I was referring to EW.
As far as an MPCMS system goes:
They did the Mackinaw (Great Lakes Icebreaker) for the USCG very successfully. Other recent new builds for USCG was WLM/WLB program which used TANO (a subsidiary of L-3) and the WAGB Polar Icebreaker Healy which was Cegelec (later acquired by Alstom).
IMHO based entirely on private comments made within the industry and without any knowledge of any official evaluation(s) - the GLIB system is a superior product by many different criteria including cost, scalability, open architecture, performance, HMI (Human Machine Interface - the actual controls and screens ease of use and intuitiveness), maintenance, and integration with other shipboard networks.
I’ve heard the Staten Island Ferries was as successful.
So you have a very successful government program design and an equally successful commercial sector multiple install design that was done virtually simultaneously and has been in constant operation for 2 to 3 years (in the case of an icebreaker the environmental conditions and shock/vibrations are unbelievably abusive on equipment). Many folks are quietly tracking these installs to gather data on MTBF (mean time between failure) and durability/maintenance costs of the systems which have to be factored in to actual operational costs and life cycle cost projections for future builds (Life Cycle Cost Example: a widget that costs $10 but needs to be replaced every other month for 30 years costs more than a widget that costs $1000 and only needs replacing every 10 years - besides replacement part cost you have expenses related to the amount of time the system was down plus man-hour [read increased manpower riding the ship, being fed, trained, paid] costs each time it needs repair).
Ships are a long term capitalization item and both commercial and government buyers are very concerned as much about manning and total life cycle costs as about initial purchase price. The EW installs are sitting pretty in all those worlds to date. It is also critical to note the scrutiny a company and its product that provides an MPCMS comes under - the MPCMS literally controls and/or monitors EVERY machinery subsystem from propulsion, to power generation and distribution to sewage to fresh water to safety to ballasting and damage control, etc. (ever see the movie Speed 2)
It gets A LOT of attention if it's not right and only the attention of the folks involved (owners/operators) and engineers (from all over) if it is. This is a very complicated and challenging world to play in and EW has done very well.
Proven successful systems get a lot of attention from folks doing new builds (worldwide annual newbuilds are approximately 10,000 hulls) so this "data gathering" period is very important.
I will not comment on the performance of competitors and only say that EW has been very successful to date in its offerings – this is more of a pass/fail rather than a letter grade endeavor – then it comes down to initial pricing (this is the prime concern of the shipyard) and life cycle numbers (the prime concern of the owner) to see who wins a ton of contracts.
Next time - the oil patch products opinions…
All of the above is my own personal opinion and in no way should be construed as anything more. I encourage all to do their own DD. Any readers living in the New York area should take a ride on the Staten Island ferry and make their own inquiries – most ship operators are proud of their jobs and love to talk about their vessel (or complain about them) to interested people. Similarly, the Mackinaw is homeported in Michigan and does many port calls around the Great Lakes each year with “open to the public” onboard tours from time to time – I would encourage all to try and take one and talk with the folks who live and work on her and form your own opinions.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
