< Overview
Systems Integration
Helping decarbonization efforts work as a system—not as a collection of disconnected initiatives.
What this is
Many shipping decarbonization efforts struggle not because of technical limitations, but because the system doesn’t line up.
Individual organizations may be acting rationally—shipowners, ports, regulators, insurers, fuel suppliers—but their assumptions, incentives, and constraints don’t naturally align. The result is friction, delay, or stalled progress.
This work focuses on identifying and resolving those system-level misalignments, so that decarbonization efforts can move forward in practice, not just in principle.
The systems problem
Decarbonization spans multiple domains that rarely sit under a single authority:
Policy frameworks designed at international or regional levels
Safety, class, and insurance requirements developed independently
Port and ship operations with different timelines and incentives
Commercial realities shaped by fuel markets and contractual structures
When these elements evolve out of sync, even well-intentioned efforts can fail to gain traction. The challenge is not optimizing any one part of the system, but helping the system function coherently.
How I engage
Systems integration work is inherently cross-boundary. I typically engage by:
Working alongside project teams and institutional stakeholders
Facilitating conversations that cut across organizational silos
Using evidence, scenarios, and structured reasoning rather than advocacy
Engagements may support a specific project, a corridor-like effort, or a broader transition initiative, depending on where system friction is emerging.
What I typically help with
This work often includes:
Identifying hidden dependencies between policy, safety, operations, and commercial decisions
Clarifying where different stakeholders are reacting to different constraints
Helping align timelines, assumptions, and responsibilities across organizations
Stress-testing system behavior under different regulatory or market scenarios
Supporting shared understanding without forcing artificial consensus
The goal is not to eliminate disagreement, but to make trade-offs explicit and manageable.
What this is not
To be clear, this role is not:
Program management across organizations
Governance or decision authority
Advocacy for a particular technology or outcome
A substitute for institutional accountability
My contribution is to help the system function more coherently so that accountable actors can make better decisions.
What success looks like
When systems integration is working:
Stakeholders understand how their decisions affect others
Misalignments are addressed earlier rather than later
Institutional friction decreases rather than compounds
Projects and policies move forward with fewer surprises
Often, the impact is subtle—but it shows up in smoother coordination, clearer decision paths, and fewer stalled initiatives.
When this is a good fit
This type of support is most valuable when:
Multiple organizations or institutions are involved
Progress is slowing due to misalignment rather than lack of intent
Policy, safety, and operational considerations are interacting in complex ways
There is openness to examining system behavior, not just individual components
It is less useful when the system is already tightly coordinated or when alignment is assumed rather than examined.
Interested in addressing system-level friction?
If you’re involved in a decarbonization effort where progress depends on better coordination across organizations or institutions, I’m happy to explore whether this kind of systems-focused support could be useful.