An objective, vendor-neutral guide to evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) and enterprise asset management (EAM) software for shipbuilders and ship repair yards. 

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) and enterprise asset management (EAM) software for shipbuilding and ship repair coordinates the estimating, engineering, procurement, production, project financial control, and asset maintenance work involved in building and maintaining vessels. Shipbuilding and ship repair are project-centric, engineer-to-order, and asset-intensive, which means generic manufacturing or finance-first ERP systems often fit poorly. This guide explains what to evaluate — capabilities, integration architecture, naval/defense compliance, deployment model, and total cost of ownership — compares the vendor categories commonly shortlisted, and provides checklists and KPIs to support an informed decision. 

The short version of what matters most: integrated project financial control, engineering (PLM/CAD) integration, work-order execution, procurement and subcontract control, asset and service lifecycle management, and open integration architecture — delivered on a platform that matches your business model rather than one you have to bend to fit. 

Table of Contents 

  1. Who this guide is for 
  1. ERP vs. EAM: definitions and why the distinction matters 
  1. Why shipbuilding and ship repair need specialized software 
  1. Shipbuilding vs. ship repair: different requirements 
  1. The core capabilities to evaluate 
  1. The 12 most important evaluation criteria 
  1. Requirements by buyer profile 
  1. Naval and defense-specific considerations 
  1. Integration architecture: what your ERP must connect to 
  1. The vendor landscape 
  1. Capability comparison matrix 
  1. KPIs to measure a successful implementation 
  1. Common pitfalls and how to avoid them 
  1. Cloud vs. on-premise deployment 
  1. The evaluation checklist 
  1. Glossary of key terms 
  1. Frequently asked questions 
  1. Conclusion 

Who this guide is for 

This guide is written for decision-makers and evaluators at shipbuilding and ship repair organizations, including chief financial officers, chief operating officers, heads of project controls, heads of engineering and procurement, IT and digital-transformation leaders, and — in naval and defense contexts — trade and government compliance leaders. It is equally relevant to commercial shipyards, naval and defense primes, offshore and specialized-vessel builders, yacht and leisure-craft manufacturers, and repair yards handling everything from short-stay dry dockings to multi-year refits and conversions. 

It assumes you are comparing several vendors and want a structured, defensible way to weigh them, rather than a product pitch. 

ERP vs. EAM: definitions and why the distinction matters 

What is ERP? 

Enterprise resource planning (ERP) is the system of record that unifies a business’s core transactional processes — finance, projects, procurement, manufacturing, supply chain, and human resources — on a shared data model. 

What is EAM? 

Enterprise asset management (EAM) is the discipline (and software category) for managing the full lifecycle of physical assets: maintenance planning, work-order execution, spare-parts management, reliability, and condition monitoring. 

In shipbuilding and ship repair, the two overlap heavily, and evaluators should treat them as a continuum rather than separate purchases: 

  • ERP governs how you win, plan, engineer, procure, build, and financially control a vessel program. 
  • EAM governs how you maintain the shipyard’s own physical assets (dry docks, cranes, mobile plant, rental equipment) and how a vessel is supported after handover — the transition from an “as-built” to an “as-maintained” configuration, service contracts, and in-service support. 

A yard that builds or repairs ships and also offers lifecycle service benefits from a platform where ERP and EAM share one data model, avoiding the reconciliation and integration overhead of stitching separate systems together. Buyers whose scope is purely construction may weight ERP capabilities more heavily; those offering aftermarket service should weight EAM and service lifecycle management more. 

Why shipbuilding and ship repair need specialized software 

Shipbuilding and ship repair differ from discrete or repetitive manufacturing in ways that directly affect software fit. A vessel program is best understood as a long-cycle, capital-intensive project with thousands of evolving cost elements, not as a production run of identical units. 

The defining characteristics that specialized software must handle: 

  • Project-centric, engineer-to-order work. Every operational transaction — purchase orders, production orders, subcontractor valuations, supplier invoices, labor hours — needs to link back to a project, a work breakdown structure (WBS), and a cost breakdown structure (CBS). 
  • Evolving engineering. Designs change continuously and often late. Engineering bills of materials (EBOMs) must flow from PLM/CAD tools into procurement and production, and changes must cascade in real time to avoid rework, material shortages, and idle labor. 
  • Concurrent and bottom-up engineering. Sub-assemblies are frequently released and procured before the top-level design is finalized. 
  • Long, milestone-based cash cycles. Milestone billing, retentions, and subcontractor claims create working-capital pressure that generic ERP cash management handles poorly. 
  • Mixed execution models. Work is delivered through a blend of internal trades and subcontractors, often with subcontracted scope exceeding the majority of project cost. 
  • Asset intensity. Yards operate high-value physical assets — dry docks, cranes, and equipment — that must be maintained and, in some cases, charged to or rented against projects. 
  • Heavy regulatory and classification requirements. Classification societies, flag-state rules, safety standards, and — for naval work — defense contracting regulations demand traceability and audit trails. 

Generic, finance-first, or manufacturing-first ERP platforms can be configured to approximate these needs, but frequently require extensive customization, partner add-ons, and external point solutions. This is the central trade-off buyers are weighing: breadth of a generalist platform versus depth of fit with project-driven, asset-intensive marine operations. 

Shipbuilding vs. ship repair: different requirements 

Although shipbuilding and ship repair share the same underlying project-centric model, they place emphasis on different capabilities. Understanding where your organization sits — or whether you span both — sharpens your requirements. 

Dimension New-build shipbuilding Ship repair, refit & overhaul 
Project length Long-cycle (often multi-year) Short-stay dry docks (days/weeks) to long refits (months) 
Scope certainty Defined up front, evolves through design Frequently uncertain; grows after dry-docking and survey 
Estimating Detailed bid estimating, often specialist tools Fast quoting from standard job templates; iterative 
Engineering intensity Very high — full EBOM, 3D models, PLM/CAD Variable — light touch to full engineering on conversions 
Speed pressure Schedule adherence over years Turnaround time is often the primary KPI 
Work-order volume Fewer, large, complex packages High volume of small jobs (short-stay); large packages (refits) 
Financial risk driver Margin erosion over long programs Unbilled extras, scope creep, tight per-job margins 
Typical differentiators PLM/ERP digital thread, block/section manufacturing Mobile work-order execution, standard job catalogue 

Practical implication: repair-focused buyers should weight mobile work-order execution, a standard-job catalogue, fast quotation-to-invoice cycles, and real-time cost capture. New-build buyers should weight PLM/CAD integration, project deliverables and EBOM management, and integrated project financial control across long horizons. Organizations doing both need a platform that supports both patterns on a single data model. 

The core capabilities to evaluate 

The table below organizes the capabilities that matter most, grouped by business process. Use it as the backbone of a requirements matrix. The “Why it matters” column explains the buyer value, not any single vendor’s implementation. 

Process area Capability to evaluate Why it matters 
Bid to contract CRM / opportunity management Pipeline visibility and clean handover from bid to project 
Bid to contract Estimating (schedule of work / BoQ) Bids using the same WBS/CBS codes as execution enable variance analysis 
Bid to contract Sales contract & change management Controls billing structure, retentions, and variations 
Planning WBS / CBS structures Foundation for linking every cost and revenue element to the project 
Planning Resource & capacity planning Allocates labor and equipment against dry-dock slots and schedules 
Planning Scheduling integration (Primavera, MS Project) Most yards run detailed schedules externally; need cost alignment 
Engineering PLM / CAD integration Transfers EBOMs, structures, and documents without manual re-entry 
Engineering Project deliverables & EBOM management Supports concurrent engineering; drives procurement from design release 
Engineering Document management with revision control Traceability, classification submissions, and audit readiness 
Engineering As-designed → as-built → as-maintained Creates a digital thread from design through sustainment 
Procurement Supplier relationship management & sourcing Evaluation and selection of suppliers and subcontractors 
Procurement Project-driven material planning (project MRP) Aligns material availability with engineering release and schedule 
Procurement Subcontract management (valuations, retentions) Tight control over what is often the majority of project cost 
Procurement Inventory & project inventory Separates project-reserved materials from standard stock 
Production Work Package, Work-order management with mobile execution Captures time, materials, progress, and photos at the point of work 
Production Standard job catalogue / templates Speeds quoting and setup for repeatable repair tasks 
Production Manufacturing / block & section fabrication Work Packages for panel, section, and block build; nesting integration 
Production Finite-capacity scheduling Sequences fabrication against constraints and material readiness 
Financial control Budgeting, forecasting & EAC Real-time cost/revenue-at-completion; early overrun detection 
Financial control Earned value tracking (CPI/SPI) Objective schedule and cost performance measurement 
Financial control Project cash forecasting Manages milestone billing and working-capital pressure 
Financial control Project accounting & revenue recognition Records project cost and recognizes revenue correctly 
Asset/service (EAM) Equipment/asset maintenance & rental Maintains yard assets; supports make-vs-rent and cost recovery 
Asset/service (EAM) Service contract & SLA management Enables aftermarket and in-service support business models 
Asset/service (EAM) Preventive & condition-based maintenance Extends asset life; supports digital twin / IoT where relevant 
Finance GL, AP/AR, fixed assets, consolidation Company-wide financial control and multi-entity reporting 
Human capital Time & attendance, payroll integration Accurate labor costing (critical for self-perform yards) 
QHSE Health & safety, quality (NCR/CAPA), sustainability Compliance, incident tracking, and classification support 

A useful evaluation discipline is to rate each capability as essential, important, or nice-to-have for your business model before scoring vendors — many capabilities shift in importance depending on whether you self-perform or subcontract construction, and whether you offer aftermarket service. 

The 12 most important evaluation criteria 

When comparing platforms, weight these criteria against your own priorities: 

  1. Depth of project financial control. Does the platform unify budgets, commitments, actuals, forecasts, subcontractor valuations, and change orders into a single control layer natively — or through add-ons? 
  1. Fit to a project-centric, engineer-to-order model. Is the software purpose-built for projects, or adapted from a manufacturing/finance core? 
  1. Engineering continuity. How well does it integrate with your PLM/CAD tools and carry engineering changes through to procurement and production? 
  1. Work-order execution and mobility. Can trades capture time, materials, progress, and evidence from the deck or dry dock, offline if needed? 
  1. Procurement and subcontract control. Given subcontracted scope often dominates cost, how strong is commercial control over valuations, retentions, and variations? 
  1. Asset and service lifecycle coverage. If you maintain yard assets or offer aftermarket service, is EAM and service management native or a separate system? 
  1. Integration architecture. Are there open APIs to connect best-of-breed tools (estimating, MES, scheduling, payroll) while maintaining one version of the truth? 
  1. Single-platform breadth vs. best-of-breed. How much of your landscape can consolidate, and where will you deliberately keep specialist tools? 
  1. Regulatory and compliance fit. For naval/defense: export control, cost accounting, and audit support. For all: classification and flag-state traceability. 
  1. Deployment flexibility and total cost of ownership. Cloud, on-premise, or hybrid; licensing model; implementation risk and time to value. 
  1. Scalability and multi-entity support. Can it support multi-site, multi-currency, and future growth, mergers, or diversification? 
  1. Embedded AI and automation. Where does the platform reduce administrative burden (invoice matching, PO chasing, forecasting, variance analysis) — and is it genuinely useful or marketing? 

Requirements by buyer profile 

Different marine organizations should prioritize different capabilities. This table maps common profiles to their typical emphasis rather than to specific vendors. 

Buyer profile Highest-priority capabilities Common secondary needs 
Commercial shipbuilder (cargo, tankers, ferries) PLM/ERP integration, project financial control, block/section manufacturing Procurement optimization, sustainability reporting 
Naval & defense prime Project cost accounting, compliance/audit, subcontract control, security Earned value support, ITAR/export-control document handling 
Naval shipyard run by defense forces Maintenance and overhaul, compliance, planning Procurement priority handling (DPAS), workforce management 
Offshore & special-purpose vessel builder Engineer-to-order flexibility, project controls Equipment management, modular construction 
Yacht & leisure craft Configuration control, quality, outfitting detail Customer/CRM, supplier management 
Short-stay repair yard Mobile work orders, standard job catalogue, rapid quote-to-invoice High-volume job costing, drydock scheduling 
Long-term refit / overhaul yard Integrated project financial control, WBS/CBS, subcontract management Engineering change control, document management 
Yard offering aftermarket service Service contracts, SLA tracking, asset lifecycle (EAM) Preventive/condition-based maintenance, spare-parts logistics 

Naval shipbuilding and repair carry regulatory obligations that go well beyond commercial work, and they can be decisive in vendor selection. The buying process also differs: at government-run naval shipyards, uniformed commanders typically do not have software purchasing authority — that sits with the service’s acquisition arm (for example, NAVSEA in the U.S. Navy). 

Key requirements to assess: 

  • Export control (ITAR / EAR). Secure document handling, controlled access, and audit trails for technical data. 
  • Defense cost accounting (e.g., DFARS, DCAA audits). Detailed, auditable cost accounting of labor and materials. Many yards handle this manually or in isolated applications today; consolidating it into the ERP is a common driver. 
  • Contract performance oversight (e.g., DCMA). Traceable contract performance data. 
  • Earned Value Management (EVM). Formal EVM reporting (BCWP, ACWP, CPI, SPI, EAC, ETC) is often mandated on major defense programs. This is an area where ERP capabilities vary widely — some platforms support EVM fundamentals natively, others require specialist EVM tools or reporting layers. Confirm the exact scope of native EVM support and where integration is required. 
  • Defense Priorities and Allocations System (DPAS). Priority-based procurement and production planning for rated orders. 
  • Evidence-based payment applications. Government and defense contracts may require detailed transactional evidence to support payment applications. 

A candid vendor conversation here is valuable: ask each vendor to state plainly what is native, what is configurable, and what requires a third-party system. Vendors that are transparent about gaps (rather than claiming universal coverage) are generally lower-risk partners. 

Integration architecture: what your ERP must connect to 

No shipyard ERP operates in isolation. A realistic evaluation assumes a landscape of specialist tools and asks how cleanly the platform integrates while preserving a single version of the truth. The table shows the typical integration points and how important each is. 

System type Example products Typical importance What flows across 
CAD / PLM design tools AVEVA Marine, ShipConstructor, CADMatic, Siemens NX, Dassault 3DEXPERIENCE High for design-driven builders Model data, EBOMs, drawings, change impact; links to cost codes 
Project scheduling Primavera P6, Microsoft Project Low–Medium Schedules, milestones, WBS alignment with cost control 
Estimating Cleopatra, Trimble WinEst, Candy, custom Excel Medium (seeds budgets) BoQs and cost codes imported into budgets 
Manufacturing execution (MES) Floor2Plan by Floorganise, AVEVA MES, Siemens Opcenter Medium (ERP orchestrates; MES executes) Work orders out; execution feedback and progress in 
Payroll / HR ADP, Workday, Ceridian Dayforce High if self-performing Approved time out; payroll costs back for project costing 
Finance / group ERP SAP S/4HANA, Oracle Fusion, Microsoft Dynamics 365 Finance Situational (consolidation) GL, AP/AR, tax, consolidation, intercompany 

Evaluation tip: ask for reference architectures and real customer integration examples, not just an “open API” claim. The quality and maintainability of integrations often matters more than the raw capability list. 

The vendor landscape 

Marine ERP, Project Controls, and Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) buyers typically evaluate solutions from several categories of vendors. No single approach is universally the best fit. The optimal choice depends on organizational priorities, business model, project complexity, regulatory requirements, existing technology investments, and the desired balance between industry specialization and enterprise-wide standardization. 

Shipbuilders face a unique combination of challenges compared with other manufacturing industries. Vessel programs are typically engineer-to-order, extend over multiple years, involve hundreds of suppliers and subcontractors, and require tight coordination between engineering, procurement, production, commissioning, and after-sales support. As a result, buyers often look beyond traditional ERP functionality and assess how well a platform supports the entire vessel lifecycle. 

Project- and asset-centric enterprise platforms 

IFS  

positions IFS Cloud as a purpose-built, project-centric platform that unifies finance, project management, engineering, procurement, production, service, and asset management on a single composable platform, with native integrated project financial control and EAM. It is commonly shortlisted by organizations that want to consolidate project, asset, and service lifecycle management and that prefer industry depth with faster time to value than a heavily configured generalist suite. Buyers should validate specific gap areas candidly: IFS is transparent that it complements rather than replaces certain specialist tools — for example, early-stage estimating, full MES shop-floor control, native payroll, and formal EVM reporting are areas where integration with best-of-breed systems is often recommended. 

Tier 1 generalist ERP suites 

SAP  

offers one of the largest enterprise application portfolios in the market, covering finance, procurement, supply chain, manufacturing, project systems, asset management, human resources, analytics, and sustainability reporting. 

The platform is widely used by large multinational organizations and provides industry-specific solutions across sectors such as engineering and construction, aerospace and defense, utilities, and manufacturing. Shipbuilding organizations frequently evaluate SAP when pursuing enterprise-wide process standardization, shared service models, and global governance. 

SAP implementations in shipbuilding environments often involve a combination of core ERP functionality, industry solutions, partner applications, and custom extensions to address specialized operational requirements. 

Oracle  

Oracle provides a broad cloud application portfolio including ERP, procurement, supply chain management, project management, human capital management, analytics, and maintenance capabilities. 

Its solutions are commonly deployed by organizations seeking a unified cloud architecture across finance, operations, and workforce management. Oracle’s Primavera product family is widely adopted for project planning and scheduling, particularly in capital-intensive industries such as construction, infrastructure, energy, defense, and marine projects. 

Marine and shipbuilding organizations typically evaluate Oracle for its enterprise-wide financial controls, project portfolio management, and supply chain capabilities, often alongside specialized operational applications. 

Microsoft Dynamics 365

 Microsoft Dynamics 365 combines ERP and customer engagement applications with the broader Microsoft technology ecosystem, including Microsoft 365, Teams, Power BI, Azure, and Power Platform. 

Organizations often value Dynamics 365 for its familiar user experience, flexibility, low-code extensibility, and integration capabilities. Industry-specific functionality is frequently delivered through independent software vendors (ISVs), industry accelerators, and implementation partners. 

For shipbuilders, evaluation typically focuses on the ability of the partner ecosystem to provide capabilities for project-based manufacturing, engineering management, marine operations, and asset-intensive business processes. 

Infor  

Infor provides industry-focused cloud solutions across manufacturing, distribution, aerospace and defense, food and beverage, and industrial sectors. 

Its CloudSuite portfolio includes functionality for financial management, supply chain management, manufacturing operations, planning, and asset-intensive operations. Organizations operating in engineer-to-order or industrial manufacturing environments often evaluate Infor for its manufacturing capabilities and industry-specific process models. 

Shipbuilders commonly assess how effectively Infor supports project-oriented execution, engineering change management, configuration control, and long-duration program management. 

Maritime and MRO specialists 

ABS Nautical Systems / NS Enterprise (ABS Wavesight)  

is a maritime fleet-management suite specializing in planned maintenance, asset reliability, regulatory compliance, procurement, and crew functions. It is strong for fleet owners and operators; buyers should note it is generally not a full project-driven ERP for repair contractors and typically assumes an external ERP for financials and complex project accounting. 

SpecTec AMOS (Swiss-AS)  

is a long-established maritime and aviation MRO system covering maintenance planning, work-order execution, and spare-parts management, with a large international user base. Buyers commonly weigh its maintenance depth against an older technology architecture and the need for separate systems for project accounting and enterprise functions. 

Engineering and design platforms (adjacent, not ERP) 

AVEVA  

(e.g., AVEVA Marine) is a leading ship design, engineering, and fabrication platform with strong 3D modeling and production planning. It is not an ERP: it lacks integrated financial control, procurement, and contract management, and is typically integrated with an ERP to form a digital thread from design to delivery. 

Regional and niche shipbuilding specialists 

Smaller regional vendors offer shipbuilding or ship repair ERP with strong local knowledge. Buyers weigh their industry specialization against considerations such as technology modernization, global support reach, and long-term vendor viability, particularly if planning international growth. 

Capability comparison matrix 

This matrix compares vendor categories on the dimensions that most influence marine ERP/EAM decisions. It is a starting framework for your own scoring, not a substitute for hands-on evaluation and reference checks. Ratings reflect generally recognized positioning; validate against current product releases and your specific requirements. 

Requirement Project-/asset-centric Tier 1 generalist Maritime MRO specialist Design/engineering 
Native project financial control Strong Moderate (configured) Limited N/A 
Engineer-to-order / project fit Strong Moderate Limited Partial (design) 
PLM/CAD integration Strong Moderate Limited Native (source) 
Work-order & mobile execution Strong Moderate Strong Limited 
Subcontract commercial control Strong Moderate Limited N/A 
EAM / asset maintenance Strong Module-dependent Strong N/A 
Service & SLA management Strong Module-dependent Moderate N/A 
Core finance & consolidation Strong Strong Limited (needs ERP) N/A 
Naval/defense compliance support Available (validate) Available (A&D) Partial N/A 
Formal EVM reporting Often via integration Module/add-on Limited N/A 
Integration architecture (APIs) Strong Strong Moderate Moderate 
Time to value vs. config effort Faster (marine fit) Longer (marine fit) Faster (maint. only) N/A 

KPIs to measure a successful implementation 

Define target metrics before selection so you can measure value after go-live. The KPIs below map to the processes ERP/EAM is meant to improve. 

Process KPI What it measures 
Bid to contract Win rate % of bids converted to contracts 
Bid to contract Estimate accuracy Variance of estimate vs. actual cost at close 
Bid to contract Bid cycle time Days from RFP to submission 
Engineering Engineering change impact % of changes affecting procurement, production, or cost baseline 
Engineering Model-to-BOM accuracy % of EBOMs correctly transferred to procurement/production 
Procurement Commitment coverage vs. budget Committed cost as % of approved budget 
Procurement On-time delivery to yard % of materials/systems delivered by required date 
Operations Schedule Performance Index (SPI) Earned-value schedule adherence 
Operations Cost Performance Index (CPI) Earned-value cost efficiency 
Operations Labor productivity Earned hours vs. actual hours worked 
Operations Equipment utilization % of crane/welding/rental hours used productively 
Repair (short-stay) Time to initiate/close work orders Speed of job setup and closure 
Repair (short-stay) Time to invoice post-completion Cash-cycle speed 
Commissioning Punch-list closure rate % of open items resolved before handover 
Financial control Forecast accuracy (EAC vs. actual) Reliability of cost-at-completion forecasts 
Financial control Margin at completion Final gross margin vs. baseline 
Financial control % of data reconciled manually Degree of remaining spreadsheet dependency 
Finance Days Sales Outstanding (DSO) Average days to collect receivables 
Finance Period close time Days to close monthly books 
QHSE Total Recordable Incident Rate (TRIR) Recordable incidents per 200k hours 

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them 

ERP has a reputation for difficult projects in shipbuilding, and the reasons are well understood. Avoiding them is largely a matter of scoping and governance. 

  • Treating ERP as an IT project. ERP for shipbuilding is a business transformation. Failures often trace to under-resourcing, weak executive sponsorship, or a generic platform forced onto a project-driven business. Secure a business owner (typically the CFO or COO) as sponsor. 
  • Choosing a generic platform for a project-driven business. If the core model isn’t project-centric, expect heavy customization and integration to reach parity — with the cost and upgrade risk that follows. 
  • Over-consolidating. Best-of-breed tools remain the right answer in areas like CAD, MES, and early-stage estimating. A composable core with open APIs usually beats a single monolith that does everything adequately and nothing exceptionally. Decide deliberately what to consolidate and what to integrate. 
  • Underestimating change management. “Every vessel is different” cultures resist standardization. Adoption depends on making the system easier than spreadsheets for planners, buyers, and controllers who are not ERP specialists. 
  • Ignoring the naval/defense gap analysis. If EVM, DFARS/DCAA, or ITAR are in scope, confirm native vs. integrated coverage before contract, not after. 
  • Buying capability lists instead of outcomes. Anchor the evaluation on the KPIs above and on reference customers with comparable business models. 

Cloud vs. on-premise deployment 

Deployment model affects cost, security, and upgrade cadence. Most modern platforms are cloud-first, but marine and defense buyers often have specific constraints. 

  • Cloud (SaaS). Faster deployment, lower infrastructure burden, continuous updates, and easier multi-site scaling. Best for organizations prioritizing agility and minimizing IT overhead. 
  • On-premise / private / sovereign. Often required for classified naval work or where data-residency and security controls demand it. Confirm the vendor supports the deployment model your compliance regime requires, and understand the upgrade implications. 
  • Hybrid. Some organizations run core operations in the cloud while keeping controlled data on-premise. 

Ask each vendor to map deployment options to your security and data-residency obligations explicitly, and to state the difference in upgrade experience and total cost across models. 

The evaluation checklist 

Use this as the spine of an RFP or vendor scorecard. 

Business fit 

  • Is the platform purpose-built for project-centric, engineer-to-order work? 
  • Does it support both new-build and repair patterns if you span both? 
  • Are reference customers with comparable business models available? 

Capabilities 

  • Native integrated project financial control (budget, commitment, actual, forecast, change)? 
  • PLM/CAD integration and engineering change propagation? 
  • Work-order execution with mobile and offline capability? 
  • Subcontract commercial control (valuations, retentions, change orders)? 
  • EAM / asset maintenance and service lifecycle if in scope? 

Compliance (as applicable) 

  • Export control (ITAR/EAR) document handling and audit trails? 
  • Defense cost accounting and audit support (DFARS/DCAA/DCMA)? 
  • Formal EVM: native or via integration — confirmed in writing? 
  • Classification and flag-state traceability? 

Architecture & delivery 

  • Open APIs and proven integrations to your existing tools? 
  • Deployment model matches your security/data-residency needs? 
  • Realistic implementation timeline and time-to-value? 
  • Transparent total cost of ownership (licensing, implementation, run)? 

Partnership & risk 

  • Did the vendor state gaps candidly rather than claim universal coverage? 
  • Global support reach and long-term viability? 
  • Clear governance and change-management approach in the implementation plan? 

Glossary of key terms 

As-built / as-maintained — Configuration states of a vessel; the transition from the completed build to the ongoing maintenance record. 

Bill of Materials (BOM) / Engineering BOM (EBOM) — A structured list of components and assemblies; the EBOM originates in design and evolves into manufacturing structures. 

Budget at Completion (BAC) — The original total planned cost baseline agreed at contract start. 

Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) — The financial structure for tracking labor, materials, subcontract, and equipment costs. 

Cost / Schedule Performance Index (CPI / SPI) — Earned-value measures of cost efficiency and schedule adherence. 

Earned Value Management (EVM) — A method combining cost and schedule performance, using measures such as BCWP, ACWP, CPI, SPI, EAC, and ETC. 

Estimate at Completion (EAC) / Estimate to Complete (ETC) — The forecast total cost at completion, and the forecast remaining cost, respectively. 

Material Take-Off (MTO) — A quantified list of bulk materials (steel, pipe, cable) derived from design. 

Project Deliverables — A structured, revision-controlled breakdown of systems and components to be procured, built, and installed; drives procurement and execution. 

Retention / Retainage — Payment withheld until milestones (e.g., sea trials, delivery) are met. 

Schedule of Work (SOW) — A BoQ-style estimating and progress-tracking structure that bridges estimating and execution. 

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) — A hierarchical breakdown of project scope and activities. 

Frequently asked questions 

What is the difference between ERP and EAM for shipbuilding and ship repair? 

ERP (enterprise resource planning) is the system of record for core business processes — finance, projects, procurement, production, and HR. EAM (enterprise asset management) manages the lifecycle of physical assets, including maintenance, work orders, spare parts, and reliability. In shipbuilding and ship repair the two overlap: ERP governs how you build or repair a vessel, while EAM governs how you maintain the yard’s own assets and support vessels after handover. Organizations offering aftermarket service benefit from a single platform where ERP and EAM share one data model. 

Why do shipyards need industry-specific ERP instead of generic ERP? 

Shipbuilding and ship repair are project-centric, engineer-to-order, and asset-intensive. Every transaction must link to a project, a WBS, and a CBS; engineering changes must cascade to procurement and production; and cash cycles are long and milestone-based. Generic manufacturing- or finance-first ERP can be configured to approximate this, but typically requires heavy customization, partner add-ons, and external point solutions — increasing cost, implementation risk, and upgrade complexity. 

What is project-centric ERP and why does it matter? 

Project-centric ERP treats the project as the organizing structure for all operational and financial data. Purchase orders, production orders, subcontractor valuations, labor hours, and invoices all link to the project, giving real-time visibility of committed and actual cost, automated forecasting, and early detection of margin erosion. For long, complex vessel programs this is often the single most important capability. 

What ERP capabilities are most important for ship repair yards? 

Repair yards should prioritize fast quoting from standard job templates, mobile work-order execution (with offline capability), real-time cost capture, rapid quote-to-invoice cycles, subcontract control, and drydock/resource scheduling. Yards handling long refits also need integrated project financial control, engineering change management, and document control. 

How is ERP for naval and defense shipbuilding different from commercial? 

Naval and defense work adds regulatory obligations: export control (ITAR/EAR), defense cost accounting and audits (DFARS/DCAA/DCMA), contract performance oversight, priority-based procurement (DPAS), and often formal Earned Value Management. Buyers should confirm in writing what each vendor supports natively versus through integration, and should note that at government-run yards, purchasing authority typically sits with the service’s acquisition arm rather than shipyard command. 

Does shipyard ERP support Earned Value Management (EVM)? 

EVM support varies significantly between platforms. Some support EVM fundamentals (CPI, SPI, BCWP, ACWP, EAC, ETC) natively, while formal compliance reporting on major defense programs may require specialist EVM tools or reporting layers. If EVM is a hard requirement, make it an explicit, written evaluation criterion. 

Should shipyards choose best-of-breed tools or an integrated platform? 

Both. Best-of-breed remains the right answer for areas like CAD, MES, and early-stage estimating. For financial control, project execution, and commercial management, fragmentation creates risk. The common best practice is a strong, integrated core with open APIs that connects to your preferred specialist tools — maintaining one version of the truth for project cost and progress while keeping the best execution tools where they add value. 

What should integrate with a shipyard ERP? 

Typical integration points include PLM/CAD design tools (high importance for design-driven builders), MES for shop-floor execution, estimating tools, project-scheduling systems such as Primavera P6, payroll/HR (critical for self-perform yards), and — where relevant — a group finance ERP for consolidation. Evaluate integration quality and maintainability, not just the existence of an API. 

Why do ERP projects fail in shipbuilding, and how can I reduce the risk? 

Failures usually stem from treating ERP as an IT project, choosing a generic platform for a project-driven business, over-customizing, or underestimating change management. Reduce risk by securing a business sponsor (CFO/COO), choosing a platform aligned to your project-centric model, deciding deliberately what to consolidate versus integrate, and anchoring the evaluation on outcomes and KPIs rather than feature lists. 

What KPIs indicate a successful ERP/EAM implementation? 

Track estimate accuracy, forecast accuracy (EAC vs. actual), margin at completion, CPI/SPI, on-time delivery to yard, labor productivity, time-to-invoice, DSO, period close time, and the percentage of data still reconciled manually. Define targets before selection so you can measure value after go-live. 

Cloud or on-premise — which is right for a shipyard? 

Cloud offers faster deployment, lower IT overhead, and easier scaling, and suits most commercial operations. On-premise, private, or sovereign deployment is often necessary for classified naval work or strict data-residency requirements. Hybrid models exist. Confirm each vendor supports the model your compliance regime requires and understand the upgrade implications of each. 

Which vendors are commonly evaluated for shipbuilding and ship repair ERP? 

Buyers commonly shortlist vendors across several categories: Tier 1 generalist suites (SAP, Oracle, Microsoft Dynamics 365, Infor), project- and asset-centric platforms (IFS), maritime/MRO specialists (ABS Nautical Systems / ABS Wavesight, SpecTec AMOS), engineering/design platforms integrated alongside ERP (AVEVA), and regional shipbuilding specialists. The right shortlist depends on your business model, existing landscape, and where you sit on the breadth-versus-depth trade-off. 

Conclusion 

Selecting ERP and EAM software for shipbuilding or ship repair comes down to a clear-eyed assessment of fit. The industries are project-centric, engineer-to-order, and asset-intensive, so the platforms that perform best are those that treat the project as the organizing structure for cost and execution, carry engineering changes cleanly through to procurement and production, control subcontracted scope commercially, and — where relevant — extend into asset and service lifecycle management. 

The most reliable evaluation approach is to define your business model and priority KPIs first, rate each capability’s importance for your operation, insist on candor about native versus integrated coverage (especially for naval/defense requirements), and validate finalists against reference customers with comparable operations. Weigh the genuine trade-off between the breadth of a generalist suite and the depth of a project- and asset-centric platform, and decide deliberately where a composable core plus best-of-breed integration serves you better than a single monolith. 

Done well, the result is one version of the truth across engineering, procurement, production, and finance — more predictable delivery, protected margins, and the agility to expand into repair, refit, lifecycle service, or new markets on a single platform.