Rank: Super forum user 
|
I am struggling to convince a client regarding adopting a fixed fire safety system to a reasonably large data centre. The insurers are acting rather passively and don't seem to be interested at all. They've stated that they want their customer to assess and come up with a solution, which they will then audit.
The customer meanwhile says they have no appetite to consider any control measure (no money perhaps!) & doesn't want to do anything!! I am trying to find another angle to convince them that no protection is not the best idea they've ever had. If they refuse to accept that, I'll walk away as this is one of the more frustrating jobs I have had for a long while
So does anyone know of a benchmark standard (UK, European or World-wide) re assessing firefighting facilities in data halls, other than BS6266:2011. which I have already explained to them and they have rejected
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi messey, I can't answer your question but I wonder why you are so interested in the client's data hall when they are obviously not?
It may be a case of no funds available, or it could be their insurance is sufficient to replace what they may lose?
They may be only interested in saving data which can be done remotely.
I am aware that fixed installations are quite expensive to install and maintain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Other than the avenue you have already explored, as ong as the client has suitable measures in place for 'life protection', then I would suggest there is little else you can do.
If their insurers are as relaxed over the issue as you suggest, then I would leave it to them to audit the data centre and say either 'yay' or 'nay' to measures currently in place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi Messyshaw, in line with previous posts, it may be that your client has taken a broad risk management view and concluded that the exposure to the business is sufficiently well managed by business continuity arrangements, insurance, existing fire prevention measures, inbuilt redundancies or duplication etc.
Or they may have their heads in the sand...
Either way, whilst your advice may be excellent, you are the consultant and they make executive decisions. Thankfully, very rarely do we get to look back with hindsight and say " I was right after all"
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
As stuff no doubt knows, pursuading clients to invest in fixed fire protection systems is an uphill struggle.
Discounts of up to 65% are available on fire insurance premiums for a correctly installed and maintained system. As a result, premium savings could be used to sway the argument and the system would pay for itself in under 10 years.
That was how it used to be. Now the fire premiums are very low (relatively speaking) due to a soft insurance market, e.g. lots of competition for quality business. As a result, it is very hard to make a system self funding through premium savings.
BAFSE, the UK body for sprinkler installers, publish reports of "sprinkler stops" - that is fires that have been suppressed or controlled by a fixed sprinkler installation. See http://www.bafsa.org.uk/sprinkler-stops.php
I appreciate you may well be looking at a gas fire suppression system but the principle is the same.
Also if the client is wholly reliant on their material damage and business interuption insurance covers, it might be worth explaining the iceberg principle. Research over the years has shown that for every £1 recovered under insurance policies, the business will lose between £8 and £30 (iirc) in uninsured losses.
A quick google found this document (albeit American) - http://www.wses.biz/imag...ccident_cost_iceberg.pdf
I searched for "insured loss vs uninsured loss iceberg".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
ChrisBurns wrote:Hi messey, I can't answer your question but I wonder why you are so interested in the client's data hall when they are obviously not?
.
Thanks to all that have responded. Chris, I am beginning to ask myself the same question!! :)
My problem isn't merely the lack of a suitable fixed system, it's more the methodology used to come to that decision. For client confidentially reasons, I cannot reveal much more, but I have talked to the client's IT dept who are as concerned as me. They have provided evidence that perhaps only a third of the data is suitably backed up elsewhere and cannot understand how this decision was reached.
The whole concept seems to be 'cross your fingers and hope nothing goes wrong', rather invest to secure the contents. When you consider, the client has spent one thousand times (probably more!!) the cost of a suitable fixed fire system on the data halls security systems, you will see that there's something rather unbalanced about the whole BCM approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.