The Case for a Decent Design
Given that ships in various forms have been with us since the dawn of time, the perennial lament from end-users, namely the seafarers, about the incongruity of ship designs with respect to safety, security, practicality, functionality and operability, still goes on today.
Most seafarers are aware and accept that the underlying factor is ‘economics’ - the builder, the shipowner, the legislators and the designers are governed by it. However there is a fine line between commercial profitability and exploitation - the trick is in knowing where the compromise lies.
Thankfully, when it comes to safety and security issues, Flag Administrations and Classification Societies are continually introducing improvements for safer designs through regulations - often otherwise known as ‘minimum requirements or standards’. The term ‘standard’, though, is subjective and can mean different things to different groups outside the regulated regime. However, if all stakeholders strive to achieve and agree on ‘acceptable standards’, then maybe there will be less pressure on the designer to make political/economical decisions without compromising his/her integrity.
When it comes to the operational and practical aspects of a design, decisions are very much driven by cost. What may be a good idea or decent upgrade to a design is frequently translated into ‘how-much- does-it-cost?’ Perhaps this is one area in which naval architects are often misunderstood - incorporating what is good can sometimes mean pushing it too far till the project is no longer viable. The same is true for the shipbuilder, who takes the opposite stance to the owner. Tucked in the middle is the end-user.
The difference in standards or expectations can be quite remarkable between owners, builders and seafarers. For example, it is still common to find new ships built in Japan today intended for crews from developing countries to be equipped with shared or common toilets/showers. This may be permitted for signatory countries to the International Labour Organization (ILO) 1992 Convention but it will not be deemed to meet European standards. Another popular justification for low standards of equipment or accommodation is the fact that the owner may sell the ship within the next 3 years - so why spend all that money on improving the design when it will only benefit the future buyer? Such philosophy towards ship designs will not translate well with naval architects, especially in the eyes of the people onboard.
So, where can we go from here?
For future naval architects, the Royal Institution of Naval Architects is actively pushing for sponsorships from ship owners and industry to provide young designers with the opportunity to spend time at sea/ industry and increase their awareness of good and bad designs, and their implications to the people serving onboard the ships.
For practicing naval architects, walking the fine line remains an occupational hazard but it is left to the individual on how to decide and convince the owner and/or the builder which of the ‘wish-list’ is not only nice to have but also ‘good to have’.
For all designers, owners and operators, it is essential to maintain contact and encourage dialogue with the people at sea, as well ashore, as there is no substitute for practical knowledge and feedback on how well a design has performed. On this note, the Nautical Institute’s publication Improving Ship Operational Design contains practical tips that will not be found in any college course work and is a good place to start.
For the seafarers, we know naval architects may not exactly feature high on your top ten list of favourite personalities, but they do listen and they do try to fulfil their professional obligation for safer and better designs within the confines of the project - so long as you don’t ask for satellite TV in every cabin!