Mixed-use properties can benefit significantly from interoperable security systems. Yet deploying such systems in mixed-use properties is easier said than done. This article looks at some of the challenges of deploying interoperable systems in mixed-use properties and ways to overcome them.
Interoperability allows different systems to communicate seamlessly with each other. In mixed-use properties, security system interoperability plays a key role in securing the building and its tenants.
“When security systems can't communicate with each other, the gaps between them can become vulnerabilities. Interoperable systems can create conditions to close those gaps. This enables property managers to have visibility across the entire facility, tenants can retain control of their individual spaces, and security teams can respond to incidents with complete system information rather than bits and pieces from disconnected pieces,” said Leo Levit, Chairman of ONVIF.
Key challenges to overcome
When it comes to deploying interoperable security systems in mixed-use properties, several challenges remain. These are summarized as follows.
Legacy infrastructure
One of the main challenges is the use of legacy security systems that do not support interoperability.
“Existing camera infrastructure is the most common obstacle. Multi-tenant properties build up systems over many years and not all of them were designed to work with other systems. Older cameras may have been installed before ONVIF became widely adopted. Some use formats that limit what other systems can connect to them,” said Angelo Salvatore, VP of Business Development for APAC at OpenEye.
To overcome this challenge, phase-wise upgrades or the use of integration gateways can help. Further, connecting legacy systems to the cloud may be another viable solution.
“Integration doesn’t mean starting over. It means moving forward without abandoning what still works. Property owners can maintain the value of their existing investments by integrating modern and legacy systems on a cloud-based platform,” said Sarah Rodrigues, Chief Product Officer at Acre Security. Integration doesn’t require an overhaul – when teams consider how their existing tools and investments can work together instead of how quickly they can be replaced, progress follows.”
Governance and ownership issues
Another challenge has to do with a lack of clarity on governance, which Salvatore says is consistently underestimated.
“In a multi-tenant video environment, who manages how the systems connect? Who is responsible when a software update breaks compatibility between systems? Who decides when a tenant’s cameras need to be upgraded to keep working with the rest of the building? Without clear answers, systems stop working together properly over time. Not deliberately. Just through nobody taking responsibility,” he said.
This, then, underscores the importance of establishing clear contractual frameworks and security policies during the property’s design phase.
“At ARRC Global we solve this by weaving interoperability into the master planning phase itself,” said Dhananjay Birwadkar, Founder and Principal of the consultancy company. “We begin with an enterprise wide security architecture and a transparent governance matrix that spells out who owns what, who can see what, and where data boundaries lie. In our view, integration should be guided by policy first, and only then by the technical protocols.”
He adds: “From our experience, the sooner interoperability is baked into the design, the lower the total cost of ownership and the greater the system’s resilience.”
Vendor claims
According to Salvatore, vendor claims are another challenge where some platforms say they are “open” while maintaining hidden requirements that lock the user in. “Connections that technically work but break every time there is a software update … hardware that stops working if you change platforms … The way through this: don’t accept claims, check them. Ask one question – what happens to my cameras if I change video management platforms? If the answer is that they stop working, that is not an open system. Full stop,” he said.
Tenant privacy concerns and federated architecture
Interoperability is all about devices and systems that can communicate with each other. That said, concerns that private tenant data may be exposed to other tenants or the command center become real. In this regard, a federated architecture, where the command center has oversight on what’s important and individual tenants get to securely keep their private data is the way to go.
“A well-designed architecture uses a federated model. The building management controls perimeter security, common area surveillance, and central monitoring, while tenants retain control over internal CCTV systems, access logs and sensitive operational data,” said R. Nandakumar, Founder of ATSS.
“Instead of sharing full video streams, systems can share event-based alerts only,” Nandakumar continues. “For example, a fire alarm or emergency breach can trigger alerts across the building without exposing routine internal footage. This approach maintains collaboration without compromising confidentiality.”
Salvatore mentions a federated architecture should meet the property’s security and safety standards.
“Keeping video recordings at each individual tenancy – with only data that cannot identify individuals going to the cloud for system management – meets most compliance requirements while still allowing centralized oversight of how the system is performing. It also reflects a straightforward reality: industry data consistently shows that more than 90 percent of recorded video is never reviewed. There is no good reason to send footage to a central location that nobody will ever watch. It just creates unnecessary risk,” he said. “The question worth asking: does the system prevent one tenant from accessing another’s footage by design – or does it rely on people following rules and not making mistakes? If it’s the second one, the protection is not real.”