What Exactly Do You Do?
Updated: 2 days ago
Charles Dence, Co-Founder of SPARK Marine Projects, reflects on nearly 30 years across yachting, emerging technologies and product development, and how those experiences have shaped his approach to marine projects.
People sometimes ask, “What exactly do you do?” How do you answer?
It’s a fair question, because our work can look quite different from one project to another.
At SPARK, we help clients work out what specialist vessel they actually need and the best way to achieve it. That might mean evaluating an existing boat, adapting a platform or developing something entirely new.
My role tends to begin before the solution has been decided. I work with the client and their team to understand what they’re trying to achieve, explore the options and establish a practical way forward.
Sometimes the answer exists already. Sometimes the requirements point towards a more bespoke solution. The important thing is making an informed decision before committing substantial time and money.
Where does that approach come from?
I spent 13 years at Burgess, working across yacht charter, sales, acquisitions and new construction. I enjoyed brokerage, but I was particularly interested in new-build projects because of the creative, technical and collaborative work involved.
One formative experience involved two 60-metre yachts being built at CMN in France for three clients in the same friend-group. My responsibility was the client relationship, helping the buyers navigate unfamiliar decisions while working alongside the shipyard, designers, technical advisers and the wider Burgess team.
That’s where I met my SPARK co-founder Cyril Le Sourd, who was working on the shipyard side. We were on opposite sides of the table, but ultimately working towards the same outcome.
Your career then took you beyond conventional yachting. What did you learn?
Quite a lot, particularly about the relationship between technology, product development and commercial reality.
Working with DeepFlight, I was initially involved in developing opportunities for personal submersibles in the superyacht market. But speaking with captains and potential clients raised questions about whether the existing concept was right for how owners actually wanted to use the product.
This led to work with the engineers on an alternative concept, translating operational requirements into product development.
It reinforced an important lesson: sometimes the best way to sell a product is first to question whether it’s the right product.
Later, I worked with emerging technologies, including marine electrical propulsion, advanced security and situational-awareness systems. In the security sector, I led sales processes across superyacht, support and commercial-vessel projects.
These projects involved complex combinations of hardware, software and specialist suppliers. Much of the challenge was understanding where value could be created, developing the commercial proposition and finding the right customers.
You also worked with an exploration and adventure business. Was that a different experience?
Yes. As Commercial Director at Arksen, I worked with the management team across product development, commercial strategy, partnerships and business growth.
This included supporting the sale of two 27-metre new-build projects and helping shape the market positioning of the wider vessel range.
I was also involved in establishing and supporting Arksen’s relationship with Yachts for Science, an initiative connecting private vessels with marine researchers.
That particularly interested me because it explored how privately owned yachts could contribute to marine research and scientific exploration.
How has that experience influenced what you do at SPARK?
I think it has made me less inclined to accept the first definition of a problem.
Clients often arrive with a proposed solution. They may have identified a particular boat, builder or design direction, but the underlying requirements can be more complicated.
We establish the underlying requirements before assumptions become expensive commitments
On one project, an initial appointment to research and evaluate options developed into a much broader design, specification and procurement programme once the client’s requirements were better understood.
On others, the greatest value has been validating an existing solution so the client can proceed with confidence.
The objective isn’t necessarily to create more work, it’s to establish the right work.
Where does design fit into this?
For me, design is much broader than styling. It’s about understanding what something needs to do and working through the practical implications.
A relatively small boat can involve complex decisions about engineering, manufacturing, operation and maintenance, particularly when it needs to integrate with a larger vessel.
Good design should resolve these challenges rather than simply make the result look attractive.
How do you and Cyril work together?
We bring different experience and perspectives, but there’s considerable overlap in how we think.
Cyril has a background in naval architecture, vessel design and shipyards. He brings design judgement and a strong understanding of what can actually be developed, engineered and built.
My background is more commercial and client-facing, with experience in product development and working across different disciplines.
The useful part is the interaction between these perspectives.
A client requirement creates technical implications. A design decision can affect construction, operation, cost or the user experience. A commercial constraint might prompt a better design solution.
We challenge each other’s assumptions, which leads to a better solution.
Looking ahead, what interests you about the future?
I’m increasingly interested in innovation beyond the technology itself.
There’s enormous technical capability in yachting, but that doesn’t always translate into better outcomes. Sometimes the roadblock isn’t the technology. It’s how projects are organised, how decisions are made and whether the different parties have the right incentives to work together.
I think there’s considerable potential in questioning established approaches and finding better ways to use the expertise and capabilities that already exist.
Comments