Overview
This is particularly relevant when the vessel, terminal or proposed service is new to the transaction. The desk may receive an apparently workable voyage estimate while several review dependencies remain undefined. The planning task is to expose those dependencies, assign them and show how they affect the decision timetable.
Key takeaways
- Build a review schedule alongside the voyage event schedule.
- Identify which tasks can proceed in parallel and which need another answer first.
- Ask the responsible parties for their actual process and timing expectations.
- Avoid treating generic review allowances as terminal commitments.
- Update the commercial decision path when an input or proposal changes.
Distinguish the two schedules
The voyage schedule describes the proposed movement using estimates supplied by the responsible sources. The review schedule describes the information and decisions needed for the business to rely on that movement.
They interact but should not be merged into an unexplained total. A later arrival forecast may create more time for a review while affecting a customer commitment. A completed review may remove an uncertainty without changing the voyage estimate itself.
Elengy's published approval procedure identifies separate information, interface and follow-up stages. It provides an example of a review sequence that commercial planning must recognise. Elengy approval procedure.
Obtain the current process for the actual terminal and proposal. The example does not establish a universal duration or a standard sequence that can be copied into every LNG schedule.
The coordinator should keep the two schedules connected through decision points. Show where a particular response is needed for the next commercial action, and who will determine the consequence if it remains outstanding.
Map dependencies before assigning dates
List the required information items and decisions with their owners. Then ask which tasks can begin immediately and which depend on another party's input.
A review may not be able to start until a controlled information pack is complete. A clarification may require a response from a cargo source outside the main chartering chain. A commercial approval may depend on the outcome of more than one review.
These relationships define the planning path more usefully than assigning the same allowance to every task. A simple dependency map can reveal that the team is waiting on a missing input rather than on the reviewer it has been chasing.
| Planning element | Dependency question | Useful evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Initial information pack | What must be complete before submission? | Responsible source's requirements |
| Review start | Has the reviewer received usable information? | Acknowledged scope and status |
| Clarification | Who can answer the specific question? | Named source and response route |
| Parallel work | Can another task proceed independently? | Confirmation from the relevant owner |
| Commercial decision | Which responses are necessary first? | Authorised decision criteria |
| Programme update | What must be revisited after a change? | Scoped recheck request and answer |
The coordinator should not invent technical dependencies. Ask the responsible people to identify them and record the commercial consequences they describe.
Use timing expectations with their limits
Ask each action owner for the expected response process and any known constraints. Record whether a date is requested by the commercial team, indicated by the responder or agreed as a working milestone.
Do not turn an internal target into an external commitment. A desk may need an answer by a particular point while the responder has not confirmed that it can supply one. The gap is a decision issue that should be visible to management.
Where no timing expectation is available, identify the next follow-up event rather than inventing a duration. The schedule can show uncertainty honestly and still help the team organise its work.
If a task is waiting on information, track both the missing input and the review that follows it. Marking the review overdue without showing the input dependency directs attention to the wrong party.
Test the effect of an unanswered review
A useful scenario asks what happens if a particular response is not available when the commercial team needs it. Identify the options that remain: wait, revise the programme, develop another candidate or reconsider the underlying cargo decision.
The scenario should use the actual authority and agreement framework. For legal questions, check the current text and obtain the appropriate review rather than treating an internal planning date as a contractual right.
Do not assume that a shorter voyage estimate solves an unfinished review or that a later voyage automatically makes the programme workable. The relevant decision may have an earlier commercial deadline unrelated to the physical arrival forecast.
The output should identify the first decision that becomes constrained and the person able to choose the response. That is more useful than a general warning that the schedule is tight.
Fictional case: the review never started
A fictional LNG desk plans a movement using a preliminary voyage estimate and adds a generic allowance for terminal review. As the intended decision point approaches, the coordinator repeatedly asks the reviewer for progress.
The reviewer explains that a required information item has not been supplied, so the assessment has not begun on the intended basis. The commercial schedule treated the allowance as running from the first email, while the review process depended on a complete submission.
The desk maps the missing input to its responsible source, obtains a realistic response arrangement and updates the commercial decision path. It also asks which other tasks can proceed while the information is prepared.
Management now sees the actual constraint and considers its alternatives before the next commitment. The revised plan does not promise a review duration. It shows the dependency that must be resolved and the decisions affected if it remains open.
Keep the critical path current
A review path can change when a clarification is answered or a programme is revised. Update the dependencies as well as the dates. A previously parallel task may become dependent on new information, while a completed decision may remove a constraint.
Use a short change log naming the new evidence and its effect on the next action. Avoid silently moving dates in a tracker, since that can conceal the reason a decision is becoming more or less urgent.
At handover, highlight the task currently controlling the next commercial decision. Include its owner, required input, expected response route and fallback discussion. The incoming colleague should not need to infer the critical path from a list of overdue items.
Retain the earlier assumptions for later review. The business can learn whether it asked for information early enough and whether its planning allowances reflected real evidence.
Common mistakes
Starting a generic review clock from the first enquiry can conceal a prerequisite that has not been met. Confirm what enables the review to begin.
Another mistake is to chase the reviewer when the missing action belongs to the cargo or vessel information source. Map the dependency and direct the request accordingly.
Finally, avoid assuming that more voyage time automatically resolves the commercial schedule. An earlier decision point may still govern the available choices.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub offers digitalised procedures across the voyage workflow.
Zeaclub provides 24/7 operating systems and worldwide coverage.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a standard LNG review duration to use?
This framework does not establish one. Ask the responsible parties about the actual process and timing for the proposal, and retain the limitations of their response.
Can review tasks run in parallel?
Some may, if their owners confirm that the required inputs are available independently. Record the relationship rather than assuming every task must wait for the preceding item on a checklist.
What if no response date can be provided?
Show the uncertainty, assign the next follow-up and identify the commercial decision affected. Management can then assess alternatives without relying on an invented deadline.
How does this relate to the voyage estimate?
The review path identifies decisions needed to use the proposed programme. Connect it to the relevant voyage milestones while keeping the evidence and assumptions for each schedule distinct.