The number of interfaces grows with new fuels and digitalisation.
Owner: business framework. OEM: technology. Class: safety structure.
Major topics can barely be addressed in isolation.
Joint reviews and coordinated responsibility.
The traditional division of roles in shipping was clear: the owner operates, the classification society surveys, and the OEM supplies technology. This model worked as long as on-board systems were manageable and fuels were uniform. With the introduction of dual-fuel propulsion, alternative fuels and increasing digitalisation, interfaces emerge that no single party masters alone.
A concrete example: for a methanol retrofit, the OEM must convert the engine, the classification society must assess the entire system under the IGF Code, and the owner must organise operations with modified safety logic. If these three processes are not synchronised, gaps appear. The OEM delivers an engine that works technically, but the class ventilation requirements demand structural changes to the engine room that were not included in the OEM quotation. The owner faces unplanned additional costs and delays.
Electrical integration intensifies the problem. Modern energy management systems connect generators, batteries, shore power connections and consumers in a networked system. The load distribution logic must function when a generator fails, shore power is interrupted or the battery reaches its capacity limit. The OEM supplies individual components, but system integration often falls into a grey zone between yard, system integrator and operator.
Regulatory interfaces add complexity. FuelEU Maritime requires documentation of greenhouse gas intensity from 2025. The data comes from the engine (OEM), is verified by class and reported by the owner. If the measurement methodology is not aligned, discrepancies arise that can lead to penalty payments in the worst case. EU ETS for shipping adds another reporting layer affecting all three parties.
Poor collaboration between owner, class and OEM generates measurable costs. Yard stays extend when classification requirements only become known during conversion. On a typical dual-fuel retrofit, every additional day in the yard can cost between EUR 25,000 and 50,000 – excluding lost charter revenue.
Operational uncertainty arises when responsibilities are not clearly assigned. Who is accountable when the engine's emission measurement diverges from the class verification? Who bears the cost of rectification? In practice, these questions are often only resolved in conflict situations – with corresponding time loss and legal expense.
For the crew, insufficient coordination means that operating manuals, emergency procedures and training are inconsistent. When the OEM communicates different threshold values than class, confusion arises on board – a safety risk in an emergency.
Industry initiatives such as the Mærsk Mc-Kinney Møller Center for Zero Carbon Shipping demonstrate that the necessity is recognised. Multi-stakeholder projects bring together owners, OEMs, classification societies, yards and fuel suppliers to develop common standards. Practical implementation, however, lags behind the statements of intent.
Classification societies are broadening their role. DNV offers the Alternative Fuels Insight Portal, a data service combining order data, fuel availability and regulatory developments. Lloyd's Register is developing risk frameworks for new fuels that owners and OEMs can both utilise. These initiatives only work, however, if data from all parties feeds in.
In day-to-day operations the gap is particularly evident for small and medium operators who lack the resources to build their own coordination capacity. This is where independent consulting serves a bridging function – understanding the technical language of all three parties and moderating the alignment.
Effective collaboration begins with a shared project understanding. Before every retrofit or newbuild project, owner, class and OEM should identify interfaces and assign responsibilities in a kick-off meeting. An interface register – who delivers what, who approves what, who documents what – creates transparency and reduces later conflicts.
Regular technical reviews during the project ensure that deviations are detected early. The cost of such reviews is minimal compared with unplanned yard-stay extensions. After project completion, a lessons-learned process ensures that experience feeds into future projects.
Free initial consultation – we analyze your situation and find the best path forward.
Request Consulting