Multiple inspections have become a fact of life for every ship. In today’s fast-paced shipping industry, vessels are subjected to an ever-increasing number of inspections and audits. From SIRE, CDI (Chemical Distribution Institute), Port State Control (PSC) and RightShip inspections to internal audits, superintendent inspections, Class surveys, third-party inspections and routine inspections carried out by the vessel’s own Master and Chief Engineer, the list is extensive.
At the shore management level, we have TMSA, DryBMS (the Dry Bulk Management Standard) and various other management system audits and assessments.
Each of these inspections serves a purpose, and each contributes, in its own way, towards improving safety, compliance and operational standards. However, they also demand considerable time, effort and resources from both shipboard personnel and shore management.
This raises an interesting question: are we simply managing an endless cycle of inspections, observations and corrective actions, or can we turn these inspections into one of our most valuable tools for continuous improvement?
I believe the answer is the latter.
The challenge: multiple inspections, different yardsticks
Traditionally, every inspection has been conducted against its own set of standards, checklists and reference points.
A SIRE inspection evaluates a vessel against the OCIMF inspection framework, while a PSC inspection focuses on compliance with applicable international conventions. RightShip, CDI, internal audits and superintendent inspections each have their own scope and assessment criteria.
Consequently, the findings from these inspections have generally been analysed independently. Most ship management companies maintain separate performance indicators and trends for vetting inspections, PSC deficiencies, internal audits, superintendent inspections and other assessments.
This approach has merit. Individual inspection trends remain important for measuring performance, benchmarking vessels and departments, and monitoring compliance with specific industry requirements.
But are we missing the bigger picture by looking at all this information in isolation?
An observation raised during a SIRE inspection may be closely related to a deficiency identified during a PSC inspection or a finding recorded during an internal audit. Yet, because the observations are worded differently and recorded against different checklist references, the underlying common issue may never be recognised.
The information exists, but the connection between the findings is often lost.
You can start with a common yardstick
Connecting the findings does not have to wait for new technology. The simplest first step is to give every finding a common reference. For tankers, that can mean relating each observation, whatever its source, to the SIRE question it touches and recording that question number alongside the original wording. For dry bulk, RightShip’s inspection questionnaire can serve the same purpose. Once findings carry a common reference, they can be sorted, counted and compared. Which questions keep coming up? On which ships? From which sources? Is it getting better or worse?
The conversion will lose some nuance, so the original wording and reference should always stay with the finding, and observations that fit no question neatly are better placed in an “other” category than forced. Even this simple discipline shows patterns that separate reports hide. The harder part is doing it consistently, across every inspection type, at scale.
AI: connecting the dots
This is where I believe Artificial Intelligence can change how ship management companies use inspection data.
Until recently, bringing together findings from different inspection frameworks required considerable manual effort. Observations had to be reviewed, interpreted, categorised and mapped against a common reference system. With AI, we now have the opportunity to analyse findings based on their underlying meaning rather than merely their checklist reference or wording.
Consider a simple example involving the maintenance of Life-Saving Appliances (LSA) and Fire-Fighting Appliances (FFA).
A SIRE inspector may raise an observation concerning the effectiveness of planned maintenance for safety equipment. A PSC officer may identify a deficiency involving the operational readiness of a particular item of equipment. An internal auditor may highlight inadequate maintenance records, while a vessel superintendent may report deficiencies in routine testing or inspection practices.
Although these findings appear under different headings, reference numbers and inspection categories, they could all point towards a common underlying concern: the effectiveness of the vessel’s maintenance and verification processes for critical safety equipment.
An appropriately designed AI-based system could identify these relationships, group the findings into common themes and highlight recurring weaknesses, irrespective of the inspection framework from which they originated.
Importantly, this does not mean replacing existing inspection standards or disregarding the individual findings. Each observation would retain its original reference, wording and corrective action history. AI would simply provide an additional layer of analysis, allowing us to see patterns that may otherwise remain hidden.
From inspection reports to real-time intelligence
Imagine a ship management company having a centralised dashboard that consolidates findings from SIRE, CDI, PSC, RightShip, internal audits, superintendent inspections, Master and Chief Engineer inspections, and office management system audits. Instead of reviewing multiple reports and spreadsheets, management could have a consolidated view of the company’s performance across different inspection regimes.
Such a dashboard could highlight:
- Recurring deficiencies and common areas of concern across different inspections.
- Vessel-specific weaknesses that continue to appear despite previous corrective actions.
- Fleet-wide trends that may indicate gaps in training, maintenance practices or operational procedures.
- Organisational weaknesses reflected in both shipboard inspections and office audits.
- Emerging trends that warrant attention before they develop into significant deficiencies.
With regular integration of inspection data, this information could be made available through a near-real-time dashboard, enabling ship managers to take a proactive rather than reactive approach.
For instance, when preparing a vessel for an upcoming SIRE or RightShip inspection, the management team could review not only the vessel’s previous vetting observations but also related findings from PSC inspections, internal audits, superintendent visits and other available sources. This would provide a far more comprehensive understanding of the vessel’s areas of vulnerability.
Instead of preparing for a particular inspection checklist, we would be preparing the vessel based on its actual performance history. That is a significant shift in approach.
Moving beyond corrective action and closure
One of the challenges I have observed in our industry is the considerable emphasis placed on responding to inspection observations within the shortest possible time. An inspection is completed, the report is received, corrective and preventive actions are prepared, supporting evidence is collected, and the response is submitted. Once the observation is accepted and closed, attention shifts to the next inspection.
While timely and effective closure of observations is essential, we must ask ourselves whether we are spending enough time understanding what the collective findings are telling us.
Are we identifying recurring weaknesses? Are we assessing whether previous corrective actions have been effective? Are similar issues appearing on other vessels? Could an observation raised on one vessel be an early warning of a potential problem elsewhere in the fleet?
These questions cannot always be answered by reviewing individual inspection reports in isolation. An integrated analysis of inspection data could help us move beyond merely closing observations towards understanding why they continue to occur. When the same issue keeps returning, there are only two explanations: the ship is not fixing it, or the fix is not suitable. Either way, it has stopped being a ship problem.
Improvement at three levels
The real value of such an approach becomes evident when inspection findings are analysed at three distinct levels.
At the vessel level, it becomes possible to identify recurring issues, assess the effectiveness of corrective actions and prioritise areas requiring attention. This could help Masters, Chief Engineers and shore management teams focus their efforts where they are most needed.
At the fleet level, common trends across multiple vessels could highlight broader concerns involving maintenance standards, crew familiarisation, training, equipment reliability or implementation of company procedures.
At the organisational level, findings from shipboard inspections could be correlated with office audits, including TMSA and DryBMS assessments, to identify potential weaknesses in management processes, resource allocation, training systems and the Safety Management System itself.
This last aspect is particularly important. A recurring shipboard deficiency may not originate on board. It could be a symptom of a wider organisational issue that requires intervention at the management level. By examining findings collectively, companies are better placed to distinguish isolated deficiencies from systemic weaknesses.
It also follows that this analysis belongs with top management. Each department is focused on its own indicators, and each can be doing well on them while the company misses the pattern. The people who can allocate resources and change the system need the whole picture in front of them. Today, in many companies, that happens only once a year, when each inspection type is presented in turn at the top management meeting. The best time to fix this is when the safety management system is designed: one structure for findings, one place to hold them and one regular review, rather than separate silos for each department.
Turning trends into action
The benefits need not be limited to inspection preparation or management reviews. Once recurring trends and common weaknesses are identified, companies could develop targeted improvement campaigns based on actual performance data.
For example, if inspection findings indicate recurring weaknesses in LSA and FFA maintenance across several vessels, management could initiate a short-term fleet-wide verification campaign, followed by focused training and a review of the relevant planned maintenance procedures. Similarly, longer-term trends could help determine annual training priorities, internal audit focus areas, superintendent inspection programmes and future improvements to the SMS.
The effectiveness of these initiatives could then be measured against subsequent inspection findings. This would create a continuous improvement cycle in which inspections do more than identify deficiencies. They also provide the evidence needed to prioritise improvements and evaluate whether the actions taken have worked.
Of course, AI-generated trends and suggested relationships would still require professional review. The quality of the analysis would depend on the quality of the underlying data, and human judgement would remain essential when interpreting findings and determining appropriate actions.
AI should support the experience and judgement of maritime professionals, not replace them.
The bigger picture
Our biggest challenge in the maritime industry has perhaps never been the absence of data, but our ability to make optimal use of the enormous amount of information already available to us. Every inspection, audit and assessment provides another opportunity to understand how effectively our vessels and management systems are performing. Yet, when these findings remain confined to individual departments, inspection categories or separate databases, much of their collective value is lost.
We do not necessarily need more inspections to improve our standards. We need to extract greater value from the inspections we are already conducting.
Ultimately, whether multiple inspections become a bane or a boon depends on what we choose to do with the information they generate. If we continue to treat inspections merely as exercises in compliance and observation closure, they will remain a burden. But if we use their collective findings to identify trends, anticipate weaknesses and drive meaningful improvements, they could become one of the most powerful tools available to ship managers.
The future of maritime assurance may not lie in conducting more inspections, but in learning more from every inspection we conduct.
This article is general commentary from the author’s experience and is not professional advice.
Capt. Nivin is a Master Mariner with over 25 years of maritime experience, split between a distinguished career at sea and over a decade in shore-based leadership roles. Currently serving in a senior position with a leading global ship management company, he bridges the gap between traditional seafaring values and the rapid technological shift toward dual-fuel engines and digital vetting. A vocal…
Views expressed are the author's own and do not represent those of their employer.
LinkedIn profile