Systemic Approach to Ship Design

  • Romain Le Néna
  • Alan Guégan
  • Benoit Rafine


The design of complex systems such as aerospace or transportation systems is a difficult task. It usually involves several teams working in close collaboration, over extended periods of time, and it is a true challenge to demonstrate that the requirements for these systems are satisfied. The complexity of ships has recently increased, driven by on-board electronics and digitalization. The idea behind a dedicated work package of the HOLISHIP project is to adapt systems engineering methods from the aerospace and other industries to the specific challenges of the shipbuilding industry. A Systems Architecture & Requirements management tool, called the SAR tool, has been developed in order to support systems engineering methods during the design process of ships. This chapter provides a short description of the method and the SAR tool; it elaborates on material originally published in (Guégan et al. in A systems engineering approach to ship design, 2017) and (Guégan et al. in Compliance matrix model based on shipowners’ operational needs, 2018a).


Systemic Holistic ship design Multi-objective optimization System architecture Systems engineering 


  1. Andrews D, Erikstad O (2015) State of the art report on design methodology. In: Proceedings of the 12th international maritime design conference, Tokyo, Japan, 11–14 MayGoogle Scholar
  2. Corrignan P, Le Diagon V, Li N, Torben S, de Jongh M, Holmefjord KE, Rafine B, Le Néna R, Guégan A, Sagaspe L, de Bossoreille X (2018) System engineering based design for safety and total cost of ownership. In: 13th international marine design conference—IMDC, Helsinki, 10–14 JuneGoogle Scholar
  3. Guégan A, Rafine B, Descombes L, Fadiaw H, Marty P, Corrignan P (2017) A systems engineering approach to ship design. In: 8th international conference on complex systems design & management—CSD&M, Paris, 12–13 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  4. Guégan A, Le Néna R, Rafine B, Descombes L, Fadiaw H, Marty P, Corrignan P (2018a) Compliance matrix model based on ship owners’ operational needs. In: 7th transport research arena—TRA 2018, Vienna, 16–19 AprilGoogle Scholar
  5. Guégan A, Rafine B, Le Néna R, Fadiaw H (2018b) D2.3 system architecture and requirement management tool user. In: HOLISHIP H2020 projectGoogle Scholar
  6. ISO 10628-1 (2014) Diagrams for the chemical and petrochemical industry—Part 1: Specification of diagrams. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  7. ISO/IEC/IEEE 29148 (2011) Systems and software engineering—Life cycle processes—Requirements engineeringGoogle Scholar
  8. ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010 (2007) Systems and software engineering—Recommended practice for architectural description of software—Intensive systemsGoogle Scholar
  9. Issad M, Kloul L, Rauzy A, Berkani K (2015) ScOLa, a scenario oriented modeling language for railway systems. INSIGHT 18(4):34–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Newman S (2017) Building microservices. OReilly Media & Inc., NewtonGoogle Scholar
  11. Rafine B, Le Néna R, Guégan A, Descombes L, Fadiaw H, Marty P, Corrignan P (2017) D2.2 compliance matrix model. HOLISHIP H2020 projectGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Naval GroupParisFrance
  2. 2.SirehnaBouguenaisFrance

Personalised recommendations