Who This Is For
This page is for ship owners, operators, and technical managers who are directly responsible for the effectiveness of their ship planned maintenance system (PMS).
If you are accountable for audit readiness, vessel reliability, or maintenance credibility, this page is written for you.
It is particularly relevant if you are experiencing one or more of the following:
- Repeated PMS-related observations during audits or vetting
- Maintenance tasks completed onboard but difficult to explain or justify
- PMS backlogs, overdue items, or unclear task ownership
- Maintenance records that exist but do not fully reflect actual shipboard conditions
This is not a page about PMS software features or maintenance theory.
It is written for operators responsible for ensuring their ship planned maintenance system can be clearly demonstrated, explained, and defended under real inspection, audit, and vetting conditions.
Our Approach
ShipShoreGroup approaches ship planned maintenance system support from the perspective of how maintenance systems are actually reviewed, challenged, and validated during audits, vetting, and inspections.
Rather than focusing on tools or platforms, the emphasis is on how PMS works in practice:
- How maintenance tasks are structured and scheduled
- How records demonstrate consistency, intent, and follow-through
- How evidence is traced, reviewed, and explained
- How responsibilities are understood onboard and ashore
This approach is grounded in real ship management experience, where PMS performance is judged not by what is planned, but by what can be shown, explained, and verified.
The objective is to help operators move from “the PMS is running” to “the PMS is credible, clear, and defensible.”
Why This Works
Most challenges with a ship’s planned maintenance system stem from execution gaps rather than system design.
In practice, most PMS issues are not system failures. They are execution and alignment gaps.
Maintenance may be carried out, but:
- Records do not clearly support the work performed
- Task logic is difficult to follow or justify
- Evidence does not align with inspection expectations
- Crew and shore teams interpret PMS requirements differently
This approach works because it aligns PMS execution with how external parties actually assess it.
By focusing on clarity, traceability, and realistic shipboard conditions, the PMS becomes easier to manage, easier to explain, and more resilient during audits and vetting.
Over time, this reduces uncertainty, minimizes repeat findings, and strengthens confidence — both onboard and ashore.
What Happens Next
Once you submit your request, your PMS concern will be reviewed by a ship management professional with audit and operational experience.
If clarification is needed, you will be contacted by email.
There is no obligation and no automated sales follow-up.
The objective is to understand your situation clearly and determine whether practical PMS support can be provided.