Sunil Kapoor on the future of shipmanagement. It’s all about differentiation, he argues. “Traditional third-party ship management has become an anachronism. It must evolve — or it will wither on the vine and surely die.” For the past four years, this statement has echoed across conferences and boardrooms. It is often delivered with conviction, framed within a broader narrative of digital disruption and structural transformation. But does the evidence support it? If third-party ship management were truly obsolete, it would be contracting. Instead, some of the largest managers now oversee fleets exceeding 400 vessels. Consolidation continues. Investment in compliance teams, digital platforms, ESG reporting, crew development, and cybersecurity infrastructure is increasing. Much of this investment is not driven by marketing ambition, but by regulatory and operational necessity. The pressure is internal — compliance, transparency, accountability — rather than simply a race to attract new clients. This is not decline. It is industrialisation. The real challenge facing shipmanagement is not irrelevance — it is differentiation. Most companies provide the same service. I look at who the superintendent is on my vessel From an owner’s perspective, management platforms can appear increasingly similar. The same planned maintenance systems. The same procurement structures. The same reporting formats. The same regulatory dashboards. Operating costs across fleets have largely standardised — crew wages, insurance premiums, lubricants and spare parts follow global benchmarks. In such an environment, management risks becoming a comparison of fees rather than performance. Yet shipping is not a commodity business at the operational level. Ships are complex, high-value assets operating in unforgiving conditions. A single major breakdown can increase annual operating costs by double-digit percentages. An incident poorly handled can damage chartering prospects for years. Compliance missteps can trigger reputational and financial consequences far beyond the initial event. Performance still matters. And performance ultimately depends on people. This became clear to me at a Capital Link forum in New York. I was standing next to a tanker owner waiting to meet a minister. When he learned that my background was in third-party shipmanagement, he made a pointed observation: “At this stage, most companies provide the same service. I look at who the superintendent is on my vessel.” It was a simple statement, but it cut to the heart of the issue. The technical superintendent remains the backbone of any shipmanagement organisation. If there is one structural weakness that could undermine the sector, it is the gradual dilution of this role within increasingly corporatized platforms. A strong superintendent understands far more than maintenance schedules. He understands crew dynamics, the vessel’s history, the charterer’s expectations, and the owner’s risk appetite. He detects early warning signs long before they become formal reports. He translates policy into practice. He bridges the gap between strategy and steel. In earlier years, we often described the superintendent as the “owner” of the vessel within the management company. Other departments — quality, tanker operations, dry operations, crewing and procurement — existed to support him in delivering safe and efficient performance. I recall numerous senior management meetings where lengthy debates about incidents shift