems. Installers have nothing to fear from EN 50131-1, but they do have a lot to prepare for in a very limited timescale. The BSIA has already begun to prepare its installers for the transition by revising its long-established intruder alarm handbook. We will also offer advice and guidance on our website and in industry-related events over the coming months.
Yet whilst we are working on guidance that will ease installers through the early introduction of EN 50131-1, we cannot accept the September 2003 deadline. As GW1 is not providing a representative voice for the industry on this issue, the BSIA has now formally issued a statement of intent on behalf of our manufacturer and installer members that we are prepared to work towards a DoW not of September 2003 but of September 2004. Although the relevant product specifications may still be unavailable, and EN 50131-1 may still be under revision, we believe that this is the earliest deadline that could realistically be met.
Reputation at stake
The National Standardisation Strategic Framework refers to the dangers of poor standardisation: 'Poor standardisation can create trade barriers instead of removing them, hinder innovation instead of building upon it, and confuse markets instead of creating confidence'. I would ask that those involved in the decisions surrounding EN 50131-1 carefully consider the implications of these words. We are in danger of running down the good reputation of standards in this sector. Lets get back to producing and implementing effective and timely standards that will help intruder alarm installers do business, whilst raising the overall level of equipment performance for the benefit of customers and other related parties. It's called common sense.
Source
Security Installer
No comments yet