Digitalisation: Lines of communication

Let’s start with the obvious. “Data is valuable,” says Eero Lehtovaara of ABB Marine & Ports. Gone is the utopian idea that it should be freely available.

And that can make for a tussle about who gets to do what. Taking a single example, one supplier “refused to allow their data to be used on our engine performance monitoring platform”, relates Carmelo Cartalemi of WinGD. In a fairly classic case of cart-before-horse, he says they were “more interested in putting our data on their system”. Although that was equitably resolved, the current situation has given rise to “ambitious” OEMs, he says, “which can make collaboration a little challenging, each wanting to protect their data and sell their own solution”.

Further, while it’s possible to take lessons from other industries, shipping involves a far higher number of stakeholders and manufacturers says Jonas Åkerman of Wärtsilä: “There are about as many platforms as there are OEMs.” The result is a complicated and uncoordinated view of the onboard equipment.

Against this backdrop, Lehtovaara is leading a newly launched initiative by CIMAC which the organisation describes as ‘consolidating the vision’ on the digitalisation of power and propulsion. As he explains, “at present, although standardisation is high on the agenda, currently there is very little in the way of integrating modern onboard technology”.

It does have an impact: “At the moment we are building engine rooms and bridges that are unnecessarily complex because we’re trying to extract data from proprietary systems and interfaces,” he says.

This leads to duplication of processes and inconsistencies in the presented information. Lehtovaara admits “we have clients and crew becoming irritated about getting a variety of responses depending on which way they ask a question of the shipboard systems”.

As a result, Dmitry Kisil of WestP&I, who’s experience comes from a technical superintendent role as well as a ‘hands on’ user, adds: “If you ask a ship’s master or chief engineer, do you want the latest digital version or a crowbar, he’ll usually say, ‘the crowbar’.”

It’s not that surprising. As Stam Achillas of ABB Turbocharging says, “as an industry we are still in the early stages of digitalisation”, adding the real value of these solutions “comes when companies can access data ‘beyond’ their own equipment, enhancing their diagnostics and advisory capabilities together with partners”. Collaboration is, therefore “a necessity”.

Much has already changed: take the “broad acceptance of condition-based monitoring and predictive maintenance”, says Åkerman. As a result, rather than merely dealing in lumps of steel, the big engine manufacturers have, as MAN ES points out, moved “towards a service and solutions offering based on measurable and manageable performance”.

But from that arises the question about who holds the keys. Certainly, many believe a common ecosystem is necessary, and a lot of OEMs have rushed to provide one.

However, Åkerman’s colleague, Frank Velthuis, adds that there’s been a recent wake-up call: “We now have no illusion that ours will be THE platform that gets everyone onboard,” he admits. Instead, he says, “more and more fleet owners say they want to have control over the data themselves”. And that is sorting out the old nugget of who owns the information: ship owners are increasingly clear they do.

So OEMs are generally turning their attention round to making their packages work on other people’s systems. It requires “some complex work on the interfaces,” says Cartelemi: “Of course, we believe ours should be the standard, but then, so do all the others.”

At the same time, there are pitfalls: fleet owners’ new ‘do-it-yourself’ approach can lead into expensive blind alleys: “no-one needs parallel developments in a 100 different companies”, says Velthuis. The answer, he believes, is to buy in more general services, like CBM, and save the budget for specialised or unique systems. And then, be focused: “Think first about what it is that you want to achieve, and how you are going to do that,” he advises: “Start with the end in mind – and take a staged approach: make sure you really do have the value there before you pursue it.”

However, third-party cloud platforms may be able to offer a different type of solution.

For example, Houlder, (which is about to enter the market) aims to liberate ship operation, raising efficiency “without a lock-in to a specific vendor”, says Arun Pillai.

To be clear, it’s not just about remote diagnostics. While a remote overview is valuable – and decentralised data analysis from shore may indeed be the long-term future – Houlder’s platform can also act as the glue between separate shipboard elements, explains Pillai’s colleague, David Hugh. By direct application of nicely cooked and sliced information it could, for example, refine the response between engine and CP propellers or other systems. That is a significant step in itself.

But the possibilities reach even further: Pillai adds that platforms like these promise to redefine how onboard power is utilised by helping rationalise and smooth out peak loads, raising efficiency and lowering both OPEX and CAPEX.

While developments may tie onboard systems together, could they further segment the industry?

Andrea Lazzaro of WinGD has studied what’s happened in other sectors, such as aerospace. Here, “a standardized protocol (ACARS) was originally established some years ago to send mainly safety-related packages of information via VHF radio, and later via satellite”, he explains. However, “more recently, with the huge increase in information bandwidth and computing power, various players have developed more complex proprietary data exchange systems”.

So the technology has evolved from a shared system, to something much smarter – but at the cost of standardisation. “Everyone wants to present a cleverer data interface with better, richer diagnostics,” says Lazzaro.

With so many data platforms available and so many shipowners developing their own solutions, “being able to integrate systems from multiple suppliers is crucial for the successful digital transformation of the industry” says Achillas. As such, manufacturers like ABB Turbocharging invest in developing APIs for integration into a range of platforms. “It is a lot more work,” says Achillas, “but flexibility is key.”

Like others, MAN ES sees the answer in “a combination of core in-house capabilities and co-operation”, working hand in hand. But there’s reason to believe an industry ecosystem should not be a commercial operation. Despite the company’s role as the mýa platform’s initial founder, the idea is to draw in others to create an independent, open-to-all, collaborative space. Essentially, agreed standards and a common, metadata architecture will integrate all the OEM data streams, enabling a complete system view, but most importantly, it allows different parties to work together on optimisation programmes, secure that data will only be shared by permission.

However, looking beyond all this, Åkerman says the next challenge lies in “integrating data from cloud platform to cloud platform”. He adds “it’s still a bit Wild West”, but interoperability pressures mean “cloud platforms are converging at an increasing rate”.

This itself may rescue CIMAC’s vision: even self-interested parties will eventually recognise that, as Achillas says, “the true value of data is only discovered when it’s translated into meaningful information”… and that means “getting less protective – an open approach to sharing raw data would enable more powerful analysis to add further value for the shipowner”.

ON EDGE

There is an issue: data transfer is limited at sea.

Therefore onboard – edge – computing has to crunch the incoming information, filtering out spikes and outliers (and quarantining them) to get at the very limited points to be sent home, as well as extracting what’s needed for local shipboard applications. But it’s essential that nothing’s lost: Cartelemi explains WinGD’s information is made available in both “in the raw” as well as in a filtered, readable version for onboard applications.

Edge and cloud may therefore have to operate separately for extended periods, only falling back in step with each other when there’s a reliable (and cyber secure) data transfer link. So before signing up, owners will have to dig into exactly how hefty a load these applications could put onto shipboard computers.

While not so much an issue for new builds, “the problems lies with the existing fleet,” says Achillas. “While these ships may be generating useful propulsion control data, they lack the infrastructure to harness this data.” He adds: “Tapping into that could be done, but it would require some initial investment. Owners have to assess whether the potential improvements in vessel efficiency are worth it.”

VALIDATION

Information accuracy is, itself, is a tricky subject: “Who is responsible for the validation of the data, especially if it’s critical for the operation of other onboard machinery?” asks Lehtovaara. For example, “if my trim-adjusting technology gets the wrong numbers on engine thrust, the trim will be out, raising the ship’s fuel consumption”.

“You now need shipping-wide standards for data validation,” says Kisil. Despite the competition, some, like Cartalemi, firmly believe the natural ‘home’ for these large systems is the class societies. It would lend itself to an efficient crossover “for example, accepting a maintenance extension based on data validated by an independent, trusted party”, he says.

It is, however, a hot topic that’s bound to run and run.

AUTOMATION

All this inevitably touches on the broader subject of automation.

Companies such as Kongsberg, Wärtsilä and ABB are currently working to raise levels of data exchange between onboard components. In fact, Lehtovaara believes that “many future developments will talk system-to-system”, though not all: some elements will need to be checked by the bridge. He says: “It’s not a matter of getting rid of the crew, but co-existence needs to be more effective.”

It requires consideration, especially as digitalised onboard technologies will likely track each other more and more closely, so “a simple advisory won’t always be the best way to handle anomalies”, says Kisil. Moreover, he adds that given the amount of data-sharing between systems , transparent mapping is necessary. Further, he adds, “a loss of input should be immediately identified, allowing everyone to see which system is feeding into what, and where it’s gone wrong”.

It’s clear that the future isn’t taking digitalisation on a ‘component by component’ basis, but will require “seeing the whole ship as a system” says Lehtovaara. It promises to be a long road. Despite “yards and other organisations investing a lot in supporting this discussion… it’s a gargantuan task”, he concludes.

One thing that everyone agrees on is that the way forward has to be collaborative. As MAN ES concludes, “digitalization is often reduced to a purely technical level… In fact, it is above all a cultural issue: a mindset”.

By Stevie Knight