Owners and operators must become more involved in defining lifecycle data requirements before a vessel program begins, writes Eddy Howard, Director of Business Development, SSI

It’s natural to assume that the design and construction phases are the most challenging part of building a new ship. It’s this process that gets the most attention, from financing to yard selection, long before fuel optionality and operational flexibility are considered.

In fact, the challenges that come in the operational phase – surrounding Integrated Sustainment Support (ISS) and Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul (MRO) have the potential to pose much bigger problems.

I have spent more than 15 years in the shipbuilding industry, engaging with organizations in North America and across global shipbuilding.

Whether working on naval or commercial projects, figuring out how to make in-service sustainment programmes effective has provided a new perspective. Despite the wide range of cultures, processes, technologies, and operating models used throughout the industry, data is the common challenge that consistently emerges as a barrier to this type of lifecycle approach.

In the case of ISS, the intent is to lower lifecycle costs and maximize operational availability by aligning maintenance, supply chain, training and documentation to keep complex platforms and equipment available.

In reality, throughout a vessel’s lifecycle, engineering information often becomes fragmented across organizations, between contracts, different technologies and decades of service.

Configuration history is lost, decisions become difficult to trace, data quality varies and valuable engineering knowledge becomes disconnected from the teams that need it most.

The result is a cycle where each lifecycle phase often creates a new starting point rather than building upon the last.

Design teams optimize for design, shipyards optimize for construction and sustainment teams inherit the consequences years later. While each decision may save time or money within a specific contract, the cumulative impact can create significant downstream costs, schedule delays, inefficiencies and operational risks.

Consider a vessel program where multiple organizations perform concept design, functional design, detailed design, construction and sustainment using different tools, processes, and data standards.

Each transition introduces risk. Data is recreated, manually transferred, translated, or partially lost. Engineering intent becomes diluted, configuration control becomes questionable and accountability becomes increasingly difficult to maintain.

By the time the vessel enters service, the owner or operator may possess multiple versions of the same information, limited confidence in data accuracy, and a significant challenge in establishing a trusted baseline for the next 30 to 40 years of sustainment.

Ironically, many of these issues originate from decisions intended to reduce costs early in the program. Small savings during early design or procurement can create exponentially larger costs throughout construction and sustainment. What appears to be a prudent decision today can ultimately result in millions, or even billions, of dollars in avoidable lifecycle costs and delayed programs.

This is why I believe owners and operators must become more involved in defining lifecycle data requirements before a vessel program begins. Long before a design or construction contract is awarded, organizations should clearly define the data, quality standards, configuration requirements, digital deliverables and long-term information outcomes they expect to receive, especially so for the value and use within sustainment.

When complete and connected engineering data is created, maintained and transferred throughout the lifecycle, creating a rich digital tread, the benefits extend far beyond design and construction.

A trusted digital thread enables more effective planning for inventory management, training, safety analysis, modernization initiatives, automation, predictive maintenance, digital twins, autonomous technologies, and overall fleet readiness.

The greatest opportunity for cost savings is often not found in reducing the upfront contract value of a vessel. It is found in enabling decades of smarter, faster, and more accurate decisions after delivery.

There are top line benefits too: an asset with a complete digital history from construction to resale not only presents a more transparent opportunity but a higher value one too.

As our industry continues to advance digital shipbuilding and lifecycle management capabilities, the conversation should shift to include both the delivery of ships, and delivering trusted, connected data that supports those ships throughout their entire service life.

The vessels we build today will serve the industry for decades. The decisions we make about data today will determine how effectively we sustain them tomorrow.