THE FUTURE OF

SHIPBUILDING
DESIGN
PROCESSES

DENIS MORAIS
 Contents

3INTRODUCTION
6 THE FUTURE OF SHIPBUILDING DESIGN AND PRODUCTION PLANNING
7 Moving from Static Processes & Architecture to Dynamic Ones
8 Transparent Connections to Systems and People
9 New Factors to be analyzed in the future
11 No More Changing Context and Waiting
11 User Inititated Request
12 Asynchronous Automatic System Determination
13 Synchronous Knowledge Aware Engineering
14 Finally, the Future has an As Built 3D Model
14 Context is King in the future
14 Realization of benefit for production
15 Digital Ship (aka. Digital Twin)
15 What the Future Holds
17 GENERATIVE DESIGN IN SHIPBUILDING
18 What is Generative Design?
20 How Does This Relate to Shipbuilding?
20 Components used in our Ships
20 Small Personal Craft
20 Localized Small Assemblies and Equipment
20 Large and more Complex Items
21 Very Large Components with more Relationships
21 Going Forward
23 WHAT LEVEL OF DETAIL TO INCLUDE IN YOUR DESIGN?
24 To what level of detail do you include your projects?
26 What’s the Trend?

2
INTRODUCTION
3
 Introduction
I’ve written in the past about the factors that are forcing us to change virtually all
aspects of how we build marine structures. These include challenges related to
how we decide what to build and how we determine functions and requirements.
Another factor is an increased desire to integrate the customer into the design
process more tightly. The next step is to see how we will take those initial concepts
and designs and translate them into detail designs for procuring materials,
optimizing logistics of the yard and physically building ships and rigs.

During the basic and detail design phase there are so many people involved in
different roles, each of whom is responsible for a specific aspect of the ship. A
very small set of examples are: production planners, purchasing & procurement,
weight engineers, multiple different types of simulation experts, suppliers, 3D CAD
modelers & designers for various different systems, lifting & turning engineers,
customers, classification societies, multiple different types of facility operations
and logistics roles, etc. All of these and hundreds more require information from
many different departments and stakeholders. The question I will try to answer is,
“How will the future change how these people do their jobs?”

4
5
 THE FUTURE OF
SHIPBUILDING DESIGN
AND PRODUCTION
PLANNING
6
Moving from Static Processes &
Architecture to Dynamic Ones
One of the trends of the last decade was “concurrency.” We all know there are
thousands of activities that have to happen to build a marine structure and to
execute them in parallel instead of linearly is better. Concurrency obviously reduces
the duration (time from start to end) of building the structure but technically
does not reduce the total amount of hours. This is largely because of that fact
that it introduces new challenges, which require a different process, tools and
most importantly, a new culture. Having said that, I do think most of the people
in our industry practicing a more concurrent workflow are overcoming the initial
challenges and are building their product in less hours.

However, if we really look at how today’s concurrent workflows actually function,

we will see that they are made up of many discrete static chunks; one set of tasks
are completed by a person or team then moved to another. That is one reason I
believe we have not really resolved the challenge of department silos. Departments
are producing smaller deliverables, which reduces the time it takes to pass on
information to another department; however, they are still working in their own
bubbles with the information contained in their own systems.

In the future of shipbuilding we will be taking the next leap, moving from this
concurrent static workflow to a concurrent dynamic workflow. This will result in
information being available with significantly higher frequency, allowing better
decisions based on true up-to-date information.

7
 The transition to the concurrent dynamic workflow providing very high frequency
information will have the same challenges as when we moved from a purely
linear workflow to a static concurrent workflow. The future will require existing
systems and potentially new systems and tools to allow information to be provided
instantaneously to any other system or stakeholder that requires the information
it contains in a context they can use. It will also require a method that allows the
identification of the maturity of the information since we will need to distinguish if
the information is in the preliminary phase or the completed phase and all stages
in-between.

Transparent Connections to Systems

and People
The higher frequency data which will be our environment in the future will be driven
by the trend we are seeing today of connecting our systems as well as the changes
organizations are making to improve communication between teams. However, the
way you connect a static concurrent environment and a dynamic one is completely
different. It is similar to the difference in turning on the TV to the weather channel
and then waiting until today’s temperature is displayed vs. looking at your smart
watch and seeing the information on the home screen. One is much more dynamic
and instant than the other.

8
The integration of these systems will transfer data between one system to
another as most integrations today but will handle a more “live” mode. In addition,
these systems will also be able to initiate actions from one system that will be
executed in another system. The connections between systems will be much more
sophisticated yet will not seem complex to end users. This is due to the trends in
software development which I will not focus on in the post.

We will see many more systems and people who are only connected via some
convoluted manual process to be connected by a seamless and effortless
connection. An example is the “interesting” ways some companies have their
different discipline modelers exchange information today. If the company uses
external subcontractors for electrical or HVAC it can even get more convoluted.
The serial and manual generation of data with low fidelity between teams will be
long gone. Information from each required discipline will be available with the need
to generate the information.

There will be completely new Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Big Data systems that
will be connected to various aspects of our business. This can be an AI system
that will take in all factors to determine cost and even risk of manufacturing.
These factors will include the ones we take into consideration today such as labor,
materials, etc. but also many more that we do not currently take into account.

New Factors to be analyzed in the future

• Empirical probability of days we cannot work due to weather (looking at short/
medium/long term predictions)

• Amount of sick days employees take during the week a block is being built

• Current cost/resources of lifting and turning using previous shipyard data

• Cost/resources of moving assets around the yard

• Risk of supplier delays during specific seasons

• Many, many more factors

The key to analyzing these factors is the connection of systems within a dynamic
concurrent environment. To make that work, there must be user transparency.
This means that the connections between the systems are hidden away from the
user. The end user does not need to prepare any information to be sent nor follow
some sort of manual recipe (series of ordered steps that if not followed will not
give you desired results). The proper information will be transferred to the correct

9
 Many companies are falling into
the trap of using their digital
strategy to only improve the
way they are working today.
A digital environment will
significantly reduce the many
non-value activities you have
throughout your business.

10
stakeholders and systems in the correct context/format like magic. Without user
transparency of all these connections, dynamic concurrent environments would
simply not exist.

The presence of these connections will allow much more opportunity as to how/
when we get information.

No More Changing Context and

Waiting
With a dynamic concurrent environment, the current way we access information
will fundamentally change in the future. Currently when we have completed our
static task, a person or multiple people generate different formats/representations
of that information and pass it to a different department. This manual generation
of information will not happen. Systems are great at these types of tasks and will
do virtually all transformations of information from one team to a context that can
be understood by another team.

This means the team member that rely on certain information from another team
will always have it available. There are several ways information can be passed.
These are outlined as follows:

User Inititated Request

An important point to mention is that a person will be able to query/request the
information they need without changing applications. This will allow the user to
stay in the context (application) that they will use to make a decision based on
the information they received. We will no longer have over 30% of people’s time
looking and translating information from other teams into a format they need to
make decisions.

Another reason that users will not have to change contexts is because there will
be increasing use Intelligent Virtual Assistants. These assistants are derived from
the current chat bots we are hearing about from Microsoft and Facebook among
others, which allow users to ask questions to the assistant and get answers.
Examples would be:

• Who made modifications to …?

• What parts were modified in ECR 123?

• What are the types of equipment I can use in zone X?

11
 • What compartment is this object in?

• Where is this stock used in the other ships?

• How many parts did I create today?

• Which parts do not have production details verified?

• What is the weight of block 123?

• Show me all related classification drawings for this section.

In addition, Intelligent Virtual assistants will be able to do all of above with the
addition of providing content and performing actions. Examples would be:

• Open the drawing where this part is modeled

• Create me a visual representation of all changes in ECR 123

• Get me the Vendor Furnished Information for pump ABC

• Get visual representation of assembly X

• Send an email to the creator of this part and tell them that they need to….

• Create an ECR for this assembly

• Approve all production drawings associated to this assembly

• Show me all model parts which are inconsistent with functional design

• Notify simulation team to conduct a local FEA of this section and send me
the results

Asynchronous Automatic System Determination

Another way, and a much better method a person will get information will be
automatically determined by the system’s environment. Sometimes a person may
not know that there is an issue, a potential issue or even something they need to
take action on. With future systems information will be provided to stakeholders
with all the artifacts they need to make a decision which does not necessarily
mean they need to “do” the work. An example could be a weight engineer who is
automatically sent information from the detail design model with a maturity level
that is relevant to a weight engineer of a potential issue in a certain weight zone.
The weight engineer will review the information provided and can make a decision
without changing context (applications) to:

1. Ignore the automatic error/warning

12
2. Create a task for another team member to investigate and add additional
notes

3. Choose to solve the issue at that time.

With the dynamic concurrent workflow, teams will have the information available
to them when it is at a level of maturity that they need. They will no longer need to
wait for a static push which contains the information they need as well as other
information needed from other departments allowing them to get information
faster. An example is currently when a designer is building a package deliverable for
a block it will contain information for the shop floor and the planning department
as well as many other stakeholders. Since the information that the planner needs
is only a subset of what is needed for the waterfront (ex. Annotations of details) the
planner will be able to get the information they need when it is complete for them.
This means they do not need to wait for the static push from the designer which
includes a bunch more information not directly needed by the planner.

Synchronous Knowledge Aware Engineering

When a user is performing their task, they need to refer to a lot of sources of
information to make their decisions. Since there are a lot of sources it can be time
consuming for a designer to reference all pieces of information created by different
stakeholders.

The key to a synchronous system is that as the user is performing their action,
it will refer the result of what is being done to information contained in other
connected systems. If there is a discrepancy it will immediately tell the user in the
current application they are using of this discrepancy. In certain cases it can also
provide actions to take.

A couple of examples of this would be if the designer is modeling a frame and

they accidently selected the wrong stock of a plate or stiffener. The synchronous
system would compare the result of what the user did with the information that is
in the classification drawings. It would provide a window in the CAD application and
tell the user that the stock they picked does not match the classification drawing.
It will then be able to provide the user an option to ignore or to change the stock.

The second example is to have the synchronous system check a rule based
knowledge system. These systems will continue to gain and build on its knowledge
using artificial intelligence and machine learning strategies. The workflow would
be similar to when the user models a deck drain system as usual but if a rule is not
met, (e.g. such as not extending a drain hole inlet a certain distance from the deck
to account for the final surfacing) a window will be displayed about the error listing
several actions the user can take.

13
 Synchronous systems will find mistakes and provide guidance much earlier
to users and this will save a company both time and money. It will reduce the
requirement, or at least the effort involved with tedious checking and re-work that
currently occurs weeks/months after the design was submitted.

Finally, the Future has an As Built 3D

Model
As-built 3D models have been a topic of discussion for a very long time. There are
several reasons we have not achieved this. In my opinion, we have not achieved
this because as we are in the business of shipbuilding and not technology, the cost
of generating and maintaining the As-Built model was not worth the benefit which
would be realized. Notice I said “would be realized” not “could be realized.” This is
an important distinction as I think if done right the benefits we can currently get
from an As-Built exceed the cost. However, most companies today will not exploit
or realize all the benefits of the As-Built because they believe the cost vs. benefit
is too low.

In the future this will definitely change. There are several reasons for this:

1. Context is King in the future

2. Realization of benefit for production

3. Digital Ship (aka. Digital Twin)

Context is King in the future

With the high frequency of information being exchanged it would be hard to interpret
the information you are provided into actionable decisions without some visual
context. Leveraging the 3D model and incorporating information in the model is a
much faster way to communicate. You can communicate much more information
with tremendous clarity compared to any textual method. I have blogged about
this before - Visualization of information is a powerful thing

Realization of benefit for production

The production floor will be reaping the benefits of the 3D model. I really, really
want to say 2D paper documents will be gone but it is hard to say it. However, what
I can say with confidence is that a digital representation of the ship will be used on

14
every production floor. There will be various ways to access it possibly with some
new technologies not even invented yet. Automation of shop floor machines will
come directly from the 3D model which forces the 3D model to be 100% accurate.
Because of the use of the digital model being used on the waterfront, shipyards will
start gaining the benefit of keeping the model up-to-date. This additional benefit
will encourage shipyards to invest more in maintaining an As-Built model and drive
its adoption into the mainstream.

Digital Ship (aka. Digital Twin)

There is no argument that maintaining an as-built has additional costs. That is
why I think that probably the strongest driver for as-builts will be the customer. As
mentioned, future ship owners will need to have a better understanding of their
asset and one way they will do this is with their requirement for a Digital Ship. The
reason this is important and will push the generation of the as-built is because they
will pay for it. You are right that they will try not to, but at the end they will fork over
extra cash to get their digital ship because it will save them a lot of money during
operations.

What the Future Holds

The future sounds a lot like what many vendors say we have today. Some do a
small portion and may require users to follow a specific recipe (order steps which
cannot be deviated from). However, in the future, it will be much more fluid and
systems will connect items more freely without requirements. The systems that
will be connected are the ones we have today, but also include new systems, which,
for example, will leverage artificial intelligence, machine learning and Big Data.

The improved seamless flow of information between the systems we use will
allow us to evolve from a static concurrent environment to a dynamic concurrent
environment. This will enable the ability to have access to the information we need
at a much higher frequency. It will also provide other stakeholders the information
we are creating to make decisions earlier and give feedback to our work.

Finally, there will be a move towards As-Built models. This has been a topic in
shipbuilding since I can remember. In the past we were not able to achieve this
mainly because no-one was driving this initiative. Owners did not want to pay for
it and shipyards did not see the benefit from the additional effort. However, in the
future the changes related to how we will work using the 3D model to provide the
main source of context as well as the realization from the owners of the benefits of
the digital twin will change this.

15
16
 GENERATIVE
DESIGN IN
SHIPBUILDING

17
 Generative Design in Shipbuilding
I was first introduced to generative design at Autodesk University 2014 by Autodesk CTO Jeff
Kowalski. He talked about how nature is one of the best builders and that we should learn from
her. He gave some cool examples but the best was when he tied it to cyber physical systems
that determined a bridge needed to be built to optimize traffic and then built the bridge. All this
was without human intervention. I know this is a little scary and interesting at the same time
but the example is just supposed to be a seed for other practical ideas which can be used
today. Since then I have seen several presentations on generative design and also started to
think how this would apply in our industry.

What is Generative Design?

Generative design is a design method in which the output –

image, sound, architectural models, animation – is generated
by a set of rules or an Algorithm, normally by using a compu-
ter program. Most generative design is based on parametric
modeling. It is a fast method of exploring design possibilities
that is used in various design fields such as Art, Architecture,
Communication Design, and Product Design.

Source: Wikipedia

When using generative design we are only required to impose the constraints on the design
which are required to satisfy the design goals. So the constraints which we add to the design
because of tradition or “best practice” should not be added. The idea behind it is that the
more constraints you impose on the design then the less variation can be generated,therefore
reducing the effectiveness of the generative design results. The computer will explore a
possible solution using the information you inputted, satisfying the constraints you provided.
It will iterate the design possibilities while continually validating the results of the new iteration
with the previous ones and continue on improving the design. This is very similar to what
happens in nature.

18
1960 NASA antenna design Computer generated design

A perfect example of this was an antenna designed by NASA in the 1960s (image on the left
above). In the last decade engineers created an algorithm to design and validate via computer
analysis thousands of designs. By only entering the real constraints they generated a design on
the right. As you can see the design on the right would be something very difficult or impossible
for anyone of us to come up with. The generated design performed more than twice as good
as the original version. With computer performance going off the charts, a single computer can
generate more designs in minutes than we all can in our lifetime. The number of variations to
time relationship can even be improved with today’s infinite computing of the “cloud.”

One thing I am uncertain about generative design is if it takes the design aspect away from
the designers. My original thoughts was it would because now the algorithm is doing the
design and the “designer” is just required to pick the best option or clarify the constraints/
requirements. However, many of the presentations about generative design suggest that it
does not take away the designing away from the designer. A designer can use generative
design to complement their designing ability and adapt it to this new available method. My
opinion is that traditional human design makes sense for a design that is meant to be visually
appealing; however, for an item which will not have such a requirement like the Airbus bionic
partition which will be covered with another material, I think there will not be much designing
by the designer. I guess the question lies with how you define Design which I definitely do not
want to get into now.

19
 How Does This Relate to Shipbuilding?
Generative design is very interesting, but how can it be used in our industry? I do think we will
be using generative design to design aspects of our ships relatively soon. Actually here at SSI
we are still trying to implement the “Build Ship” button in our solution and maybe we should
investigate using generative design algorithms. However, if we look at other industries I can
see that this new trend will affect us very soon. I think there will be several phases on how
generative design will be used in shipbuilding.

Components used in our Ships

The first phase will be in components and equipment we purchase and use in our designs. We
will have no idea if the item we are using in our ship was actually designed using generative
design. All we will know is that the component is lighter, faster, and better than any other and
that will be why it is the one we select.

Small Personal Craft

Majority of you are not in the very small personnel craft market but I do see potential in this type
of market for generative design. These products are much less complex and can benefit from
a model generated with generative design. With a generative design, 3D printing and some new
materials newly available, we will be able to design a personnel craft which is good weight/
strength ratio, durable and cost effective.

Localized Small Assemblies and Equipment

After some time we will start using this in small assemblies and components which are small
local items which can be designed in isolation. This will be similar to what Airbus did with the
bionic partition as discussed in a previous blog post.

Large and more Complex Items

This is when I think it will get very interesting. An example could be to use generative design to
define a shape of the Hull. There are currently many algorithms used in practice to optimize hull
designs. To be honest I would say 1/4 of the shipbuilding related presentations I have attended
discuss a new concept, algorithm, process, etc. to optimize our ship structure or compartment
organization. Almost all these algorithms impose several constraints or make certain
assumptions at the very beginning which reduces the amount of variables required to do the
calculation. In theory the algorithms we currently use could be using a generative algorithm;
however, because we are adding non-required constraints to only reduce the complexity of the

20
problem we are not leveraging what is meant when we say “generative design.”

In this phase we will learn to let go of tradition and only input the true constraints. We will also
be forced to use the cloud and its limitless computing power to generate our designs. We will
never get to this stage if the algorithms we are using are required to be run on an on-premise
computer.

Very Large Components with more Relationships

If this would happen it would not be in the near future. The thoughts I have here are that we
would put in the constraints of the entire or at least a substantial portion of the ship and have
the generative design produce various results. The type of constraints we would need to be
entered would be around function such as capacity/type of cargo, performance and even
maintenance along with many, many more. I do not think we would enter constraints such as
frame spacing, stock thickness, bracket rules, etc. Instead we would enter load and strength
criteria. This would definitely require the class societies to change or adapt their rules. To be
honest I am not sure we will ever reach this stage as I would expect that when the technology
is ready to support this level of complexity we will have something totally different - including
what we call a ship.

Going Forward
Generative design is really starting to pick up a lot of steam. Autodesk is 100% backing this
trend and might actually be driving it with the introduction of their interests in generative design
at the Autodesk University 2014. One example is from airbus using generative design to create a
bionic partition which is orders of magnitude better than previous designs not using generative
design. With this partition being used in their next class of planes definitely demonstrates there
is some near future practicality around the hype.

There is no doubt that generative design will affect the shipbuilding industry. The real question
is how and when.

I have had very little success finding anyone in the shipbuilding industry who is using generative
design; however, with our industry being very tight lipped this does not mean that companies or
educational institutions are not experimenting or using it. If any of you are already leveraging
generative design in shipbuilding I would love to hear more of your experiences.

21
22
 WHAT LEVEL
OF DETAIL TO
INCLUDE IN YOUR
DESIGN?

23
 What Level of Detail to Include in Your
Design?
Recently, I visited several of SSI’s clients in the Pacific North West: Guido Perla
& Associates, Inc.; The Glosten Associates; Vigor Industrial; Gunderson Marine
and Jensen. There was definitely a common theme of, “Actively investing in
incorporating more detail and information into their projects.” It did not matter if
it was a shipyard or a design agent, they are all investing time, effort and money
to produce a more complete model. This investment will result in reduced overall
time and cost to build a vessel by allowing better planning, the ability to identify
interferences earlier, improved just in time purchasing, better interactions between
tools, earlier identification of potential issues and the ability to make relevant
information available for better decisions.

It has taken a while, but I now feel that our industry understands that if we invest
more time in creating a more comprehensive model, it will increase the quality,
improve orchestration of activities, find issues earlier, increase down hand welding
and reduce manual field cutting, all of which decrease the amount of time and cost
it takes to build a vessel. However, “adding more detail” means different things to
different organizations. This will always be the case because the ideal amount of
details needs to incorporate more than just “Best Practices” such as pre-outfitting,
it also needs to take into account facility constraints (cranes, panel lines, CNC
burning capabilities, bending press, etc.), skill level of personnel on the waterfront,
engineering skill level, internal processes and tools.

Each organization has its own ideas and philosophies as to what level of features
to include in their model. I cannot talk too much about them but I believe all the
clients I visited have very interesting and successful strategies.

To what level of detail do you include your

projects?
I had several long discussions about just this topic. What I was trying to better
understand is how one goes about deciding how much detail should be included
within ShipConstructor.

This might sound like an easy question for those of you who are not in the
shipbuilding industry, but because of the long history and tradition of shipbuilding
there has been a tendency to only model the major components of the ship structure
with only a cursory effort on outfitting (pipes, HVAC, equipment, electrical, etc.). For
some marine structures in specific markets this strategy is still used, but overall
in the shipbuilding industry there is a trend to expand the design and modeling of
more components for the reasons mentioned above.

A challenge that was apparent to me in my conversations was that there is little

to no quantifiable information on what the overall improvement would be with a

24
more detailed package. Everyone agrees that adding more details to their model
would have downstream benefits but it is all anecdotal. This is why some yards
and design agencies (definitely not the ones I visited on this trip) decide to stick
with the status quo and not include many of the artifacts which will be part of the
vessel. For example many still do not invest time to:

1. Pre-outfit

2. Model electrical wire ways and transits

3. Model pipe under 2”

4. Include adequate marking on plates

5. Create penetrations

6. Include beveling information

7. Place hangers and supports

8. Place all equipment (manholes, pumps, winches, etc.)

9. Include routing information

10. Etc.

Without quantifiable information it is difficult for any organization to know what

level of detail they should require from engineering. This makes it challenging
for yard engineering managers and design agencies to advocate a more detailed
production design package even though they feel it would reduce the overall cost of
the project. The decision maker will need to know what ROI (Return On Investment)
they will receive from the extra effort and $$$ spent on this more complete model.
Unfortunately, many organizations do not have this information.

This is especially difficult for design agencies since they usually have no information
to support their more complete designs. They are often perceived to be a cost and
not an investment. This is a similar challenge that we have seen within shipyards
where the engineering team has identified an area where they can significantly
improve production if they were able to spend additional time detailing more of
the project. Unfortunately what happens in this case is that additional engineering
hours are considered as an additional cost and not an investment.

I firmly believe all shipbuilders know they need to improve by including more detailed
and relevant information to the project model. Even if there is no quantifiable
information, it is understood that there are improvements in engineering which
can be made that will reduce overall costs. Because companies realize this, I have
definitely seen a tendency for shipbuilders to add more information to their project.
However, due to the fact that engineering is in essence still incorrectly viewed as
a cost center, these companies are trying to do more with less time. Admittedly,
trying to do more with less is something we all need to do and with the continuing

25
 addition of features in ShipConstructor there are always ways clients can be more
efficient with what they are doing today.

The problem from my point of view is that if you are trying to make a more accurate
and complete model, eventually you will come to a point where you will need to
increase your engineering hours/budget to add extra information for the overall
good of the project. There is no way around that fact. It is nice to see that the
clients that I visited understand that engineering is not just a sunk cost, it is an
investment. If you invest wisely you can add some cost during engineering but it
will be paid back in spades during production where the real cost saving will be.

What’s the Trend?

The trajectory is definitely moving to a more detailed model and it will only be a
matter of time before the industry norm will be that every single component be
modeled. It would be ideal and much easier for engineering mangers and design
agencies to justify the benefits of a more complete and comprehensive engineering
package but even without this quantifiable information, if a little bit of time is spent
investigating the cost vs. benefit, I think it is an obvious conclusion.

Investing additional time to create a more feature-rich model will allow better
material handling, estimation, planning, identify issues earlier, improve purchasing
schedules, and the list goes on.

You need to have the understanding that the time in engineering is an Investment
and not a cost. If it was not an investment why would we spend time on it at all?
As with any investment, we need to constantly look at how we can improve and in
some instances you need to invest a little to gain much more.

26
 About the Author
Denis Morais, SSI's co-CEO, has been internationally
recognized for his published blogs, articles and
papers and continues to provide insights on
innovative solutions for the marine industry. He has
worked hand in hand with industry partners and SSI’s
clients around the world to solve their most difficult
business and technological challenges. This depth
of understanding of both the current and future state
of technology and the business of shipbuilding serve
Denis well as he leads SSI towards the delivery of
innovative products and services.

27
 Other Resources You Might Find
Interesting
Managing Fleet Costs from Design to Decommission
Authored by Denis Morais, SSI’s co-CEO, this eBook aims to give
you more insight into digital twins and how you can ensure that
you can reference any information you have about your ship.

Learn More

Waveform
SSI co-CEO Denis Morais provides insights into the rising tide
of business and technology innovations in the shipbuilding and
offshore industries.

Learn More

Crow's Nest

SSI co-CEO Darren Larkins focuses on how the latest business

and technology trends are impacting our industry.

Learn More

Lighthouse
SSI staff members shine a light on the company, its clients,
ShipConstructor CAD/CAM software, and the shipbuilding and
offshore industry.

Learn More

28