A strong maritime technology proposal should show more than what a product can do. It should help a buyer judge what happens when people put it to work: the changes required, the difficulties encountered and the support available when something goes wrong.
Digital Ship Media’s The 2027 Maritime Technology Marketer’s Playbook identifies four useful forms of proof: customer implementation stories, direct peer experience, relevant independent validation and transparent pilot results.
Start with one question: what does this evidence actually prove about the work your team needs to do?
What evidence should buyers ask for?
Ask for practical accounts of implementation and performance, then check how closely they support the supplier’s claim. The playbook puts operational experience at the centre of reducing the perceived risk of adoption. A feature list can introduce a product; it cannot tell the whole story of putting it into service.
Use the following questions to make a sales discussion more specific. The red flags are prompts for further inquiry, not automatic reasons to reject a supplier.
| Vendor claim | Evidence to ask for | Red flag to investigate |
|---|---|---|
| Comparable customers | A comparable implementation story and a conversation with a peer. | The reference leaves out the operating conditions or difficulties. |
| Independent validation | The assessment itself, including its scope and the claim it addresses. | An approval label stands in for an explanation of what was assessed. |
| An improvement in a pilot | The trial method, operating context and calculation behind the result. | A headline result appears without the method or conditions. |
| Ease of adoption and support | Defined user tasks, migration requirements, training and examples of support. | A feature list replaces an account of how people used the system. |
The distinction between a claim and its support also appears in the US Federal Trade Commission’s advertising substantiation policy. An objective advertising claim needs a reasonable basis (1). If an advertisement says testing proves a result, the FTC expects support at the level advertised (1).
The FTC substantiation policy concerns US advertising claims, not a universal maritime procurement requirement (1).
Does the customer story match your operation?
A relevant customer story explains the problem, the work involved and what happened after implementation. The playbook treats direct peer experience as a way to understand how other operators handle similar challenges.
Are the vessels, users, tasks and operating conditions comparable to yours? What had to change? What proved difficult? What would the operator do differently next time?
For a crew-communications review, for example, ask a peer to explain how crew and shore users adapted during implementation. Ask where people needed help.
The Chalmers research Human-centred design for maritime technology and organizational change describes maritime design projects as situated experiences involving complex tasks and repeated adaptation (2). It also concludes that filling gaps with available technology does not guarantee efficiency, safety or acceptance.
The practical takeaway is simple: ask what changed for the people doing the work. A successful installation and a good experience in daily use answer different questions. A useful reference should give you enough detail to explore both.
What does independent validation cover?
Read the scope before relying on the label. Digital Ship Media identifies relevant class society approvals, technical validation and joint research as useful forms of support for supplier claims.
Ask which product, task or claim was assessed, and what the assessment actually concluded. Do not stretch a limited approval into proof of every operational benefit in a proposal. The playbook names categories of evidence; it does not establish that a particular supplier holds an approval.
The FTC policy separately states that a self-regulatory endorsement does not automatically shield an advertiser from Commission scrutiny (1). That statement concerns US advertising self-regulation, not a legal judgment about maritime class approvals.
A usability report is a good example of why scope matters. The cited ISO/IEC 25066:2016 edition described evaluation-report content tied to the selected evaluation approach (3). Its reports applied to systems, products or services used for predefined tasks (3). To interpret such a report, identify those tasks and the approach used.
That gives a buyer something more concrete to examine than an unexplained claim about ease of use. It does not turn a task-based usability evaluation into proof of future support delivery, or into a judgment about every possible use of the product.
Do the pilot numbers stand up?
Ask for the method, the operating context and the calculation behind the headline. The playbook recommends credible trial results with enough detail to interpret them, including when the operator’s identity must remain anonymous.
Follow the result back to the trial’s specific task. What was tested? Under which conditions? How was the reported change calculated? Keep the conclusion within those boundaries. If the trial did not examine a wider application, the headline should not settle that wider question.
A useful pilot makes its result interpretable. A favourable number without its context leaves the buyer with more questions, not a complete business case.
Can people use it when work gets difficult?
Look beyond the normal demonstration. The playbook identifies migration, integration, implementation timing and support for crew and shore teams as important responses to adoption concerns.
Ask the supplier to explain the transition and then show a comparable deployment. Keep the intended support arrangement separate from evidence of how support was actually delivered.
The Chalmers research found that user involvement in purchasing ship equipment was perceived as important for the work environment and safe, efficient onboard operations. Its conclusions also call for attention to changes in work, training and re-skilling (2).
Reading operational-use and support evidence
Evaluate the evidence behind a crew-payment proposal
For a crew-payment proposal, apply these evidence checks to the supplier’s material: look for comparable deployment accounts, evidence about user adoption and an explanation of support in practice. Judge those accounts by what they demonstrate about the people and tasks involved, rather than by the length of a feature list.
Sources
- FTC Policy Statement Regarding Advertising Substantiation, Federal Trade Commission, November 23, 1984
- Human-centred design for maritime technology and organizational change, Chalmers, 2018
- ISO/IEC 25066:2016 Systems and software engineering — Systems and software Quality Requirements and Evaluation (SQuaRE) — Common Industry Format (CIF) for Usability — Evaluation Report, ISO, 2016-06
