Few terms are used as frequently – or interpreted as differently – in the security market as ‘system openness’. But what does it really mean when real-world projects begin, public tenders demand integration and five systems suddenly need to communicate with each other?

We spoke to Antoine Evertze, Product Manager at ARAS Security Netherlands and long-standing NOX SYSTEMS partner, about this very issue. The result is a candid discussion about what true integration looks like, where the pitfalls lie, and why you don’t need to integrate everything — just the right things.

Antoine, why is system openness becoming more important in today’s security projects?

Antoine Evertze: Openness isn’t just becoming more important – it’s becoming the standard. Buildings are getting smarter, users are becoming more digital, and IT environments are becoming more complex. No system operates in isolation anymore, whether it’s access control, video surveillance, human resources or fire safety – everything needs to communicate. Not someday, but in real time and in a controllable and auditable way.

To stay relevant, a system needs to fulfil two criteria. First, it must provide a well-documented API with practical use cases, not just abstract documentation. Second, it must be able to adapt flexibly to changing environments using standardised protocols such as OSDP(v2) for access control, ESPA or Modbus, through custom connectors such as SQL or with an API.

We are seeing more and more that customers aren’t buying features anymore – they’re buying integration capability. This determines whether a system can be scaled up for real-world projects or whether it will fail at the interface.

In which projects does NOX really make a difference?

Antoine Evertze: Whenever intrusion and access control need to be unified within a single system, the need for simplicity and consistency becomes obvious – especially in the public sector. No one wants to operate five different systems with five separate interfaces anymore. In a recent government project, we supported the implementation of a solution that not only combined access control and intrusion detection, but also offered a modular, scalable architecture with seamless integrations for video management, elevator systems, and parking management – all controlled from a single platform.
In scenarios like this, fragmented solutions simply aren’t an option.

Which systems do you consider essential for integration today?

Antoine Evertze: In my experience, three areas tend to feature in almost every project: video surveillance, fire alarm systems and identity/user management. When it comes to video, customers expect access and intrusion events to be automatically linked with camera footage. For fire protection, standardised interfaces for evacuation and alert forwarding are essential. When it comes to user management, it is essential that roles, permissions and validity periods can be synchronised from existing systems, such as HR or credential platforms. In short, systems that identify people, track movement or handle critical events must be able to communicate with each other reliably.

So, what is the difference between ‘connecting a system’ and ‘truly integrating it’?

Antoine Evertze: When integration is done right, users don’t even notice it’s happening. Processes run logically, automatically and consistently. No one has to think about which interface to use – it just works. If I have to manually extract or copy data, that’s not integration; that’s extra work. True integration reduces complexity. It doesn’t create new layers.

Thank you, Antoine, for your clear view on what openness really means.