IT‑IS‑Networking

1996–present

Equipment

What the work was built on, and how we know.

Left to right is time. Each row is one of the 25 manufacturers behind at least 4 pieces of work, ordered so vendors that turn up on the same work sit next to each other rather than alphabetically — a landscape only means anything if neighboring rows belong together. Height is the work running on that manufacturer in that year, weighted by what failure would have cost — life-safety ×3, a statutory obligation ×2.2, the estate itself ×1.5, an evaluation ×1. Same arithmetic, same viewpoint and same color ramp as the technology surface, which is the point: one says what the work was about and this one says what it ran on. The yellow markers are five-year meridians. Manufacturers behind fewer than 4 pieces of work are named in the index below rather than drawn as flat ground.

82 manufacturers across 101 entries — 313 declarations in all, of which 266 name a product line documented at the time rather than recalled afterwards.

This section exists because a record of disciplines and a record of kitanswer different questions. The technology pages say what the work was about; these say what it ran on. A reader who wants to know whether someone has actually operated a platform rather than specified one is asking the second question, and until now this record could not answer it.

How much of it is documented

Most of these declarations were not written from memory. They were checked project by project against what was written down while the work was going on, and where that record names a model, the model is here; where it names only a manufacturer, only the manufacturer is here. Nothing was upgraded from a vendor to a part number to make the list look better.

So every declaration carries what stands behind it, and the four are not equivalent:documented at the time, named in the record — the CV or the project entry itself — recalled, for the early years where nothing contemporaneous survives, and inferred, used twice and marked both times. A reader who only trusts the first two can read only those, which is the point of marking them apart.

Entries with no equipment are not gaps. Governance programs, cost models, continuity plans and records standards genuinely ran on no particular vendor's kit, and saying so is more useful than filling the space with a plausible one.

Network & Security Hardware

Wireless & Radio

Radio & Field Systems

Compute, Storage & Virtualization

Physical Security & Building Systems

Audio-Visual & Broadcast

Facility, Power & Cooling

Software & Platforms

Design & Engineering Software