Generating a security score for a facility

Abstract

Described herein are devices, systems, and methods for generating a safety score for a facility. In some examples, one or more embodiments include a memory and a processor to execute instructions stored in the memory to receive building equipment inputs from a plurality of devices of an event system in a facility; determine a status of the plurality of devices based on the received building equipment inputs; and generate a safety score based on the determined status of the plurality of devices.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This disclosure relates to devices, systems, and methods for generating security scores for facilities. Background Technology

[0002] Facilities such as commercial facilities, office buildings, hospitals, and campuses (e.g., including buildings and outdoor spaces) can have event systems that can be used to monitor the facility, transmit information about the facility to a database, and be triggered during events such as emergencies (e.g., fires) to warn occupants to evacuate. In some examples, such event systems may include alarm systems with control panels and multiple devices (e.g., sensors, sounders, pull-out fire alarm boxes, etc.) located throughout the facility (e.g., on different floors and / or in different rooms) that can take action when an event (e.g., a hazardous event, a malfunction event, etc.) occurs in the facility. In examples of events, multiple devices may notify occupants of the event via alarms and / or other mechanisms. Attached Figure Description

[0003] Figure 1 This is an example of a system for generating a facility security score according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure.

[0004] Figure 2 Examples of facilities having equipment and control panels according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure are illustrated.

[0005] Figure 3 Examples of generating security scores according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure are illustrated.

[0006] Figure 4 This is an example of a computing device for generating a security score for a facility, according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure. Detailed Implementation

[0007] This document describes devices, systems, and methods for generating safety scores for a facility. In some examples, one or more embodiments include a memory and a processor for executing instructions stored in the memory to receive building equipment inputs from multiple devices of an event system in the facility; determine the status of the multiple devices based on the received building equipment inputs; and generate a safety score based on the determined status of the multiple devices.

[0008] Facilities may utilize event systems to monitor facility equipment, alert facility occupants to emergencies, etc. An event system can be a system having equipment that operates to collect information about the facility and provides the collected information for analysis. Such event systems can also take action based on the collected information, such as providing auditory and / or visual warnings in an emergency. For example, an event system may utilize equipment to collect information, analyze the collected information, and / or take action in response to such collected information. As used herein, the term "equipment" means equipment capable of receiving event-related inputs and / or generating event-related outputs. Such equipment may be part of a space / event system within the facility and may include equipment such as fire protection equipment including fire sensors, smoke detectors, heat detectors, carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, or combinations thereof; fire control panels; air quality sensors; interfaces; manual alarm points (MCPs); pull-out fire alarm boxes; input / output modules; aspirating devices; fire doors; and / or auditory / visual equipment (e.g., speakers, emitters, flashers, buzzers, microphones, cameras, video displays, video screens, etc.), relay output modules, and other types of equipment. Such devices may also include self-testing capabilities.

[0009] As mentioned above, there are many different devices that constitute the event system within the facility. These devices are interconnected and work together to ensure the safety of the facility for its occupants.

[0010] While these devices are designed to ensure the safety of the facility for its occupants, in some instances, the devices in an event system may fail to function properly. For example, the devices in the event system may malfunction. Such malfunctions can result from equipment failure, improper equipment maintenance, improper placement of equipment within the facility, manufacturing defects, equipment being out of warranty, and other examples of equipment failure. If any of these malfunctions occur, the facility may not be as secure as intended.

[0011] Therefore, there may be instances where a facility has the expected level of security, but is actually not as secure as the user expects. However, there is currently no way to quantify the security level of a facility for the user.

[0012] Generating facility safety scores allows for the creation of safety scores to quantify the safety level of a facility. These scores can be based on information received from equipment within the facility to provide a quantified level of security. Using this information, computing devices can determine the facility's safety score, allowing users such as building engineers / managers to determine the facility's safety level through quantified numbers. Furthermore, users can see where the safety score is negatively impacted, view recommendations on how to improve the facility's safety score, and, in some cases, have faults negatively affecting the safety score automatically remedied. Compared to previous methods, generating facility safety scores provides a robust way to quantify the safety level of a facility and makes it easier and more effective to improve facility security.

[0013] In the following detailed description, reference is made to the accompanying drawings, which form part of the detailed description. The drawings illustrate, by way of example, how one or more embodiments of this disclosure can be practiced.

[0014] These embodiments are described in sufficient detail to enable one or more embodiments of this disclosure to be practiced by a person skilled in the art. It should be understood that other embodiments may be utilized and process, electrical and / or structural changes may be made without departing from the scope of this disclosure.

[0015] It should be understood that elements shown in the various embodiments herein may be added, interchanged, combined, and / or eliminated to provide several additional embodiments of this disclosure. The scale and relative dimensions of the elements provided in the accompanying drawings are intended to illustrate embodiments of this disclosure and should not be construed as limiting.

[0016] The figures in this document follow the following numbering convention: one or more first digits correspond to the figure number, while the remaining digits identify elements or parts in the figure. Similar elements or parts between different figures can be identified by using similar digits. For example, 102 could refer to... Figure 1 The component "02" in the text, and similar components in Figure 4 The middle part can be represented by 402.

[0017] As used in this article, “one,” “a,” or “several” can refer to one or more such things, while “multiple” can refer to more than one such thing. For example, “several parts” can refer to one or more parts, while “multiple parts” can refer to more than one part.

[0018] Figure 1This is an example of a system 100 for generating a facility security score according to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure. System 100 may include a computing device 102, an event system 104, a building equipment database 105, a gateway 110, and a mobile device 114. Event system 104 may include a control panel 106-1 having associated devices 108-1, 108-2, 108-N (collectively referred to herein as device 108); and control panel 106-M.

[0019] As described above, system 100 may be included in a facility, spaces within the facility, etc. System 100 may include devices / families of devices included in event system 104 to collect information about the facility and provide the collected information for analysis. Such event system 104 may also take action based on the collected information, such as providing auditory and / or visual warnings in emergency situations.

[0020] For example, system 100 may include device 108. Device 108 may include equipment for detecting events and transmitting the detected events for processing and / or analysis. As described above, device 108 may be, for example, a camera, motion sensor, fire protection equipment including fire sensors, smoke detectors, heat detectors, carbon monoxide (CO) detectors, or combinations thereof; fire control panels; air quality sensors; interfaces; manual alarm points (MCPs); pull-out fire alarm boxes; input / output modules; aspirating devices; fire doors; and / or auditory / visual equipment (e.g., speakers, sound generators, flashers, buzzers, microphones, cameras, video displays, video screens, etc.), relay output modules, and other types of equipment. Additionally, device 108 may also include self-test capabilities.

[0021] Event system 104 may include a control panel 106-1 connected to device 108. Control panel 106-1 may be used to control device 108 included in system 100.

[0022] Control panel 106-1 can be connected to device 108, transmit multiple commands to device 108, and / or provide power to device 108. Control panel 106-1 can apply voltage to the device circuit to power the devices on the device circuit. Such power supply can allow device 108 to perform actions such as communication between device 108 and control panel 106-1, self-test procedures and / or providing audible and / or visual warnings in the event, and other actions.

[0023] like Figure 1 As further shown, the event system 104 may include a control panel 106-M. Although in Figure 1Although not shown, control panel 106-M may include associated devices connected to it. Control panel 106-M may perform functions similar to those of control panel 106-1 described above with respect to its associated connected devices. Control panels 106-1 and 106-M are collectively referred to herein as control panel 106.

[0024] Control panel 106 may be further connected to computing device 102 via gateway 110. Gateway 110 may be a device (e.g., a building system gateway) that provides a communication link between control panel 106 and other devices, such as computing device 102. For example, gateway 110 may enable the transmission of data (e.g., system device data, activation signals, etc.) from control panel 106 to computing device 102 and vice versa. Communication between control panel 106 and computing device 102 is further described herein.

[0025] In some examples, computing device 102 may be located remotely from the facility. For example, computing device 102 may be a cloud computing platform capable of generating security scores for the facility. Computing device 102 may originate from device 108 connected to control panel 106-1, from control panel 106-1 of the facility's event system 104 (e.g., and control panel 106-M and devices connected to control panel 106-M), Figure 1 (Not shown) Building equipment input is received (e.g., via gateway 110). Additionally, computing device 102 may receive additional building equipment input from building equipment database 105. Combined with Figure 2 The description further details the building equipment input and additional building equipment input.

[0026] Using the received inputs, computing device 102 can determine the status of device 108 (e.g., and devices not illustrated above). Computing device 102 can determine the status of device 108 by utilizing received building equipment inputs and comparing those inputs with benchmarks / thresholds. Computing device 102 can generate a security score based on the determined status of device 108. The security score can be transmitted to another computing device, such as mobile device 112. The security score can be the security score for the entire facility, one or more specific areas within the facility, a specific control panel 106, a specific wiring loop, and / or a specific device. Figure 2 The above steps will be described in further detail.

[0027] Figure 2Examples of facilities 214, including devices 208-1, 208-2, 208-3, 208-4, 208-5, and 208-6 (collectively referred to herein as device 208), and control panel 206, are illustrated according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure. Facilities 214 may include various areas, including corridors, meeting rooms, multi-purpose rooms, and offices 1-4. Figure 2 As shown, facility 214 may include area 216, which includes a meeting room, office 1, and a multi-purpose room. Area 216 may include devices 208-1, 208-2, and 208-3, and these devices 208-1, 208-2, and 208-3 may be connected to control panel 206 via cabling loop 218-1. Additionally, offices 2, 3, and 4 may each include devices 208-4, 208-5, and 208-6, and these devices 208-4, 208-5, and 208-6 may be connected to control panel 206 via cabling loop 218-2.

[0028] As described above, computing devices (e.g., Figure 2 (Not shown in the image) A security score can be generated to quantify the security level of facility 214. The generation of the security score is further described in this document.

[0029] As previously combined Figure 1 The facility 214 may include a control panel 206. The control panel 206 may be a control panel for an event system of the facility 214, and multiple devices 208 may be connected to the control panel. Although in Figure 2 It is not shown in the diagram, but the control panel 206 can be connected to a computing device.

[0030] The computing device may receive building equipment input from device 208. As used herein, building equipment input refers to data associated with the device's equipment status. The equipment status of device 208 refers to the current condition and / or configuration of the device. For example, the device's equipment status may include the device's event log status, the device's cabling loop status, the device's power status, the device's firmware status, the device's profile status, and / or the device's equipment lifetime status, as well as other examples of device status.

[0031] As an example, device 208-1 could be fire-fighting equipment. In some examples, device status may include the event log status of the fire-fighting equipment. Event log status may include whether a walk-through test has been performed regarding zone 216; whether any test fires have been initiated to test the fire-fighting equipment; whether any faults have occurred; if any faults occurred, the duration of the faults; whether any real alarms have occurred; whether any equipment in the device has experienced any false alarms; whether any zone-level or area-level faults have occurred; and so on.

[0032] In some examples, device status may include wiring loop status. Wiring loop status may include whether the wiring loop (e.g., wiring loops 218-1 and / or 218-2) includes open and short circuits; whether the loop includes ground faults; whether the loop provides corrupted responses or bad polling data to control panel 206; loop wiring resistance; whether there are any notification appliance circuit (NAC) faults; and / or NAC wiring resistance.

[0033] In some examples, device status may include power status. For example, power status may include battery wiring resistance, battery charger voltage, AC power and battery downtime, battery temperature and / or wireless battery backup time, etc.

[0034] In some examples, device status may include firmware status. Firmware status may include, for example, firmware revisions of the loopback card, firmware revisions of control panel 206, firmware revisions of any connected peripheral devices, and / or firmware version history, as well as any known issues with the current and / or previous firmware versions.

[0035] In some examples, device status may include configuration file status. Configuration file status may include, for example, whether any region-based features are configured (e.g., the number of devices per region, whether a control panel exists in each region, the tone type used to alert occupants of emergencies, etc.); and whether any active disablement exists compared to configuration and logic equations.

[0036] As previously combined Figure 1 As mentioned, the computing device may additionally receive building equipment input from a building equipment database. In some examples, the device status may include the device life status of device 208 (e.g., which may be determined based on building equipment input and / or additional building equipment input from the building equipment database). For example, the device life status of device 208 may include the printed circuit board (PCB) revision status of different PCBs included in the device (e.g., based on additional building equipment input), device manufacturing date (e.g., based on additional building equipment input), device manufacturing location (e.g., based on additional building equipment input), serial number data (e.g., based on additional building equipment input), and drift data regarding the installation / operation time of device 208 (e.g., based on building equipment input from device 208), which may indicate when device 208 should be cleaned and / or replaced (e.g., based on dust accumulation, lifespan, etc.).

[0037] Using the device status from device 208, the computing device can determine the status of multiple devices 208. As used herein, device status refers to the operational condition of the device. For example, the computing device can use building equipment input received from device 208 to determine the operational condition of device 208-1, overall device 208, etc.

[0038] Continuing with the fire protection equipment example above, equipment 208-1 can be a fire protection device. To determine the status of equipment 208-1, the computing device can compare the equipment status with corresponding associated reference values. These reference values ​​can be values ​​associated with specific building equipment inputs. For example, the computing device can receive equipment status, including the event log status and equipment lifespan status of equipment 208-1. The event log status of equipment 208-1 indicates that a walk-through test of equipment 208-1 has not been performed on equipment 208-1 in the last three months. Additionally, the equipment lifespan status of equipment 208-1 indicates that the PCB revision of equipment 208-1 is revision 2.

[0039] The computing device can compare device status (such as event log status indicating that a walk test has not been performed on device 208-1 in the last 4 months) with associated walk test reference values ​​(e.g., a walk test must be performed at least once every 3 months). Additionally, the computing device can compare device lifespan status indicating that the PCB revision is revision 2 with associated PCB revision reference values ​​(e.g., the PCB for fire protection equipment such as fire protection equipment 208-1 should be at least revision 3).

[0040] Based on a comparison of the device status with the corresponding associated reference value, the computing device can determine the status of device 208-1. The status of device 208 may include whether any device in device 208 is faulty (e.g., including fault details such as fault type, how long the fault has been active, fault severity, etc.); whether tests have been performed on device 208; whether any device in device 208 is missing; and / or whether any device in device 208 has generated a false alarm, etc.

[0041] For example, the computing device can determine the status of device 208-1 based on a comparison of the device status with the corresponding associated reference value. For example, based on a comparison of an event log status indicating that a walk test has not been performed in the last 4 months with a walk test reference value (e.g., a walk test must be performed at least once every 3 months), the computing device can determine the status of device 208-1 with respect to walk tests, where the status of device 208-1 is that a walk test has not been performed every 3 months.

[0042] Additionally, based on a comparison between the indication PCB revision for device 208-1 (revision 2) and the associated PCB revision reference value (e.g., the PCB for fire equipment such as fire equipment 208-1 should be at least revision 3), the calculation device can determine that the status of device 208-1 with respect to PCB revision is that device 208-1 does not include the correct PCB revision.

[0043] Therefore, as described above, the state of device 208 can be the result of comparing an input value (e.g., device state included in building equipment input) with a threshold / reference value, where the threshold / reference value is a value associated with a specific category of input value (e.g., PCB revision reference value for PCB revision device lifespan state, drift data reference value for device lifespan state, number of walk tests performed against event log input, etc.).

[0044] Although the computing device has been described above as determining two different states of a single device 208-1, the implementation is not limited to this. For example, the computing device may determine the state of device 208-1 based on any of the building equipment inputs received from device 208-1 (e.g., event log state, cabling loop state, power state, firmware state, profile state, and / or device lifetime state of device 208-1). Additionally, the computing device may determine the state of any of the other devices 208 in facility 214 based on any received building equipment inputs from other devices 208.

[0045] Using the determined state, the computing device can generate a security score. As mentioned above, the security score can be a quantification of the security level of facility 214, as further described herein.

[0046] The computing device can generate a safety score based on the determined state of device 208. For example, the computing device can generate a safety score by using the state of device 208 to determine the field impact value of each device in device 208 on facility 214 based on multiple field impact safety factors. As further described herein, the field impact value can be a numerical value describing the overall effect of a particular device on facility 214 and can be defined according to field impact safety factors, each with an associated score. Field impact safety factors may include the area of ​​the facility being monitored by the device; whether the device includes any causal dependence; whether the device is part of the event logic equation; and / or whether the failure of the device affects multiple areas of the facility.

[0047] Continuing with the fire protection equipment example above, the calculation equipment can determine that a walk test has not been performed at least once every 3 months for equipment 208-1. The calculation equipment can determine the field impact value for which a walk test has not been performed at least once every 3 months as follows.

[0048] For example, the computing device can determine the effects of not having performed at least one walk test every 3 months on facility 214. First, the computing device can determine that device 208-1 is protecting one area of ​​facility 214, therefore the field impact safety factor score for the area of ​​facility being monitored by the device is -3 (e.g., the opposite of if device 208-1 were protecting the entire facility 214 (which could carry a score of -5)). Second, the computing device can determine that device 208-1 has no causal dependence, therefore the field impact safety factor score for the causal dependence field impact safety factor is 0. Third, the computing device can determine that device 208-1 is not part of any event logic equation, and therefore the field impact safety factor score for the event logic equation field impact safety factor is 0. Finally, the computing device can determine that not having performed at least one walk test every 3 months will affect multiple areas of facility 214, and therefore the field impact safety factor score for whether the failure affects multiple areas of facility 214 is -2.

[0049] Based on the above example, the computing device can generate a safety score. For example, the computing device can determine that the safety score for device 208-1 is -7. That is, the computing device can determine the safety score by summing the determined field impact safety factor scores for device 208-1.

[0050] As described above, the computing device can generate a security score for device 208-1. However, the implementation is not limited to this. For example, the computing device can generate a security score for zone 216 of the facility by generating security scores for subgroups of devices 208-1, 208-2, and 208-3 in zone 216 of the overall device 208 in the facility; generate a security score for a specific panel in the facility by generating security scores for devices 208 connected to a panel (e.g., devices 208 connected to panel 206); generate a security score for a specific wiring loop 218-1 and / or 218-2 by generating security scores for subgroups of devices connected to a specific wiring loop (e.g., wiring loop 218-2) (e.g., devices 208-4, 208-5, and 208-6); and / or generate a security score for the entire facility 214 by generating security scores for all devices 208 in the facility.

[0051] As facility 214 operates over time, equipment 208 can be maintained, updated, added to, removed from, or develop malfunctions. Therefore, the computing device can perform the above methods at a specific frequency. For example, the computing device can generate safety scores weekly, monthly, every six months, annually, etc. Repeating the above methods at a specific frequency ensures that dynamic safety scores can be generated, which helps ensure that users (e.g., building managers / owners) remain aware of the facility's up-to-date safety status.

[0052] Figure 3 Examples of generating security scores according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure are illustrated. Figure 3 As shown, the computing device can generate a security score of 324 for multiple devices in the facility, as further described herein.

[0053] As previously described above, the computing device can receive building equipment input from multiple devices in the facility's event system. Building equipment input may include the device status of each of the multiple devices, including the device's event log status, device's cabling loop status, device's power status, device's firmware status, device's profile status, and / or device's device lifetime status, as well as other examples of device status.

[0054] The computing device can determine the state 320 of the plurality of devices included in the received building equipment input, based on the device state of each of those devices. For example, as previously combined Figure 2 The computing device can compare each device status with a corresponding associated reference value. The reference value can be a value associated with a specific building equipment input.

[0055] As an example, the computing device can determine that sensor 1 is missing from zone 1 (state 320-1) by checking the zone number and output device dependency of sensor 1 through parsing configuration files and event rules. As another example, the computing device can determine that device 4 is missing (state 320-4) by comparing a damage response received by the control panel in response to the control panel polling the memory of device 4 with a reference response value. As yet another example, the computing device can determine that device 4 has a memory failure (state 320-4) by comparing the received wiring resistance of loop 2 received by the control panel with a reference resistance value (e.g., a recommended manufacturer's value). As yet another example, the computing device can determine that loop 2's wiring resistance exceeds the reference resistance value (state 320-3) by comparing the received wiring resistance of loop 2 received by the control panel with a reference resistance value (e.g., a recommended manufacturer's value).

[0056] The computing device can then determine the field impact value of each device on the facility using multiple field impact safety factors 322, thereby generating a safety score based on the determined state of the device. For example, based on the determined state 320-1 (e.g., sensor 1 is being lost from zone 1), the computing device can use field impact safety factors 322-1, 322-2, 322-3, and 322-4 to determine the field impact value of sensor 1 being lost from zone 1. For example, the computing device can parse the profile and event rules associated with sensor 1 (including in building equipment inputs and / or additional building equipment inputs from the building equipment database) and check if any other sensors are placed in zone 1. Since zone 1 is critical, the computing device can determine that the field impact safety factor 322-1 has a value of -5. Additionally, based on the absence of other sensors in zone 1, the computing device can determine that transmitter 1 and transmitter 2 (located in zone 1) will not be activated due to the absence of sensors. Therefore, the computing device can determine a score of -5 for the on-site impact safety factor 322-2 because sensor 1, which is being lost from zone 1, has a causal dependency. Furthermore, the computing device can determine scores of -2 and -2 for on-site impact safety factors 322-3 and 322-4, respectively, because sensor 1 is part of the event logic equation and affects multiple zones. Therefore, the computing device can generate a safety score of -14, 324-1, by summing the values ​​of the on-site impact safety factor 322.

[0057] like Figure 3 As shown, the computing device can generate a security score of -8 for sensor 12, which is being lost from zone 2, based on the fact that sensor 16 has not performed a walking test at least once every 3 months; a security score of -7 for loop 2, which has a wiring resistance exceeding the reference; a security score of 324-4 for device 4, which has a memory fault; and a security score of -7 for sensor 16. Therefore, as previously combined... Figure 2 The safety scores can be tabulated for the entire facility (e.g., -43), for zones within the facility, for panels within the facility, for wiring loops within the facility, etc.

[0058] Once the computing device has generated a safety score, the user can review it and be notified of the facility's dynamic safety level. However, the user may also be interested in improving the facility's safety score. Therefore, the computing device can generate instructions for improving the safety score. For example, the instructions may include steps for increasing the on-site impact value of the device on the facility.

[0059] For example, the most significant impact on a facility's security score is security score 324-1, where sensor 1 is missing from zone 1. To improve security score 324-1, the computing device can generate instructions (e.g., text, visual, and / or auditory) instructing the user that the sensor should be located / installed in zone 1. For example, the instructions could include steps given to the user (e.g., in text, auditory, video, etc.) detailing the type of sensor, the location where the sensor is installed, and / or other information to remedy the loss of security score 324-1 due to sensor 1's absence from zone 1. After sensor 1 is installed in zone 1, when the computing device generates an updated security score, the facility's security score can be reduced because sensor 1 is now installed in zone 1, thereby increasing the facility's security.

[0060] In some examples, the computing device can automatically remedy the fault in a device to improve its security score. For instance, device 4 has a memory fault, resulting in a security score of -7 (324-4). The computing device can transmit commands to device 4 to remotely remedy the memory fault (e.g., by restarting, reconfiguring configuration files, etc.).

[0061] Despite state 320 Figure 3 The scenario is described as including a sensor being lost from the area, wiring resistance exceeding the reference, memory failure, and / or walk-through testing not being performed at least once every 3 months, but the implementation is not limited to this. For example, other statuses of equipment in the facility may include the frequency of walk-through tests performed (e.g., determined by start / stop event times with timestamps from the event logs of the device under test), the amount of time the device has been out of service (e.g., determined by timestamps in the event logs when the fault begins, how long the fault was effective based on timestamps in the event logs when the fault was remedied, etc.), incident conditions and restricted areas / equipment from which causal rules and / or event logic will not work, recurring false alarms, whether the device manufacturing timestamps indicate that the device is out of warranty, firmware revisions and any known issues associated with those revisions, battery life for wireless devices to be replaced, secondary battery resistance value logs to predict battery backup support time in the event of AC mains failure, loop-related diagnostic data to determine how frequently loop wiring should be cleaned / responded to polling damage, the amount of fire drill operations performed, transmitter tone and volume (e.g., determined according to profiles and compared with regulatory rules), battery health and / or drift compensation data based on charge / discharge time, and other statuses of other equipment / equipment types in the facility.

[0062] Therefore, generating a facility security score according to this disclosure allows for the quantification of a facility's security level. Dynamic security scores allow users to measure a facility's security level, see where the score is negatively impacted, and remedy those negative impacts, making it easier and more effective to improve security in a facility compared to previous methods.

[0063] Figure 4 This is an example of a computing device for generating a facility's security score according to one or more embodiments of this disclosure. Figure 4 As shown, computing device 402 may include memory 442 and processor 440 for generating a security score for the facility in accordance with the present disclosure.

[0064] Memory 442 can be any type of storage medium that can be accessed by processor 440 to execute various examples of this disclosure. For example, memory 442 can be a non-transitory computer-readable medium on which computer-readable instructions (e.g., executable instructions / computer program instructions) are stored, which can be executed by processor 440 to generate a security score for the facility according to this disclosure.

[0065] Memory 442 may be volatile or non-volatile memory. Memory 442 may also be removable (e.g., portable) memory or non-removable (e.g., internal) memory. For example, memory 442 may be random access memory (RAM) (e.g., dynamic random access memory (DRAM) and / or phase-change random access memory (PCRAM)), read-only memory (ROM) (e.g., electrically erasable programmable read-only memory (EEPROM) and / or optical disc read-only memory (CD-ROM)), flash memory, laser disc, digital versatile disc (DVD) or other optical storage devices and / or magnetic media (such as cassette tape, magnetic tape, or disk) and other types of memory.

[0066] Furthermore, although memory 442 is illustrated as being located within computing device 402, embodiments of this disclosure are not limited thereto. For example, memory 442 may also be located within another computing resource (e.g., enabling computer-readable instructions to be downloaded via the Internet or another wired or wireless connection).

[0067] Processor 440 may be a central processing unit (CPU), a semiconductor-based microprocessor, and / or other hardware device suitable for retrieving and executing machine-readable instructions stored in memory 442.

[0068] Although specific embodiments have been illustrated and described herein, those skilled in the art will understand that any arrangement calculated to achieve the same technology may replace the specific embodiments shown. This disclosure is intended to cover any and all modifications or variations of the various embodiments of this disclosure.

[0069] It should be understood that the above description is given by way of illustration and not limitation. Combinations of the above embodiments, as well as other embodiments not specifically described herein, will be apparent to those skilled in the art upon reading the above description.

[0070] The scope of the various embodiments of this disclosure includes any other application using the structures and methods described above. Therefore, the scope of the various embodiments of this disclosure should be determined with reference to the appended claims and the full scope of their equivalents.

[0071] In the above detailed description, for the purpose of simplifying this disclosure, various features are combined in the exemplary embodiments illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The approach of this disclosure should not be construed as reflecting an intention to require more features than expressly recited in each claim.

[0072] Instead, as reflected in the following claims, the subject matter of the invention lies in fewer than all the features of a single disclosed embodiment. Therefore, the claims below are incorporated into the detailed description, wherein each claim exists independently as a separate embodiment.

Claims

1. A computing device (102, 402), the computing device comprising: Memory (442); and Processor (440), the processor being configured to execute executable instructions stored in the memory to: Receive building equipment inputs from multiple devices (108) of the event system (104) in the facility (214); The status of the plurality of devices is determined based on the received building equipment input (320). as well as A security score (324) is generated based on the determined state of the plurality of devices.

2. The computing device (102, 402) of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the safety score by using the states of the plurality of devices to determine the field impact value of each of the plurality of devices on the facility based on a plurality of field impact safety factors (322).

3. The computing device (102, 402) according to claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of field impact safety factors has an associated score.

4. The computing device (102, 402) according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of field impact safety factors includes at least one of the following: One of the multiple devices is monitoring the area of ​​the facility; Does the device contain causal dependencies? Whether the device is part of the event logic equation; and Does the malfunction of the equipment affect multiple areas of the facility? 5. The computing device (102, 402) according to claim 1, wherein the building equipment input includes the device status of each of the plurality of devices.

6. The computing device (102, 402) according to claim 5, wherein the device state of one of the plurality of devices includes at least one of the following: Event log status; Wiring loop status; Power status; Firmware status; Configuration file status; and Equipment lifespan status.

7. The computing device (102, 402) of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate the security score of the facility.

8. The computing device (102, 402) of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate a security score for one of the plurality of zones (216) in the facility.

9. The computing device (102, 402) of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate a security score for the panels (106, 206) in the facility.

10. The computing device (102, 402) of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate a security score for a particular wiring loop (218) in the facility.

Images