EXCLUSIVE: Crew engagement is critical to shipping’s energy transition

We know crews are under pressure. With frequent port calls and an extensive list of responsibilities, fatigue is a reality. In fact, workload management is consistently one of the lowest-scoring areas of the Seafarers Happiness Index.

So, when new technology is not the crew’s first priority, it is easy to think they are not interested. But I’ve seen firsthand how enthusiastic crews can be. They are keen to learn about new technology when they understand what it is doing and can see the results.

For example, a fuel-saving system that is expected to provide a reduction in fuel consumption of up to 3% can lead to significant savings. But for the crew, 3% is difficult to see. People want to know that what they are doing is making a difference. Without seeing results, it’s easy for them to disengage.

Trust takes time

Another important factor is trust. I have seen situations where voyage optimisation recommendations were sent over email, but the crew did not trust those recommendations. This reaction is understandable. When you have someone who has been sailing for decades being told by a computer that they should do something differently, their first question is going to be, ‘Why?’

That does not mean the system is wrong. A computer can process many more variables than a human can, and that is one of the reasons we use these systems. But for crews to engage, such recommendations need to make sense based on their own experience.

The crew should be able to say, ‘Why are you suggesting this?’ and get an answer. In fact, the more questions they ask the better – it means they are engaging with the system. But first, people need to trust the system. That starts with understanding where the recommendation comes from, why it is being made, and how it fits with what they see onboard.

The way systems are introduced is also important, as is who is talking to the crew. If a former mariner explains it, the conversation will be quite different than if it’s coming from someone who has developed the technology but has never set foot on a ship.

There is another practical challenge: the crew onboard today may not be same a few months down the line. We saw the impact of this during our own solar trial. The initial crew were very cooperative and interested in the system. Then key members of the crew changed.

The handover naturally concentrated on the operational information that needed to be passed on. With limited time during rotation, discussing the new technology was not at the top of the list. The incoming crew therefore did not have the same level of understanding or connection with the system.

Keep it simple onboard

In my experience, the systems that work best onboard are the ones that are easy to operate and require very little intervention from the crew. Ideally, you switch them on and forget about them. This is particularly important when you consider how many systems are already onboard, all competing for attention – we hear stories of vessels where there are so many alarms that the crew has to wear hearing protection on the bridge because of the noise.

Crew should not have to constantly think about technology. It should operate in the background and only require attention when something actually needs to be done. In the case of solar, if output is falling because the tiles need cleaning, the system doesn’t simply generate another alarm. Instead, it determines the most convenient time to alert the crew, for example while at sea rather than in port, when there are fewer competing priorities. Ideally, the system will also explain why performance has changed. That helps the crew understand what is happening and gives them confidence in the information provided.

The same applies to performance feedback. It is much more useful when the crew can see how the vessel and its different systems are performing in one place. If a vessel has, for example, solar, wind-assisted propulsion, route optimisation and other efficiency measures, it makes sense to give the crew a clear picture of overall performance rather than having a separate report for every system.

Start with the crew

The lesson I take from these experiences is that we need to bring the crew into the conversation much earlier – ideally at the design stage.

Technology providers should consider how much training the crew will need, how the system will be explained and how results will be shared. Importantly, they should also ask how much additional work the system will create. But this responsibility does not sit with technology providers alone. Shipowners, managers and the wider industry all have a role to play in how new technologies are introduced and managed onboard.

MarineSolar’s NanoDeck is designed around these principles. It is a plug-and-play system that can be installed without major vessel modifications or operational downtime and once installed, requires minimal maintenance and intervention from the crew. There is no complicated process for them to manage and no need to change the way they operate the vessel.

It also gives the crew something that is particularly useful for engagement: a visible result. Unlike technologies where benefits may only be apparent through complex calculations or long-term modelling, solar generation can be measured in real time, so the crew can see the system producing energy and understand what it is contributing.

In my experience, crews are interested in and keen to learn about decarbonisation solutions. But if we want them to be committed to the energy transition, as an industry we need to make sure they can see what they are contributing to, understand why it matters, and have the opportunity to be part of it.