There is no shortage of technology in safety today– over the years, we have spent a lot of time and money bringing technology into our terminals.
Automation, digitalisation, AI — each has promised to make us faster, more efficient, more informed and, increasingly, safer.
But I think we are reaching an interesting point in that journey.
Automation is becoming smarter. AI can detect patterns, identify risks and process information at a scale that was difficult to imagine a few years ago.
But having the technology is only the beginning. The question is becoming less about whether the technology exists, and more about what we expect from it once it is there.
Can it demonstrate its value before we buy it? Can it help us make better decisions, rather than simply give us more information? And perhaps most importantly, have we changed the way we work enough to actually take advantage of what the technology can do?
Technology on its own does not change a terminal- people do, decisions do, the willingness to do something differently does. Does it make safety work faster? Does it give people better information? Does it improve judgement? And, ultimately, does it lead to better action?
I find that a much more interesting conversation than simply asking, “what’s the next cool piece of technology?”
Some thoughts on today.
Container terminals have spent decades investing in automation to move more cargo, faster. But surely- automation should not stop at productivity? Container terminals are among the most dangerous workplaces on earth- automation should also be deployed to make safety more intelligent, measurable and proactive.
I feel strongly about this and yes, while that may be stating the obvious– I do make a product for terminal safety after all– I also wish for our community to take this on with the attention and commitment it deserves.
I had that in mind when I recently wrote an article for Port Technology International (PTI). My aim was to show what purpose-built AI can bring to terminal safety:
•Faster incident reporting — incidents can be captured in as little as 15 seconds.
• One connected safety record — from the first report through investigation, root cause and verified closure.
• Predictive intelligence — using computer vision, risk scoring and early warnings to identify patterns before they become incidents.
• Faster deployment — terminal-native safety platforms can be implemented in weeks rather than months.
The technology is ready. It is high time our organisations shape the next safety standard, not wait to play catch up after an incident.
👉🏼I shared the full piece over on LinkedIn, and you can see the entire journal edition here as well.
How much does the size of a software vendor influence a safety buying decision?
Do you have a long list of criteria when making software buying decisions, but find that somehow the size and scale of a vendor outweighs multiple other factors?
The criteria can be endless– fit, customisation, configuration effort, time to go live, references, scores and market presence. But how many of these actually tell you what the technology can do?
For years, capability was difficult to see before signing the contract. Scale became a proxy for confidence.
AI changes that.
Today, organisations can ask vendors to demonstrate their technology live, unscripted and against real operational scenarios. Capability can be tested before it is bought. That should change how we think about safety investment.
The question is not simply who has the biggest presence, but who can demonstrate the capability that will create measurable change.
▶️ Watch on YouTube
A terminal bought the capability, but then was dismayed it didn’t see the change it had hoped for. Does that sound familiar?
A new model. A new detection engine. A new analytics layer. The demo works, procurement is approved — yet a year later, not much has changed on the ground.
The instinct is to blame the technology. But sometimes the model works perfectly- it detects, it predicts, it produces the numbers– the missing piece is what happens next.
• An alert is generated, but nobody clearly owns the action.
• A risk is identified, but there is no agreed path to intervention.
• An insight reaches a dashboard, but nobody acts on it.
In fact, terminals may not have a model problem. They may have a decision-structure problem. Capability only creates value when it connects to judgement, ownership and action.
That is the gap we set out to address with Qavach– connecting safety intelligence to the people and processes that can act on it.
The future of safety will be defined by who can turn intelligence into consistent, owned action. 👉🏼 Read more on LinkedIn
