Making the Risk Managment and Automating Approvals for the shore team and cutting down the delays.

Fleet Management Ltd. needed a more structured and intelligent Risk Assessment feature within their internal tool, PARIS 2.0. The goal was to enable vessel managers, QHSE, manning, technical, and incident teams to identify, categorize, and resolve risks more efficiently—while enhancing cross-functional visibility, ensuring compliance, and improving operational safety across their global fleet. While a version of this feature existed in PARIS 1.0, it lacked intuitiveness and was burdened with complex, non-standard workflows—especially when it came to filling out risk mitigations and managing approvals.

To address the inefficiencies of the legacy system, we reimagined Risk Assessment in PARIS 2.0 as a structured, role-aware, and workflow-driven feature. The redesign focused on improving consistency, reducing manual overhead, and enabling traceable, compliant decision-making across departments.

Design journey began with in-depth stakeholder interviews across Fleet Management’s operational teams—Vessel Managers, QHSE, Manning, Incident, and Technical staff. These sessions helped uncover critical pain points in the existing Risk Assessment workflow and allowed us to define problem statements rooted in real-world use.

We closely mapped the data ecosystem across vessels, departments, and regions—identifying gaps in consistency, communication, and process visibility. This informed the creation of role-specific user personas and clarified how platform responsibilities should be distributed across ship and shore.

We also identified key breakdowns across both user touchpoints—the vessel miniserver, where the Master or Chief Engineer initiates risk assessments, and PARIS 1.0, primarily used by shore-based teams. Users highlighted the need for better alignment between these systems and also expressed the importance of integrating Risk Assessment training into TOLAS, Fleet’s in-house training platform.

To support the migration to PARIS 2.0 and sunset the older platform, we began with rethinking the Risk Assessment module. Several validations were added to the miniserver to improve input accuracy at the vessel level. We then created interactive wireframes and clickable prototypes covering key flows—template selection, risk scoring, approval routing, and tracking. These were tested with real users across departments in iterative feedback cycles, directly informing improvements to logic, layout, and usability.

User interviews helped uncover key issues—like unclear workflows and accountability gaps—shaping the Risk Assessment redesign in PARIS 2.0.

These discussions revealed issues like missed handoffs, inconsistent Risk Level Rating, and template overload. Each insight guided us in creating a more streamlined, intuitive, and role-driven system. Here’s what our users had to say:

During the research phase of PARIS 2.0, we closely mapped out the user journey for raising a Risk Assessment and Approving risks. The goal was to simplify interactions, reduce manual dependencies, and bring clarity to who needs to act—when, and on what.

This flow captures how users engage with a Risk Assessment after it’s submitted by a vessel, highlighting key decisions and validation checkpoints throughout the process. Even covers how shore based staff can raise a Risk Assessment on behalf of Vessel.

Wireframes served as the blueprint for reimagining the Risk Assessment experience in PARIS 2.0. They helped us define the layout, interaction patterns, and information hierarchy before moving into detailed design.

We focused on simplifying complex flows—like template selection, setting risk levels, approvals, and role-based visibility—while ensuring clarity for both vessel crew and shore-based teams. These wireframes were reviewed and refined across multiple user feedback loops.\

Building on an existing Design System grounded in Atomic Design principles, we scaled core components into new patterns that enhanced the overall user experience. These reusable elements brought structure, speed, and visual coherence across modules. The design was well-received by stakeholders—many expressed a strong sense of clarity and control while interacting with the clickable prototype.

Usability testing post-development helped validate key workflows for the Risk Assessment feature. Feedback from Department Managers and QHSE teams led to quick refinements in template selection, risk rating, and approval clarity before final handover.

After development was complete, we conducted usability testing with 12 participants from key user roles to evaluate how the feature performed in actual workflows. The objective was to ensure the system supported operational needs such as submitting, reviewing, and approving risk assessments across teams.

The usability tests confirmed that the system was ready for fleet-wide use, while also surfacing a few minor refinements that we were able to address quickly. With feedback implemented, the final version was handed over to Fleet’s internal tech team for rollout and support.

Managing & Mitigating Risk for Safer Maritime Operations