VMS v. PSIM: What’s the Difference?

Here’s how you can determine what you need.

It is not a new debate. A good deal has been reported on whether projects are better served with a physical security information management (PSIM) system or by leveraging the integration capabilities available with a video management system (VMS). The answer, of course, is both are excellent solutions that can help make sense of the multiple streams of data bombarding security system operators in today’s physical security environment.

The choice between the two approaches hinges on the needs of the users and variety and types of systems requiring integration. Though both the PSIM and the VMS offer their own sets of benefits, there are some definitive differences between each system and philosophical approach.

Some of these differences are obvious, while others are more nuanced and perhaps not apparent until you’re in the thick of things using the system in a real-world setting.

A VMS Prologue
VMS solutions have become increasingly sophisticated and capable of integrating multiple types of physical security information and environmental systems into a cohesive and understandable interface, providing a broad view of an environment’s physical security. These systems are most commonly used with surveillance-related applications such as access control, license plate recognition (LPR) and video analytics.

RELATED: Managing Security Technology: Should You Adopt a VMS or PSIM?

As a central point (or anchor) of system integrations, a VMS is often applied in active surveillance environments where the security requirements demand full-time video use. In this capacity, a VMS typically treats other integrated systems as playing a supporting role, augmenting the VMS’s existing view of a facility. Data from these other systems is incorporated into the VMS through the lens of the video surveillance system.

Integrated Vs. Unified VMSs
Historically, a VMS stood as an anchor platform through which other systems integrated via an application programming interface (API). In these cases, licensing must be maintained for each of the different vendors’ systems in addition to maintenance and updates for each.

The video or anchor interface only enabled basic interaction between the integrated systems. This allowed an operator to gain some level of situational awareness, i.e. video related to an alarm. However, if an operator needed to investigate further, they had to exit the VMS and use another interface to attain the details necessary for a holistic understanding of an event.

Take the following scenario as an example: After normal campus hours, a person approaches an external door to a building holding sensitive data. This organization requires personnel to both swipe a valid badge and enter a four-digit PIN to gain access. On approach, the person triggers a video analytic alarm. They attempt to gain access using a stolen badge. The door does not open, so the person forces the door open. A “door forced” alarm moves from the access control system to the video system via the integration.

While other types of physical security data can be fed into a VMS, these outside data sources are measured against and related to video, the primary source of data.

If you appreciated this article and want to receive more valuable industry content like this, click here to sign up for our FREE digital newsletters!

Leading in Turbulent Times: Effective Campus Public Safety Leadership for the 21st Century

This new webcast will discuss how campus public safety leaders can effectively incorporate Clery Act, Title IX, customer service, “helicopter” parents, emergency notification, town-gown relationships, brand management, Greek Life, student recruitment, faculty, and more into their roles and develop the necessary skills to successfully lead their departments. Register today to attend this free webcast!

Get Our Newsletters
Campus Safety Conference promo