A conversion package can describe each new component clearly and still leave the connections between them unresolved. The yard may have an installation boundary, the equipment supplier a supply boundary and the designer an information boundary. Unless those boundaries meet, a work item can be priced or scheduled on an assumption that another party has not accepted.

A ship conversion interface register records those connections and the decisions needed to close them. This guide concerns execution-stage coordination of an already discussed change. It does not establish conversion feasibility, provide a new design or claim that Gisan has completed a particular conversion.

Define the change and its existing-vessel boundary

State the owner’s intended change, the affected systems or areas and the available description of the existing arrangement. Separate confirmed information from assumptions awaiting an onboard check or design input. “Connect to existing” is not a complete interface description if the relevant connection point, document or responsibility is unclear.

Gisan’s conversion and retrofit scope distinguishes yard work from the design and approval responsibilities that need to be clarified. The interface register makes those questions traceable; it does not assign design authority to the yard by default.

Give each interface a stable reference

An interface entry should identify both sides of the connection. Link it to the relevant equipment tags, locations, work items and drawing revisions. Keep the entry usable when an item is renamed or a supplier changes its document issue.

  • Boundary: the two systems, components or work packages being connected.
  • Current basis: the drawing, survey information or supplier data being used.
  • Question: the dimension, function, supply limit, information or responsibility still to be confirmed.
  • Decision owner: the party responsible for obtaining or issuing the answer.
  • Evidence: the accepted response, revised document or other relevant decision reference.
  • Dependency: the procurement, fabrication, installation or review activity affected.

Separate physical, functional and information interfaces

Physical connections

Identify where a proposed arrangement meets the existing vessel or another package. Relevant questions may concern space, supports, penetrations, access or connection details. Record the question for competent review rather than specifying a structural detail from a generic example.

Functional connections

Describe the required relationship between systems without assuming that matching nominal ratings settles compatibility. Where control, electrical supply, fluid services or another functional dependency is involved, identify who defines the requirements and who verifies the proposed solution.

Information exchanges

List the supplier data, existing-vessel information and design outputs that another party needs. An interface can remain unresolved even when the equipment itself has been ordered. Record the required information and its status separately from the supply status.

Make supply and execution responsibilities explicit

For each boundary, distinguish who proposes the solution, supplies the relevant item, performs the work, reviews the information and records completion. These roles need not belong to the same organization. A responsibility matrix is a coordination tool, not evidence that a party has accepted an obligation outside the actual agreement.

Keep shared tasks visible: access, temporary arrangements, adjacent-item removal, reinstatement and completion records can fall between separately described packages. Ask for a clear response rather than marking every uncertain activity as “yard included”.

Where a structural or machinery package forms part of the change, connect the register to Gisan’s steel and structural scope or machinery-services scope. Those service descriptions do not establish a particular designer, vendor authorization or acceptance criterion.

Keep technical decisions separate from commercial authorization

A technical response may resolve how an interface is to be handled while leaving the supply boundary, price or programme effect unresolved. Conversely, an owner’s commercial instruction cannot substitute for a required design or approval decision.

Link the interface entry to the scope-change record when the answer changes agreed work. Preserve the previous assumption and identify the affected items. This makes the decision history visible without treating every clarification as an automatically authorized variation.

Define closure by evidence, not by a meeting date

An entry should explain what will demonstrate closure: an identified drawing revision, a confirmed supply boundary, a technical response or a work-specific completion record. “Discussed at the meeting” is not enough when the question still depends on another party’s information.

Where formal approval or installation survey is applicable, retain those references separately from the interface discussion. Do not infer acceptance because the drawing was sent, equipment arrived or work was physically completed. The responsible designer, class society or flag Administration must determine the requirements relevant to the actual change.

Start the conversion discussion with the unresolved interfaces

Provide the vessel particulars, intended change, available arrangement information and a short list of unresolved boundaries through Gisan Shipyard’s technical enquiry page. A clear interface register helps the parties define the work package; it does not confirm technical feasibility, regulatory acceptance, a completion date or an unverified project outcome.