Years ago, I asked a question that got me laughed out of meetings:
“Why don’t we apply project management principles to maritime planning?”
The responses were predictable.
“Ships are different.”
“You can’t plan the sea.”
“This is how we’ve always done it.”
I tried anyway. It took years. I faced resistance from people with decades more experience. I was told I didn’t understand the industry.
But I kept pushing. Because the math didn’t lie.
The Paradox That Started Everything
Project management is considered a near-exact science. The PMBOK framework has been refined for 50 years. Companies that adopt it outperform those that don’t.
IT projects used to fail 70% of the time. After adopting PM discipline: 30%.
Construction projects used to hemorrhage money. After PM discipline: controlled budgets, predictable timelines.
Finance developed Monte Carlo stress testing. Now they can validate strategies before risking capital.
But maritime planning?
The Chief Officer makes a stowage plan in 3 hours. No framework. No KPIs. No stress testing. No systematic improvement.
A $50 million vessel. A $2 million cargo. Planned in 3 hours by someone with 15 other responsibilities.
And we call this professional?
What I Built
I took the core principles of project management and adapted them for maritime operations.
Phase 1: Strategy
Before loading a single container, validate the trade.
Study port constraints. Model vessel options. Test the rotation against random scenarios: cargo drops, fuel spikes, weather delays, port closures.
In finance, this is called Monte Carlo stress testing. I applied it to shipping.
A trade that only works in perfect conditions isn’t a trade. It’s a gamble.
Phase 2: Execution
Strategy without execution is worthless.
Think of a financial broker. They’re your interface with the market. They execute your strategy. They monitor conditions. They adapt when needed.
The shore planner serves the same function. They’re the execution engine. They implement the strategy rotation after rotation. They track KPIs. They catch deviations before they become disasters.
Phase 3: Continuous Improvement
Every rotation generates data. Every deviation teaches something.
What went well? What failed? Why? How do we improve?
This isn’t revolutionary. It’s basic PM discipline. But in maritime planning, it’s almost unheard of.
The Vessel Selection Example
Here’s how traditional planning works:
“We have cargo. We have a ship. Load it.”
Here’s how Marine Project Management works:
The maximum draft across all ports is 14.0m at zero tide. We evaluate vessel options.
A 4,500 TEU vessel has 15.5m full-load draft. It would never operate at full capacity on this trade. Wasted fuel. Higher costs. Poor economics.
A 2,800 TEU vessel has 13.2m full-load draft. It fits the constraints perfectly. Maximum utilization. Optimal economics.
We don’t just plan cargo. We plan the system.
The right vessel for the right trade. The right cargo mix for the vessel. The right port sequence for the cargo. Everything connected.
Market Cycles Matter
Maritime shipping has bull and bear markets. Just like finance.
Bull market: Demand exceeds supply. Maximize capacity. Accept complexity for premium rates. Expand carefully.
Bear market: Supply exceeds demand. Focus on costs. Protect core customers. Survive until conditions improve.
A strategy that works in a bull market fails in a bear market. A strategy that survives a bear market thrives in a bull market.
We stress test for both.
The Resistance I Faced
When I first proposed this approach, experienced operators told me:
“Too complicated.”
“We don’t have time for all that analysis.”
“Just load the ship and sail.”
They were right about one thing: it takes more effort upfront.
But the results speak:
| Traditional Approach | Marine PM Approach |
|---|---|
| Reactive planning | Proactive strategy |
| Unknown KPIs | Measured performance |
| Repeat mistakes | Systematic learning |
| Hope it works | Validated before execution |
The operators who adopted this approach reduced costs by 15-25%. They improved reliability. They stopped firefighting and started optimizing.
The operators who didn’t kept improvising. Some are still in business. Many aren’t.
Why Feeders Need This Most
Major carriers figured this out decades ago. They have planning departments. They have frameworks. They have KPIs.
Feeders don’t.
The same Chief Officer who manages safety, crew, documentation, and port operations also makes the stowage plan. In 3 hours. With no support.
This isn’t their failure. It’s a system failure.
Feeders need project management discipline more than anyone. They have it least.
That’s the gap we fill.
The Core Insight
A financial advisor doesn’t just pick stocks. They build a portfolio strategy, stress test it, execute it systematically, monitor performance, and adjust based on data.
A project manager doesn’t just assign tasks. They plan the project, identify risks, track progress, and drive continuous improvement.
A stowage planner shouldn’t just place containers. They should validate the trade strategy, optimize the rotation, execute systematically, track KPIs, and improve continuously.
This is Marine Project Management.
It’s not revolutionary. It’s applying proven principles to an industry that forgot to adopt them.
What Changes
Before:
- Plan each port in isolation
- React to problems as they occur
- No measurement, no improvement
- Hope the rotation works out
After:
- Strategy validated before execution
- Problems prevented, not solved
- KPIs tracked, trends analyzed
- Continuous improvement built in
The difference compounds. Every rotation. Every year. Every vessel.
Planning as a science, not an art.
Planning as a science, not an art.