opinion5 min read

When CMS isn’t the only answer for your lighting project  

Lighting control has become synonymous with CMS, and for good reason. Central Management Systems (CMS) offer energy savings, fault monitoring, dimming control, and rich data insights. They’re particularly effective for streetlighting at scale, helping Local Authorities monitor thousands of assets remotely. 

But while CMS offers big benefits, it’s not a one-size-fits-all solution. For many projects, it can be overly complex, costly to install and maintain, or simply unnecessary. Depending on the lighting task, environment, or control requirements, other options may provide a better outcome – technically, financially, and operationally. 

At Acrospire, we take an agnostic approach to lighting control. We’ve worked with a range of providers and technologies – CMS and non-CMS alike – to ensure clients get the right control for their environment, not just the most familiar one. 

Here’s how we think about it. 

The value of CMS  

There’s no doubt CMS has revolutionised lighting management. With fault detection, remote scheduling, dimming profiles, and energy monitoring all in one place, it’s a powerful tool for improving visibility and reducing operational spend. 

Some sources report up to 35% energy savings from smart streetlighting when combined with LED upgrades, a critical part of meeting Net Zero targets. And for large highway networks or entire borough-wide upgrades, CMS can absolutely justify the upfront investment. 

But that doesn’t mean every luminaire needs to be on a CMS. 

Over-specifying: A common pitfall 

One issue we frequently see is over-specification — where a CMS is installed for lighting assets that don’t benefit from it. 

Take sign lights. They don’t need to be dimmed. They don’t need schedule changes. And they rarely fail. Adding CMS to each one can be expensive, overly complex, and add unnecessary infrastructure cost. 

That’s why we often recommend a task-based approach to control, considering the purpose, environment, and maintenance model before making a control decision. 

Know your drivers 

Understanding driver types can also help clarify what control functionality is actually required. 

  • LP (Low Programmable): Dimming profile built in; no smart control 
  • FP (Fully Programmable): Allows external dimming via CMS 
  • SR (Sensor Ready): Offers a 24V output for connecting sensors or nodes 

Too often, a fully CMS-enabled lantern is specified, even when an LP driver would be sufficient.  

The result? Unused features and unnecessary costs. 

When CMS doesn’t fit 

Here are some real-world examples where we have delivered projects using alternatives to CMS, either because of site constraints or because another method delivered better value or performance. 

1. Microwave sensors for underpasses 

Project: Harlington Underpass 

In environments where visibility, safety, and rapid on/off response are key, simple sensors can outperform CMS. For this underpass retrofit, we used integrated microwave sensors within our robust, weather-resistant luminaires. 

This allowed the lights to remain off until movement was detected, reducing energy use without requiring network connectivity or remote access. 

2. PIR and solar lighting 

Project: Hampton Beach Sustainable Housing 

This sustainable housing project required off-grid lighting with zero trenching and no reliance on mains infrastructure. 

We used standalone solar-powered luminaires with pre-programmed dimming and timing functions, no CMS, no cabling, no carbon. The result? Cost-effective, low-maintenance lighting aligned with the client’s green priorities. 

3. Mesh control for subways 

Project: Royal Borough of Greenwich Subways (before image shown above)

Subterranean environments like subways often struggle with CMS connectivity due to limited line-of-sight and internet access. 

Instead, the Royal Borough of Greenwich specified MyMesh, a self-healing, radio-frequency-based system where each node communicates with the next. 

  • No dependency on the internet 
  • Operable via smartphone 
  • Scalable and robust in harsh environments 
  • Supports dimming and switching 

Perfect for lighting tunnels, walkways, or areas where cabling and communications are limited. 

4. DMX control for architectural effect lighting 

Projects: Ilford Gardens, Brick Lane Arch (pictured above)

Where lighting is used for visual impact rather than safety or traffic flow, such as RGB architectural uplighting, CMS can be overkill. 

For both our ongoing projects at Ilford Gardens and Brick Lane, we have implemented DMX control: 

Ilford Gardens:  30 RGB uplighters illuminate arches and pillars, all connected via DMX to a central control box. 

Brick Lane Arch: Multi-phase installation (RGB LED signage, vertical uplighters, and top detail pods), each controlled through DMX linked to local feeder pillars. 

DMX is ideal for coordinated light shows, colour control, and high precision, without needing CMS functionality. 

Industry challenges: Why agnostic solutions matter 

There’s a wider conversation here, too. The lighting industry is still plagued by CMS/lantern manufacturer conflicts, particularly when it comes to wiring detail and driver configurations. 

We’ve seen cases where: 

  • CMS manufacturers don’t provide lantern manufacturers with the driver setup or wiring they need 
  • Lanterns pass all electrical tests but fail on-site due to incompatible comms 
  • End clients are left chasing fault resolution between two different suppliers  

And because many CMS providers also manufacture lanterns, there’s a risk of being locked into a specific ecosystem or even excluded from contracts unless you specify a full solution stack. 

That’s why Acrospire always champions a CMS-agnostic approach. We work with multiple control platforms and providers, including: 

  • Owlet 
  • CityTouch 
  • Borough Smart

This means our clients can switch CMS in the future, maintain procurement flexibility, and ensure the control system fits their operational model. 

Ask the right questions  

Before committing to full CMS, ask: 

  • What is the lighting task? (Safety, architecture, effect?) 
  • What’s the environment? (Dust, moisture, underground, line-of-sight?) 
  • Will behaviour/schedules change regularly? 
  • Is infrastructure (power, comms) reliable? 
  • What’s your budget – upfront and ongoing? 
  • Do you need fault reporting or performance data? 
  • Who will manage the system? Are they trained and resourced? 
  • Getting these answers right can avoid over-spend and over-engineering. 

A final thought  

We recently read a great article by DFL on upgrading your street lighting and supercharging your CMS it’s well worth a read if you’re navigating your next controls upgrade.