I recently completed an obsolecence evaluation (risk analysis) on two ageing bulk carriers. This was an extremely interesting project and a factor of industry-wide management that potentially requires increased emphasis. I find the general attitude is to cope: a bit like yeasteryear when maintenance was far more reactive than proactive.
Today, mechanical equipment reliability has increased, but it is the obsolecence of control and electronic systems, their high replacement cost and the time required to install alternative / upgraded systems that poses a challenge. And it all starts at around the 3rd special survey (earlier than mechanical equipment): trending down towards the end of a components lifecycle.
Should shipowners and managers be spending more time on obsolesence? I would suggest YES. Time is required to curate supplier relationships, on risk analysis and on identfying potential alternatives (or increasing stock), in order to provide lomg term cost benefit.
However, obsolescence cannot be a tack-on duty for the Superintendent or the Chief Engineer, ..... they typically spend most of their time trying to be proactive but usually end up being reactive - and as we all know 'reactive' leads to higher cost and lengthy downtime.
- February 2023 (1)