Industries · Ports, ferries & marine

Ports, ferries & marine

A port authority runs berths, a small ferry fleet and navigation aids. The berths are inspected by divers on a five-year cycle, and the last report identified more than the budget covers.

Who this is for

Three people, one budget argument

👷

Marine structures engineer

Owns the plan and answers for it. Everything on screen is built to make that week easier.

💷

Fleet manager

Holds the budget line and carries the valuation. Cares about defensibility before features.

🏛️

Chief operating officer

Signs, and is the one asked the awkward question in public. Needs one page, not a tour.

Asset classes

What AIPP scores in this industry

Jetties Wharves Seawalls Vessels Ferries Navigation Aids Marine Coastal
📐

Configured for this industry out of the box: condition on the ASCE_MOP130 scale, the MARITIME weighting profile, budget shown as Marine renewals budget, and the instruments it answers to (ASCE_MOP130, PIANC_WG, IALA_G1001, NSCV) named on every score. All of it is yours to change — the weights are sliders, not our opinion.

The honest bit

6 of 30 assets will not score

That is the demo register for this industry, and the gaps are deliberate. AIPP refuses to rank an asset the evidence does not support — it will not apply a curve, a zero or a middle grade to a thing nobody has inspected. 20% of this register comes back unranked, with the reason named.

6 of 30 assets carry NO condition evidence and NO age. That is deliberate. A demo register where everything scores teaches a prospect nothing about what happens to the two-thirds of their own register that will not — and it is exactly where most tools quietly invent a zero. Open the demo on these.

How it runs

From export to defensible programme

01

Dive reports load on the MOP 130 six-level rating; the pack states that Serious and Critical both land on grade 5 and why that matters.

02

Exposure and marine environment drive deterioration; berth throughput drives consequence.

03

Navigation aids rank on their IALA availability category, which is a service commitment rather than a condition.

04

The budget constrains; the plan reports which berths lose capacity if deferred.

05

The pack states residual risk on the structures deliberately left unfunded.

What you will see

The screens that matter here

Critical is not just grade 5Two berths are grade 5. One is MOP 130 "Serious", the other "Critical" — which means load restriction now. We keep the native rating precisely because grade 5 alone does not carry that instruction.
Throughput is the consequenceThis berth outranks a structurally worse one because of what moves across it.
Availability as a commitmentYour Category 1 aids carry a 99.8% availability commitment. That is a service level, not a condition grade, and it is modelled as one.
What the dive report costsThe last dive report found more than the budget covers. Here is the split — what fits, what does not, and what the deferred ones leave exposed.
The residualAnd this is the residual you are accepting, stated rather than implied.

Fair questions

What this industry actually asks us

Marine deterioration is very site-specific.

Yes — which is why the exposure coefficients are yours to set and are labelled as representative until you do.

Ferries are surveyed under NSCV, not condition-graded.

Survey dates load as statutory triggers, which sit above condition in the intervention logic.

Do you model wave loading?

No. ISO 21650-class analysis is out of scope, and no part of the tool implies otherwise.

Run it on your own worst class

Bring one export — the class with the missing condition data and the costs from 2019. If AIPP tells you the truth about it in twenty minutes, that is worth a conversation. If it scores everything and looks clean, tell us so.