What is the core issue that Bluestone sets out to solve?
George Balan: The core issue is fragmentation – not only of documentation, but of technical continuity, ownership and accountability across a vessel’s lifecycle. Traditional plan approval workflows were developed for an era when vessel designs were largely fixed before construction. Modern vessel designs evolve continuously during construction as regulations, materials, equipment selections and integration strategies change. Yet plan approval records, inspection findings, design revisions and class correspondence are still often managed across emails, spreadsheets and disconnected systems, with no single auditable record of what was agreed, approved and ultimately built.
The consequences are most visible after delivery. When a vessel enters its first drydock for conversion or a major retrofit, engineering teams are often forced to reconstruct a technical baseline that should already exist. Time and budget shift from solution development to verification and re-approval. Class approval cycles extend, retrofit scopes expand, and in some cases the feasibility of decarbonisation or efficiency measures cannot be assessed with confidence because the baseline is unclear.
Bluestone addresses this by combining independent newbuilding supervision with a digital platform that centralises drawings, comments, inspections and approvals in a single environment accessible to owners, shipyards, class and flag. Owners retain permanent access to their technical history after delivery, strengthening warranty management, drydock preparation and future modification planning. Documentation, in this context, is no longer an administrative output. It is engineering infrastructure that determines how efficiently a vessel can be adapted over time.
What is keeping shipyards from reaching a better performance and higher productivity?
Balan: Shipyard productivity is often framed as a labour or capacity issue. In practice, coordination inefficiency is just as significant. Shipyards are delivering vessels with higher system density and tighter interface management than in the past. Hybrid propulsion, high-voltage systems, batteries, advanced automation and emissions technologies are now common. These systems are interdependent, but plan approval, supervision, QA and document control are often handled in separate tools and teams, without a shared real-time view of what is current, closed or outstanding under contractual timelines.
Engineering time is therefore spent reconciling comments, chasing approvals and confirming valid revisions rather than resolving technical challenges. Inspections are harder to coordinate because findings are not clearly linked to the drawings they relate to. Design changes introduced during construction are not consistently reflected in final as-built records. Time is lost not to execution, but to re-establishing certainty. For many shipyards, this becomes a coordination constraint. They are expected to deliver increasingly complex assets but are not typically structured to build fully integrated digital platforms internally. A neutral, ready-to-use collaborative environment can improve project discipline and transparency without requiring shipyards to replace existing systems.
Where exactly did you gather this experience?
Our perspective is grounded in long-term, hands-on supervision work in major shipyards, as well as retrofit and repair projects where complex upgrades depend on reliable technical baselines, clear routings and accurate as‑built documentation. In practice, documentation determines how quickly and safely a vessel can be modified, upgraded or returned to class-ready condition.
That experience includes extended roles in large Korean shipyards across mechanical supervision, technical superintendence and site management, combined with direct exposure to the commercial and coordination pressures of newbuilding delivery. Repeated involvement in both construction and later retrofit environments highlighted how much engineering time was being absorbed by document reconciliation and email-based coordination rather than technical resolution. That lifecycle view shaped the development of a platform designed around real supervision workflows.
Bluestone’s teams combine naval architecture, marine engineering, project management and digital expertise with extensive experience across major global shipyards. Projects include prototype and multi-hybrid vessels such as advanced cable layers, award-winning Ro-Pax ferries, cruise ships and specialist offshore assets, requiring daily coordination between yard engineering, production, owners’ teams and class across plan approval, construction supervision and commissioning. A current example of the complexity we support is Prysmian’s programme to build three of the world’s largest cable layers in Romania, Norway and China, with Bluestone contracted for plan approval and construction supervision across all three builds. Multi-location projects of this scale demand disciplined technical management and a centralised system that maintains consistency across stakeholders and geographies.
How many segments and programs are usually involved in an average newbuild, retrofit or repair contract?
Balan: Even a relatively straightforward project involves dozens of parallel and interdependent workstreams. On specialist newbuilds, the scope encompasses everything from contract interpretation and plan approval through to crew familiarisation and warranty management.
Plan approval alone can span hull structure, machinery, electrical systems, accommodation, automation, HVAC, fire safety, stability, alternative fuels, energy storage and class-specific rule sets. Site supervision adds steelwork, outfitting, painting, cable and piping routing, and system integration. Trials introduce additional layers, including FAT, HAT and SAT activities, harbour and sea trials, and class and flag sign-off milestones.
Retrofit and repair projects are equally complex. A major energy-efficiency retrofit on a cruise vessel may involve multiple engineering disciplines within a fixed drydock window or while the vessel remains in service. On one recent project, eleven system bypasses were executed within sixteen hours of downtime – a level of precision only possible when documentation, planning and stakeholder coordination are disciplined from the outset. In practice, this translates into hundreds of document families – drawings, comments, inspections, Client Request Items, punch lists and variation records – each with its own revision history and response timeline. As programmes multiply, coordination effort scales faster than engineering effort itself. Without a structured environment, administrative load begins to drive performance.
Can you put a rough number on the cost and additional work hours that fragmented work processes cause?
Balan: It is difficult to give a single figure because the impact varies by vessel type, shipyard and project complexity. But the cost is real and compounds across the lifecycle. The industry often underestimates fragmentation because it rarely appears as a single line item. Instead, it emerges as rework, duplicated effort, and extended approval cycles. On retrofit and repair projects with fixed drydock windows, even a single day lost to re-verification can cascade across multiple workstreams with direct commercial consequences for both the yard and the owner.
For shipyards, inefficiency translates into additional man-hours, disrupted workflows and reduced predictability. The cost is not only in hours but in risk – schedule slippage, compressed commissioning windows and a higher probability of issues surfacing in operation rather than being resolved in the yard. From our experience, disciplined documentation and centralised approval workflows consistently reduce the re‑verification burden on entry to drydock. Savings vary by project, but the direction is consistent: less time spent establishing certainty means more time available for execution within windows that cannot flex.
How could a “streamlined” process help with shipbuilding and repair, and how exactly does Bluestone aim to achieve this?
Balan: A streamlined process changes the relationship between documentation and execution. Rather than treating plan approval records and inspection findings as reactive outputs, they are maintained as a live project reference. Drawings, comments and approvals sit in one structured environment with full traceability, enabling teams to work from a single verified technical picture at every stage. Inspections, Client Request Items and reporting are coordinated digitally, reducing reliance on spreadsheets and email chains and strengthening discipline under time-controlled approval schedules.
For retrofit and repair, benefits are immediate. When a vessel arrives in drydock with a complete technical history, teams can move directly to scope definition and execution planning rather than baseline verification. Class submissions are more efficient, and the risk of disruptive on-site discoveries is materially reduced. Bluestone combines experienced on-site supervision with a platform designed around real shipbuilding workflows. Remote plan approval teams can support multiple projects simultaneously, improving consistency without adding overhead. The objective is not speed at any cost, but predictable, controllable execution.
How will shipyards be able to implement their current data and processes into Bluestone’s software?
Balan: The platform is designed to complement, not replace, existing yard systems. Shipyards cannot afford lengthy technology transitions during active programmes. Drawings and documentation can be imported and structured without disrupting ongoing work, after which plan approval and supervision workflows operate within a centralised environment.
Version 2 enables shipyards to be onboarded as active users with configurable workflows aligned to their operating model. For yards without fully integrated platforms, this provides a ready-to-use collaboration environment. For those with internal tools, it functions as a shared layer with owners, class and flag while core systems remain in place. Beyond document storage, the value lies in collaborative control. Cross-department coordination improves, findings are traceable, inspection planning can be automated, and mobile-enabled inspections allow remarks, photographs and sign-off to be captured directly on site.
Has adaption of this technology taken off yet? Which challenges – if any – is your company facing?
Balan: Adoption is building steadily, particularly on technically demanding projects where documentation complexity and interface risk are highest. The platform is in use on live newbuilds, and multi-vessel retrofit programmes across Europe, Asia and the Americas.
Regulatory pressure is reinforcing this shift. Owners increasingly recognise that their ability to demonstrate compliance and plan modifications efficiently depends on the quality of their technical record. Owners from projects completed several years ago are still actively using the platform for maintenance and retrofit planning, confirming that documentation continuity delivers long-term value beyond delivery. The primary challenge is cultural rather than technical. The industry is conservative by nature, and new routines must prove their value in live environments. By designing the platform around real-world shipyard workflows and supporting it with experienced on-site supervisors, we focus on reducing administrative burden while improving traceability and coordination.
What are Bluestone’s aims for the next five years?
Balan: Our aim is to establish a practical industry standard for plan approval, site supervision and project reporting that makes vessels safer and easier to modify, upgrade and maintain throughout their operational lives. This means expanding lifecycle supervision and digital collaboration across newbuild, repair and retrofit, and strengthening continuity between those phases so the technical record established during construction actively supports decisions made years later. Owners who take delivery with a complete, structured technical history are better positioned to plan modifications efficiently, respond to regulatory change, and control costs across a fleet.
On the retrofit and EPC side, decarbonisation is driving a sustained and expanding programme of vessel upgrades from HVAC efficiency improvements and air lubrication to advanced wastewater treatment and emissions reduction technologies. Our ability to take projects from feasibility and design through to installation and commissioning, with integrated digital reporting throughout, positions us for that transition. The vessels being delivered today will be modified repeatedly over their service lives. The difference between an efficient retrofit and a costly one will often come down to what was recorded, or not recorded, at delivery.
Originally published in the May 2026 edition of HANSA International Maritime Journal on pages 32-33, and online.