The Situation: Slow Response Process
For years, the fire department of a local city relied on a well-known national provider of electronic alarm services. The provider monitored the facilities in town—including municipal buildings, schools, senior housing and churches—and the receiving equipment in the fire department’s Emergency Response Service (ERS) Center using their own network of nationwide monitoring centers.
Over the years, the city became conditioned to a dangerously slow response process. In many cases, the fire department would dispatch a team, investigate a scene and be returning to the station before the dispatch center even received a call from the monitoring provider. The process put vital communications— and the townspeople— at major risk.
ISG devised a plan to eliminate the redundant terminal at the new 911 communication center and have each town facility communicate directly with ISG’s state-of-the-art monitoring center. The city, based on its shaken trust in any security provider, insisted on having a redundant terminal installed in the ERS Center.
So we began installation. During the process, ISG uncovered several high-risk issues—such as improper installation methods, out-of-compliance devices, and incorrect wiring.
More than a year after the ISG implementation, city staff has indicated “not even needing the redundant terminal since the service is so fast.”