A vessel retrofit may have a full drawing folder while the status of the working information remains unclear. Some documents describe the existing arrangement, others are proposals, and some have been submitted for a review that is not yet complete. Treating all of them as “approved drawings” creates an unreliable basis for procurement and installation.

This guide explains how an owner-side drawing and approval register can separate document identity, technical maturity and review status. It is not a design approval, a universal list of required submissions or a claim that every retrofit follows the same class process.

Separate the existing arrangement from the proposed change

Identify whether a document is an existing-vessel reference, a supplier input, a proposed arrangement or a record of the installed condition. Retain the source and stated purpose. An older drawing may be useful background without being a reliable description of the current vessel.

Gisan’s conversion and retrofit scope asks for the owner’s objectives, available drawings and relevant designer or class requirements. A document register helps make those inputs usable; it does not transfer responsibility for design or approval merely because the yard receives the files.

Keep drawing identity stable across revisions

Use the issuer’s drawing number, title, revision and issue date. Connect the document to the affected system, equipment or work item and record the transmittal that delivered it. Avoid using a folder name or email subject as the only revision reference.

  • The vessel and affected work-package reference.
  • The document issuer, number, title and revision.
  • The issue purpose and information on which the document depends.
  • The review body or recipient, submission reference and response received.
  • Any open comment, condition or required follow-up.
  • The party responsible for the next issue and the activities affected.

Preserve superseded issues as controlled history rather than overwriting them without a trace. The team should be able to establish which issue supported a particular purchase or work instruction.

Use status labels with an identified meaning

Document progress and approval progress are not the same field. A drawing can be issued by its designer but not yet submitted to the relevant reviewer. A review response can exist while a required correction remains open. Record the actual status and response, not a colour code whose meaning varies between teams.

Distinguish transmission from acceptance

“Sent”, “received” and “under review” describe communication or progress. They should not be rewritten as “approved”. If a reviewer uses a particular status or stamp, retain its wording and any conditions, then ask the responsible party what it permits for the actual assignment.

Keep document status and project status separate

A completed review for one document does not establish that every submission or installation activity is complete. DNV’s public alteration-project overview guidance, for example, distinguishes approval progress, documentation requirements and vessel-specific approval or survey information. It is a useful illustration of separate status categories, not a universal vocabulary or evidence that a Gisan assignment is approved by DNV.

Connect open comments to the next decision

Give each review comment a reference to the affected drawing revision and the party responsible for the response. Record whether the response is a clarification, revised information or a change to the proposal. Keep the outgoing answer linked to the reviewer’s subsequent response where applicable.

Do not close a comment merely because a reply was sent. Equally, avoid describing a drawing as unusable for every purpose solely because one comment remains open. The responsible reviewer or design authority must clarify the consequence and any conditions for the intended activity.

Show procurement and work dependencies without assuming authorization

Identify which equipment order, fabrication activity or installation boundary depends on the document. Record the technical information still missing and the decision needed before the relevant party relies on it. A purchasing deadline is not evidence of technical readiness.

Where a drawing change affects agreed work, link it to the owner’s scope-change record. Keep the drawing revision, technical review and commercial instruction distinct. Each answers a different question and should be traceable to its own source.

For survey-related questions, use the class survey coordination guide as a record-organization aid. Applicability, required submissions and acceptance must be established for the vessel by the responsible technical and regulatory parties.

Plan the final as-fitted document handover

Identify who will reconcile approved proposals, work-site changes and final installed information. A marked-up drawing may be a handover input rather than the controlled as-fitted issue. Record the outstanding revision, its owner and any interim information being provided to the vessel.

Before closing the document package, check that the register points to readable final files and that superseded material is clearly identified. Record remaining work or review actions separately instead of using a single “all documentation complete” statement with unexplained exceptions.

Submit a retrofit enquiry with a clear document register

Send the vessel particulars, intended change, available drawing index and unresolved review questions through Gisan Shipyard’s technical enquiry page. Distinguishing what exists, what is proposed and what still needs a decision helps define the discussion without inventing approval, design capability or a promised completion date.