MarineIT / Why MarineIT
Scope, today
Breadth is a feature for the vendor. Depth is a feature for the desk.
The trade-off nobody states
A system for five trades is a system for none of them.
Not because the engineering is poor. Because a data model that must accommodate a crude tanker, a chemical parcel, a container slot and a Kamsarmax loading iron ore ends up representing what they have in common — a vessel, a cargo, a port pair — and pushing everything specific into a configuration screen.
Everything specific is where the work is. Laytime conventions are specific. Stowage factors are specific. Whether a vessel is acceptable to a major ore charterer is specific. The generalised system handles all of it as user-entered parameters, which means your desk is supplying the intelligence the software should have had.
A configuration screen is where a vendor puts the things it decided not to understand.
Where you notice it
Parsing. A model that has never seen a dry bulk circular cannot read one reliably. 30,000MT SHINC L / 30,000MT D is either two laytime terms or a formatting accident, and knowing which requires knowing the trade.
Benchmarking. Baltic C3, C5, P6 and S1C mean nothing to a system built around tanker routes. So the benchmark is left to the user, which means it is left undone.
Loadability. Stowage factor against cubic capacity is a dry bulk problem. A generalised system checks deadweight and calls it done.
Acceptability. RightShip matters enormously in ore and coal and hardly at all elsewhere. Generic vetting fields do not encode that.
What depth means here
Modelled, not configured.
Everything below is built into the system rather than entered by you. That is the entire difference the choice buys.
SHINC, SHEX, WWD and WWDSHEX. Reversible and non-reversible. Turn time, notice periods, weather working exceptions and the local holiday calendars that decide when a Sunday counts.
Baltic C3, C5, P6 and S1C read from the market reports your desk already receives, matched to vessel size — so a Supramax is measured against Supramax economics, not Capesize.
Iron ore, coal, grain, bauxite, alumina and fertiliser — with stowage factors, quantity tolerances, hold cleanliness requirements and what a previous cargo of coal implies for a grain fixture.
Handysize through Capesize, with TCP, constants, draft marks by water density, gear requirements and the port and berth restrictions that actually bind.
Specifics
Eight things a dry bulk desk needs and a generic system approximates.
Each of these is ordinary work on a bulk desk, and each is a configuration exercise in a platform built for five trades.
MOLOO and MOLCHOPT put the option with the owner or the charterer respectively. It changes who bears deadfreight risk and therefore what the estimate should assume — not a note in a comments field.SSW against TFW at a river berth is centimetres, and centimetres are thousands of tonnes at Capesize.FIOT, FIOST and liner terms move cargo handling cost between the parties. Treating freight as a single number without its basis produces an estimate that is confidently wrong.The sequence
One trade at a time. Finished before the next begins.
We will build for other vessel types. Tanker intelligence is the next thing we make, and technical management follows it. What we will not do is build them at the same time, because that is exactly how a system ends up covering five trades approximately.
So this page is a statement of where we are rather than a promise never to move. Dry bulk is finished and running. Tankers are the next build — a separate one, not a configuration option on this. If you buy this because it understands your trade properly, the promise that matters is that the next trade will not dilute it.
What comes next
Deeper on laytime and claims — where dry bulk desks lose the most recoverable money, and where the conventions reward specificity.
Better vessel intelligence — more sources, better reconciliation between them, and suitability scoring that keeps improving as your own voyage history accumulates.
Tanker intelligence — the same commercial chain, rebuilt properly for tankers. The next build, not a widening of this one.
Then technical management — planned maintenance, purchase and inventory, crewing and QHSE. Each judged by the same test: can we do it properly before we start it.
Being straight about it
When we are the wrong choice today.
If any of these describe you, an established multi-trade platform is genuinely the better buy and we would rather say so in the first meeting.
Your book is mixed
If you trade tankers or gas alongside bulk today, running two systems to gain depth in one is a bad trade. Tanker intelligence is the next build — worth a conversation about timing, not a reason to switch now.
You need technical management now
Planned maintenance, crewing, purchasing and compliance sit third in the sequence and are not built. Until they are, the fleet-management vendors do them properly.
You are buying one system for everything
If the mandate is a single platform covering the whole business, that is a legitimate procurement position and we do not meet it. We cover the commercial chain for one trade, well.
Book a demo
Test the depth rather than taking our word.
Bring an awkward laytime calculation, a cargo where stowage factor decided the quantity, or a circular from the broker who abbreviates everything. Those show whether a system understands the trade far better than a feature list does.
We reply within one business day.