Step 1 — Write requirements from failure, not features
"Ship management software" carried a relative search interest of 51 in the month to 22 August 2026, down 7% month on month — while the far more specific "ship fleet management software" rose 200%. Read together, those two movements describe a market where general interest is saturating and specific, function-led buying is accelerating.
This guide is written for the person who has to run the selection.
Vendor feature lists are largely identical and largely irrelevant. Build your requirements from things that have actually gone wrong in your fleet in the last three years:
| Something that went wrong | The requirement it generates |
|---|---|
| A certificate expired unnoticed | Certificate register with tiered escalation to named roles |
| Spares ordered against the wrong equipment | Single equipment register shared by PMS and procurement |
| A demurrage claim time-barred | Voyage event capture with time-bar alerting |
| An off-spec bunker stem | BDN and sample tracking linked to the voyage record |
| An overdue crew relief | Relief planning with rank-level visibility and alerting |
| EU ETS reconstructed manually | Voyage classification captured at the time, not afterwards |
| A superintendent's findings never closed | Corrective action tracking with ageing |
That table, filled in from your own history, is a better RFP than any template.
Step 2 — Score on the right axes
| Axis | Weight | What to test |
|---|---|---|
| Data model integrity | 20% | One vessel, equipment, seafarer, voyage identity |
| Offline resilience | 15% | Two-week outage scenario |
| Reporting and export | 15% | Owner's report from live data; machine-readable export |
| Compliance coverage | 15% | MRV/DCS, CII, EU ETS, FuelEU, MLC |
| Integration | 15% | Documented API, real customer integrations |
| Usability on board | 10% | A chief engineer completes a job unaided |
| Vendor viability | 5% | Financials, customer count, roadmap |
| Price | 5% | TCO over five years |
Price at 5% will look wrong on a procurement scorecard. It is correct for the same reason the management fee is a poor basis for choosing a manager: the software cost is small next to the operating cost it is meant to control.
Step 3 — Model total cost of ownership honestly
Licence is around a third. The other two-thirds is work — and internal time is the line every business case omits and every project consumes.
Step 4 — The compliance requirement, in detail
By 2026 this is no longer a "nice to have" section of the RFP. Minimum viable coverage:
- EU MRV and IMO DCS reporting with verifier-ready outputs
- CII calculation and forward trajectory modelling, not just the current rating
- EU ETS: voyage scoping (100% of applicable emissions in scope from 2026), CO₂ plus CH₄ and N₂O, allowance tracking and surrender support
- FuelEU Maritime: GHG intensity against the 91.16 gCO₂e/MJ baseline with the applicable annual reduction, compliance balance, and support for banking, borrowing and pooling
- MLC 2006: rest hours, employment agreements, and readiness for the 2025 amendments
- Cyber: alignment with IACS UR E26/E27 where applicable
Ask the vendor to show a FuelEU pooling calculation across three vessels. It is a fair test of whether the compliance module is real or a report generator.
Step 5 — Interrogate integration properly
| Question | Weak answer | Strong answer |
|---|---|---|
| Do you have an API? | "Yes, we can build one." | Public documentation, live now |
| How do you handle ERP cost heads? | "We map them during implementation." | A mapping tool the customer controls |
| Can we get raw data out? | "We provide reports." | Scheduled export, documented schema |
| What happens on termination? | "We'll discuss it." | Contractual export obligation, format named |
| Sensor ingestion rate? | "We support IoT." | Stated frequency, volume and retention |
Step 6 — Reference calls that are worth making
Do not ask references whether they are happy. Ask:
- What did you underestimate?
- How long until the spreadsheets actually stopped?
- Which module do your crews avoid, and why?
- What did you have to build yourself?
- If you were re-running the selection, what would you weight differently?
The buy-vs-build question
Almost no owner should build. The exceptions are narrow: a very large fleet with a genuinely unusual trade, or a manager whose software is itself a product. For everyone else, the fixed cost of maintaining regulatory coverage — every CII revision, every ETS scope change, every MLC amendment — is the argument. That cost does not stop, and it is not what your shore team is for.
regulatory references to Regulation (EU) 2023/1805, Directive (EU) 2023/959 and IACS UR E26/E27. TCO composition is an indicative model. Vendor-neutral guidance. Reviewed by the Zeaclub Editorial Team, 24 August 2026.
Frequently asked questions
How much does ship management software cost?
Pricing is usually per vessel per month and varies enormously by module set. Model five-year TCO including implementation, migration, training, integration and internal time — licence is typically only about a third.
How long does implementation take?
For a mid-size fleet, six to twelve months to full adoption. Go-live is not adoption; budget for the gap.
Should we buy one platform or best-of-breed modules?
One platform is easier to govern. Best-of-breed can be better per function but only works if the underlying identities — vessel, equipment, seafarer, voyage — are genuinely shared.
What is the most common cause of failure?
Data migration and adoption, in that order. Neither is a software problem, which is exactly why both are under-resourced.