Maritime equipment service
Ship equipment service that stays traceable from the quay to the report
Project management software for marine equipment service companies: equipment records, standard work nodes, field evidence, problem closure and hand-over documentation.
Operating context
Work moves between the vessel, the road and the workshop
A single overhaul is rarely one visit. It is a sequence of stages in different places, often with several units running in parallel and a hand-over date that does not move.
A plate heat exchanger job may start with an on-board inspection, continue through removal and logistics, pass through workshop unpacking, cleaning, re-plating and several rounds of pressure testing, then return to the vessel for reinstallation.
A cathodic protection job is different again: every vessel has its own ICCP, AEN and MGPS configuration, port and starboard reference points, and a pre-inspection that has to stay linked to what was actually replaced and re-tested afterwards.
A door commissioning job has volume as the problem: many doors with similar numbering, template-driven checks that are easy to skip, and Not OK findings that have to be rectified and re-verified before final documentation can be issued.
Objects the work is attached to
- Customer, ship owner or ship management company
- Vessel
- Engineering project
- Equipment or system (heat exchanger, ICCP/AEN/MGPS, door)
- Work stage, standard node or check item
- Field record, photo, measurement, test value
- Problem, rectification and re-verification
- Report and archived project file
People involved
- Field service engineer
- Project manager
- Workshop staff
- Re-verification / QC staff
- Approver and finance
- Customer or vessel representative
Common operational problems
Four problems that keep coming back
Communication cost is high
The same question — is it done yet — is asked repeatedly across chat groups, and the answer never lands back on the project, the unit or the node it belongs to.
Progress cannot be drilled into
A percentage on a spreadsheet does not tell a project manager which unit, which door or which node is still open, or who is holding it.
The process is not visibly standard
Key actions exist in people’s heads. There is no shared object, standard, status and responsible role that a reviewer can check against.
Maintenance records do not survive
Photos, test values and reports stay in personal phones, group chats and temporary folders, so the next job starts without the history of the last one.
Proposed workflow
Project as container, equipment as object, node as unit of work
The same eight-step chain, expressed in marine service terms.
- 01Task
- 02Capture
- 03Verify
- 04Approve
- 05Sign
- 06Report
- 07Deliver
- 08Follow Through
- Task — the project is opened against a customer, vessel and scope; equipment and systems are recorded with their real configuration.
- Capture — engineers record point-by-point photos, measurements, test values, plate or component data and site notes against a specific node or check item.
- Verify — missing nodes, skipped check items, out-of-range values and unresolved Not OK findings are surfaced instead of being discovered at hand-over.
- Approve — a project manager or re-verification role accepts the record, or returns it with a reason.
- Sign — the vessel representative or customer confirms the work performed.
- Report — inspection, service, sign-off and final project reports are generated from the captured record rather than retyped.
- Deliver — documentation is issued as the hand-over pack for the job.
- Follow Through — spare parts, costs, invoicing, outstanding rectification and the next planned visit continue from the same project record.
What the system can capture
Field evidence, structured at the point of work
- Equipment and system records with real configuration per vessel
- Point-by-point photos against labelled positions
- Measurements and technical readings entered at the point of work
- Plate, component and consumable data
- Multiple test or pressure-test rounds kept in sequence
- Not OK findings with owner, description and photo evidence
- Rectification action, rectification photo and re-verification result
- Standard check templates so items are not silently skipped
- Daily reports and workload per engineer and per stage
- Spare parts and materials consumed on the job
Capture is designed to support the engineer, not to police them: it should be faster than writing the same information twice.
Review and approval roles
Who decides what
Field engineer
Records what was found and what was done. Cannot close a problem as verified.
Project manager
Sees progress down to the unit and node, reassigns work, and accepts or returns records.
Re-verification role
Confirms a rectified problem or returns it. Open problems block the final report.
Decision boundary. Engineering judgement, acceptance of repair quality, class and statutory matters, and safety-critical control system decisions remain with qualified engineers, the customer and the relevant authorities. The software records and routes; it does not certify.
Reports and follow-through
Reports come out of the record, not out of a second data entry
Because photos, measurements and test values are already attached to the right node, report generation is assembly rather than rewriting.
- Inspection report
- Service report
- Sign-off / acceptance report
- Final project report and hand-over pack
- Daily report and workload summary
What happens next
- Spare parts and materials feed the parts and purchasing conversation
- Costs and workload feed project settlement and invoicing
- Outstanding Not OK problems remain visible until re-verified
- The vessel and equipment history is available for the next job
Evidence status
What is proven and what is not
PCIM — plate heat exchanger service — Delivered — internal record
Built and used for real project work covering on-board inspection through workshop stages to reinstallation and reporting. Client, vessel and commercial details are not published.
CPIM — ICCP / AEN / MGPS — Delivered — internal record
Built and used for equipment records, pre-inspection, spare parts, service, testing and reporting. Screenshots shown publicly use synthetic demonstration data only.
AP Marine Door commissioning — Delivered — internal record
Built and used for installation and function checks, Not OK problem closure, re-verification and final documentation.
Unified ship-owner maintenance archive — Concept — validation required
A single cross-supplier, cross-project maintenance archive for ship owners and ship management companies is a direction we want to build. It does not exist today and is not offered as a current capability.
Limitations
What this workflow does not do
- There is no single unified platform behind the three products today. They share a method, not one login and one database.
- Offline synchronisation, export, permissions and long-term archiving have been built and used, but acceptance in every target environment is subject to project validation.
- The software does not replace engineers, re-verification staff, class societies or safety-critical control systems.
- We do not publish accuracy rates, cost savings, ROI or failure-prediction claims.
- Customer names, vessel names, yards, IMO numbers, serial numbers, signatures and project amounts are never published without written permission.
Bring one equipment family, not the whole fleet
The fastest way to test this is a single equipment type on a single project, with the report you actually have to issue as the target.