IHM software should maintain the live Inventory of Hazardous Materials during vessel operation. It is not merely a place to store the last approved PDF. The practical test is whether an operator can show the current record and its evidence without rebuilding the story from email, spreadsheets, and shared folders.

This guide explains what to verify before choosing a system. MANTIS is one option, but the questions apply equally to class tools, managed services, and other software.

1. Does it maintain the live IHM?

A useful system keeps Part I, Part II, Part III, change records, locations, substances, quantities, and supporting evidence together. It should support the operating record between surveys, not only the document issued after a survey.

Ask how the system records installations, replacements, removals, certificate changes, refrigerants, stores, and review findings. Then ask how those changes remain traceable after crew or management changes.

2. Can it control supplier evidence?

Supplier MD, SDoC, SDS, certificate, and supporting evidence should remain connected to the request, supplier, vessel, and relevant change. A loose email attachment is not a controlled evidence trail.

Check whether suppliers need full accounts, whether upload links are protected, how delivered files are reviewed, and whether the request and delivery history remains available later.

3. Does it expose certificate and survey risk?

Operators need certificate dates, renewal windows, missing evidence, open findings, and survey-readiness signals before inspection pressure begins. Fleet teams also need to identify which vessels require attention without opening every individual record.

The interface should make risk legible without pretending that software replaces professional judgement, class, flag, or a competent IHM specialist.

4. Are the exports operationally useful?

Ask to see the actual exports. A useful platform should produce working backups, survey packages, transfer records, and full archives containing uploaded evidence—not only screenshots or a proprietary summary.

The export should have a clear index and preserve enough context for a reviewer or successor to understand the record outside the platform.

5. Does access reflect maritime operations?

Vessels are owned, managed, shared, transferred, inspected, and offboarded. Confirm how the system handles vessel teams, fleet managers, DPAs, guests, read-only reviewers, ownership changes, and archived vessels.

Access should be explicit and auditable. Users should be able to tell why a vessel is visible and what their role permits.

6. Is there a complete audit trail?

The system should record who changed data, uploaded evidence, reviewed files, generated exports, and changed access. Ask whether the audit trail is included in exports and whether records can be silently overwritten or deleted.

7. Can you leave with your data?

The operator should own the IHM record. Before buying, confirm that you can export structured vessel records, supplier evidence, certificates, change history, and uploaded documents in usable formats.

Data portability is most important when it is least convenient: a manager changes, a vessel transfers, a contract ends, or a survey approaches.

Comparing the operating models

Spreadsheets and folders can be sufficient for a stable vessel with low change volume and a disciplined owner. They become fragile when supplier files, certificates, changes, and review history need to stay connected across people and years.

Class-society tools can work well when a fleet is tightly aligned with one class society and its workflow. Confirm portability and independence if vessels, flags, managers, or class relationships may change.

Managed IHM services suit operators who want specialists to perform routine administration. They cost more because the service provider is doing work, not merely providing software.

Independent IHM software suits operators who want direct control of the live record while continuing to use class, flag, and specialists for certification and formal decisions.

Official regulatory context

Software does not determine legal scope or certify an IHM. Confirm obligations with the flag State administration, class society, or another competent party. Useful starting points include:

A practical selection test

Use one real vessel scenario during a trial: record a material change, request supplier evidence, attach and review the response, update the maintained record, and generate the package a reviewer would receive. The gaps become much clearer in a complete workflow than in a feature checklist or sales demonstration.

See how MANTIS handles the live IHM workflow or start a free trial.