How Open Source is Your Non-Proprietary Building Automation System?
Most building automation systems come with the promise of control, visibility and long-term performance. However, what many owners discover over time is that not all systems are created equal when it comes to openness. Some platforms give you full access to data, integrations and future options, including the freedom to choose who services and supports your facility. Others market themselves as “open” while quietly preserving vendor control through licensing, software locks or restricted tools, limiting service options to a single provider or manufacturer-approved partner.
Today, openness is one of the biggest drivers of value in building automation, but it’s also where vendors often use smoke and mirrors to mask real limitations. It affects everything from how easily you can upgrade equipment to how quickly issues can be diagnosed, who is qualified to make changes and whether service work can be competitively bid. As more organizations try to modernize their portfolios, one question keeps coming up: Is your building automation system truly open, or just open enough to look that way on paper?
The Illusion of Openness in Modern BAS Platforms
The term “open source” gets used loosely in commercial buildings, and sometimes intentionally so. True open-source BAS platforms are rare. Often, companies may claim openness at a surface level, while the programming underneath is still 100% locked down and proprietary. This is where Niagara Compatibility Statements, or NiCS, come into play.
NiCS define the rules around how open a Niagara-based system really is. They outline what devices can connect, what tools can be used and who is able to work on the system. There are levels to these lockdowns. Restrictions can exist at the tool level, the station level or across the entire system. A system may support open communication at the device level, giving the appearance of interoperability, while still limiting who can program, service or modify the system through software restrictions. Often in these cases, owners don’t discover the limitations until service, expansion or modernization is required.
What most owners are really looking for is a truly open system that “anyone” can work on, meaning the system can communicate and be serviced by multiple qualified vendors and technology partners without being tied to a single controls manufacturer through hidden software or licensing constraints. Understanding NiCS early in the buying process is one of the most effective ways to avoid long-term vendor lock-in.
On the other end of the spectrum are fully proprietary systems. These often work well at first and can appear cost-effective from a first-cost perspective, but they become difficult and expensive to modify or expand without going back to the same vendor. Even small changes can require specific software keys, licensing fees or manufacturer-only tools, driving up service costs for what would otherwise be routine work.
This creates the appearance of openness while preserving dependency. Over time, owners may face higher service rates, longer response times and limited competitive options, making it harder to bid service work, introduce new technology or adopt energy-saving strategies. What starts as a lower upfront investment often results in significantly higher lifecycle costs.
Most facilities operate somewhere in between. They may have open-protocol field devices paired with a proprietary supervisor or legacy components that limit what can be connected/worked on by anyone. Understanding where openness stops and vendor control begins is the first step toward improving flexibility.
Why Owners Are Asking Harder Questions Now
Across markets, operators and facility teams have been burned by the “black magic” of building automation sellers. Owners want more access and control over their systems. They also want to avoid the long lead times and rising service costs that come with being locked into one vendor or one interpretation of “open.”
Several trends are pushing owners to reassess their current BAS:
- Aging proprietary infrastructure that is expensive to maintain
- Being held hostage by an underperforming service provider
- Greater need for data accessibility for analytics, fault detection and remote monitoring
- Increasing pressure to reduce operating costs and improve sustainability
- More sophisticated building portfolios that need to standardize across multiple sites
- Difficulty finding support on older or pseudo-open systems
Open-protocol systems give owners more freedom to choose technology that fits their operational goals, not just what a single manufacturer offers. True openness also removes the ability for vendors to hide behind branding or marketing language when access is restricted in practice.
The Real Cost of “Open in Name Only”
Many proprietary platforms perform well during the early years of a building’s lifecycle. The trouble often begins when an owner attempts to expand, modernize or integrate new technologies. Proprietary systems may restrict access to programming tools or require manufacturer-specific gateways to connect new equipment.
This is where many owners realize the system they were sold as “open” is only open on the surface. When owners cannot fully access their own system data or make basic updates without a specific vendor, it creates long-term operational risk. Over the life of a building, that lack of flexibility can lead to higher service costs, delayed upgrades and difficulty adopting new tools.
A genuinely open-protocol system gives owners much more control over how their building evolves. Because any qualified integrator can support the system, owners gain more competitive service options and faster response times. It also eliminates the “façade” of openness that disappears once a project is handed off.
Open frameworks also make it easier to standardize operations across multiple buildings, which is increasingly important for organizations with growing or distributed portfolios.
How Harris Approaches Openness
At Harris, we have extensive experience in helping owners evaluate their current systems, identify proprietary bottlenecks and plan a realistic migration path toward open frameworks. The goal is not to replace everything at once. Instead, we help create an upgrade strategy that increases usability, improves data access and reduces long-term risk.
One misconception is that transitioning from proprietary to open means ripping out everything and starting over. In practice, many buildings benefit from a phased approach. Owners can often maintain existing field devices while updating supervisory components. They can integrate legacy systems through open gateways or gradually migrate equipment as part of normal capital cycles.
We specialize in guiding clients through this kind of staged modernization. Our teams are able to design upgrade plans that keep systems online, maintain environmental conditions and allow facilities to operate at full efficiency throughout the transition. This approach avoids trading one form of vendor lock-in for another and ensures owners retain control as the system evolves.
This measured approach helps manage cost while building a long-term plan aligned with operational goals. It also minimizes disruption to daily building operations while in the process of moving toward greater openness and resilience.
Why the Conversation Around Openness Is Accelerating
Building automation is advancing quickly, and it’s increasingly important for owners to think beyond today’s requirements. Buildings need more flexibility to support hybrid work, complex HVAC strategies and growing expectations around indoor air quality and sustainability reporting.
Owners who invest in genuine openness today position their buildings for future technologies rather than locking themselves into a single vendor’s roadmap. The real question is no longer whether a system claims to be open, but whether it stays open when it matters most.
Categories: Blog