Analysis of Overall Construction Costs for Network and Analog Surveillance Systems

Analysis of Overall Construction Costs for Network and Analog Surveillance Systems

In the general public's perception, network cameras tend to be much more expensive than analog cameras due to their higher unit price. However, when it comes to the overall construction costs (TCO) of network surveillance systems versus analog surveillance systems, the answers vary widely, and a consensus is hard to reach. This article will analyze the differences between the two based on a study conducted abroad.

In general, the inability to determine which surveillance system—network or analog—is more expensive is due to two reasons: first, there is a lack of understanding of the overall construction costs for both types of systems; second, there are many factors to consider when calculating overall construction costs, such as the number of cameras, installation locations, and functionalities of the cameras, leading to ongoing debates over the merits of network versus analog surveillance systems.

An independent research organization abroad conducted an experiment to understand these differences, examining all measurable physical hardware costs within two different architectural frameworks. Other factors, such as the additional benefits of network cameras (e.g., using ultra-high-resolution cameras for better image quality or the ease of expanding camera numbers), were not included in this research report.

Definition of Experimental Scenarios

In this experiment, a typical surveillance scenario was established. The study decided to use a mid-sized scenario (a medium-sized school campus) with moderate scale and complexity to avoid giving the network surveillance system a clear cost advantage. For example, many respondents believe that larger scenarios favor network surveillance systems. Participants were also provided with a Request for Proposal (RFP) that included system requirements, operational concepts, and individual cost elements.

To ensure fairness in comparisons, the number of cameras was also considered for both systems. Most respondents agreed that 40 cameras represented an appropriate research scale for both systems. Furthermore, participants needed to meet customer installation requirements without considering whether existing cameras or basic wiring were available (i.e., all data power lines needed to be new).

The RFP for this experiment included descriptions of the surveillance scenario, camera types and quantities, recording requirements, wiring configurations, monitor positions, and equipment configurations.

What Are the Procurement and Installation Costs?

What costs are incurred by both types of surveillance systems under the above scenario?

The cost items in the RFP will first be examined, listing the costs common to both network and analog surveillance systems, followed by a basic classification and definition of other cost items.

Both architectures incur the following four types of costs:

1. Cost of 40 cameras.
2. Costs of power and data transmission.
3. Costs of storage hardware and software, such as DVRs and servers.
4. Other costs, including system design costs, camera installation costs, etc.
5. Note: Apart from the requirement that network surveillance systems must use network cameras, when presenting cost information, participants must meet the customer's most basic requirements and cannot freely choose equipment, structure, services, or pricing for upgrades.

Research Findings

From this experiment, we obtained some interesting research results from system integrators, where the mentioned costs represent the procurement and installation costs of equipment, and certain figures are based on average costs.

1. The average total construction cost of network surveillance systems ($61,382) is 3.4% lower than that of analog surveillance systems ($63,481).
2. The total construction cost of the cheapest network surveillance system is 25.4% lower than that of the cheapest analog surveillance system.
3. The total construction cost of the most expensive network surveillance system is 11.5% higher than that of the most expensive analog surveillance system.

This study found that the pricing for network surveillance systems is more flexible, with a wider price range, as they can leverage network technology more flexibly using PoE (Power over Ethernet, a technology that transmits power over Ethernet cables) and different types of cabling, networking, and server platforms. In contrast, the pricing for analog surveillance systems closely aligns with the characteristics of a mature market, with minimal price flexibility and not much variation in amounts.

When categorizing the costs of the two systems, the results also differed significantly:

1. For the network surveillance system: Cameras account for 54% of the total construction cost, recording and monitoring systems (Recording & Playback) account for 6%, transmission equipment (Cable infrastructure) accounts for 21%, and labor accounts for 19%.
2. For the analog surveillance system: Cameras account for 34%, recording and monitoring systems account for 16%, transmission equipment accounts for 25%, and labor accounts for 25%.

After comparing the breakdown of the overall costs of both systems, the conclusions are as follows:

1. Network surveillance cameras account for more than half of the total costs, while analog surveillance cameras account for only 34% of the total costs.
2. Network cameras are 50% more expensive than analog cameras.
3. Transmission costs for analog surveillance systems are three times higher than for network surveillance systems, partly because analog systems require more power cables, whereas network systems can use PoE. Additionally, controlling analog PTZ cameras incurs extra transmission costs.
4. Recording and monitoring costs for both systems are similar, but the quality of service and maintenance contracts for the PC servers used in network surveillance systems typically exceeds those for DVRs used in analog systems.
5. Installation, configuration, and training costs for analog surveillance systems are 50% higher than for network surveillance systems.

Balance Point Between Network and Analog Surveillance Systems

Generally, network surveillance systems have a cost advantage in larger-scale systems compared to analog systems. So, where exactly is the cost balance point between network and analog systems? At what scale does the cost of network systems become lower than that of analog systems? Does the cost difference increase with system scale?

Without any existing network infrastructure, when installing 1 to 16 cameras, the overall construction cost of the analog surveillance system is 10% lower than that of the network system. When installing 17 to 32 cameras, the overall costs of both systems are the same. However, when installing more than 32 cameras, the overall cost of the analog surveillance system is 10% higher than that of the network system.

However, in the presence of network infrastructure (excluding transmission and installation costs), the network surveillance system is always cheaper than the analog system.

Other Findings

During the research process, several respondents also pointed out some unquantifiable observations and factors not included in the overall construction costs, which highlight the differences between the two systems.

1. Network surveillance systems are easier to expand, allowing for the addition of a camera at a time.
2. Network surveillance systems are more flexible; if using PoE, moving a camera is as simple as relocating a network setup.
3. Image quality of network cameras surpasses that of analog cameras.
4. Only network cameras offer ultra-high resolution.
5. Widespread network infrastructure significantly benefits network surveillance systems.
6. Analog cabling is more challenging to troubleshoot.
7. Network surveillance systems typically do not incur additional system design fees.
8. Network surveillance systems can be remotely controlled, allowing for adjustments and checks via the internet.
9. Using a brand-new PC server for network surveillance systems typically provides better warranties and services than DVR systems.
10. The prices of IT equipment may decline faster than those of analog equipment.

Additionally, this research interviewed various industry professionals, including system integrators, value-added resellers, and industry analysts. After analyzing the interviews and cost data, several important findings emerged.

1. At a scale of 40 cameras, the overall construction cost of the network surveillance system is lower than that of analog surveillance. In a typical surveillance scenario, the overall construction cost of the network system is 3.4% lower than that of the analog system.
2. At the scale of 32 cameras, the balance point for network and analog surveillance systems is reached. In typical surveillance environments, when exceeding 32 cameras, the network system costs less. Between 16 and 32 cameras, the cost of the analog system is slightly lower than that of the network system, with costs for both systems being nearly the same.
3. In the presence of network infrastructure, the network surveillance system is always cheaper than the analog surveillance system, regardless of scale. As long as there is network infrastructure (with wiring already in place), the costs of the network system will always be lower than those of the analog system.
4. Network surveillance systems also offer numerous unquantifiable advantages, such as better image quality, service and maintenance, greater flexibility, and easier troubleshooting. It is generally anticipated that the prices of IT equipment will drop faster than those of analog CCTV equipment, leading to a more optimistic future for network surveillance systems.

An Opportunity to Provide Customers with a Comprehensive Security Platform

According to Steve Hunt, founder of the security think tank 4A International, IP video will become the focus of the future security industry. Once channel merchants and customers shift their perspective from cameras to the overall application, all network-based solutions can thrive.

The significance of IP video lies in its ability to enhance the value of customers' video surveillance investments. A network video management system built on an open platform can transform existing analog systems into a hybrid solution while harnessing the unlimited advantages of a networked system. This provides an excellent transitional solution. Thus, as customers continue to replace old analog equipment with network video surveillance devices and expand other network security applications, more business opportunities will arise. For new customers, the benefits of comprehensive security solutions can be promoted, tailoring security systems to meet current and future needs.

In Addition to Low Construction Costs, Network Surveillance Systems Offer Higher Returns on Investment

High Return On Investment (ROI) for video surveillance equipment has never been a primary selling point, mainly because video surveillance is used to prevent crime or for insurance claims, the effectiveness of which is hard to express numerically. However, network video surveillance can calculate the return on investment for video surveillance.

Networks can centralize security operations, allowing a control room to manage many locations by deploying security personnel on each floor to quickly address any situations. Consequently, the ROI for human resources is certainly better than if personnel were scattered across various control rooms.

This also highlights a fundamental difference between analog and network cameras. David Gorman, former loss prevention supervisor at Wall-Mart, points out that analog cameras rely on unreliable human monitoring, often only serving as passive tools for investigating incidents after they occur. In contrast, network cameras function like computers with lenses, allowing for real-time image analysis to identify captured images and trigger alerts when necessary.

The ROI of network surveillance arises from alert notifications; its search capabilities are faster than tape recording and can confirm events quickly. Bill Bownes, who is planning an upgrade for the network surveillance system at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport, notes that network surveillance can identify critical images needed for airport evacuation in just 10 seconds, whereas analog cameras and tapes could take several minutes. He estimates that if the network surveillance system can prevent emergency evacuations at the airport twice, its costs will have completely justified themselves. This functionality is particularly important for university campuses and shopping centers, helping assess danger levels and address issues before they escalate.

A significant portion of the ROI for network surveillance occurs outside the realm of security. Network surveillance is leveraged by other users (such as training, marketing, human resources, etc.), thereby increasing its practicality. In fact, the image analysis and rapid search capabilities of network surveillance systems can transform image data into actionable intelligent data organization, enhancing security and improving operational decision-making efficiency. Today's pressing question is not what video surveillance can do for customers, but what more it can accomplish for them.

Mastering Network Technology to Create Your Own "Value"

Vendors that previously only sold traditional analog systems must now accelerate their transition to networked solutions. In this convergence of imaging, security, and IT, it is essential to accelerate learning about new technologies to understand the IT market, enabling the recommendation of the best installation solutions for customers.

Of course, a complete solution includes not just cameras, recording equipment, and monitors but also the heart of the entire solution, which comprises network video management software and application software, which play a crucial role in the network surveillance system, providing functionalities like motion detection, remote monitoring, storage, viewing options, search, and management.

Vendors in the security industry who do not understand TCP/IP, firewalls, or PoE must invest time to learn, hire experts, or partner with value-added resellers. Network surveillance solutions are not merely about connecting cameras to existing networks; they require careful planning of systems, consideration of image analysis usage, network bandwidth, and storage requirements.

Jim Gompers, CEO of Gompers Inc. and a veteran in the security industry for over 20 years, points out that "value" will become a focal point for integrators to differentiate themselves from other vendors. Value-added resellers will be partners in jointly addressing end-user problems, and when focusing on comprehensive security issues, they do more than integrate; they help create efficiencies and business solutions that impact end-user profits.

---