I am with you in spliting Method Statements down into key tasks. We carry out a System of Work which explains the whole job then use detailed and specfic Safe Systems of Work to relate to the Risk Assessment. We use an inhouse online Risk Assesment that can add Safe Systems of Work automatically and print in one document or save in PDF format to email. When previously asked for the one document I merge all PDF's into one and email.

They see one attachment on the email and thats it, I know they dont always get read by the client. Its very much horses for courses.

separate in my view; as they are two separate areas - all related docs can be in one folder/file

Method statements and risk assessments or RAMS as we commonly call them should in my opinion be one document.

The logic from my viewpoint is that the workforce need to understand the task and how it will be done safely. To do this you need to identify:

What the task is
The methodology of how it can be done safely,
The equipment to be used; materials and plant/equipment,
The workforce and their competency,
Specific hazards and control measures (referenced to other documents if required e.g. requirements for a seperate lifting plan if carrying out lifting operations, permits to dig, hot works permits etc).

RAMS should be task specific and written for the end user. If everything is in one simple document the workforce are less likely to lose bits of it. Also if its short and simple its more likley to be read fully and complied with.

In most cases when I have received a batch of sperate RAs they have generally tended to have a batch of generic 'cover all' and specific to nothing statements as control measures. All relevant and relating to various regulations and situations, but no one has made the effort to look at the actual task to be done and made them specific to it.

For complex operations break tasks down into logical sections/stages and provide a RAMS for each part

Hi Winter28827,
RAMS is never used by me as an acronym for risk assessment / method statement. In fact it is one thing that p's me off big time; ask any of the contractors who have worked under me.
RAMS to me, and most railway people, has a different and very specific meaning:
BS EN 50126-1 Railway applications - The specification and demonstration of Reliability, Availability, Maintainability and Safety (RAMS).
Sorry about that, must have my grump head on!

Fair point it annoys me too................. and I have never worked in the rail industry

Apologies Winter, if I've caused you offence.
Read the last line of my post and take it as it was intended ;o)
For clarity, I too work in construction, I construct railways and all of it's infrastructure.

Nick

No offence taken.

We all have our own way of doing things and what works for me may not work for others - tomato, tomahto.

Provided it is part of the overall safe system of work, fine.

Everyone that says they are seperate documents agrees that they would not give only one of the two parts on its own to those expected to follow it, so however they are developed they are needed together to ensure the safety of those doing the work.

I just tend to develop it as one document as its less to go adrift, especially if sending it by email.

Normally end up doing them together as invariably I find that I have forgotten to do something important like unload the attachment for the machine I am knocking down the building with and so have to go back and forward between documents.

If you go back into the dim mists of time - I believe MS came out of an HSE publication in construction on safe erection of structures and sort of evolved to meet HSW neeed for a safe system of work ... safe working method statement .... safety method statement and then we got RA in 1992... so if the industry that started them wants to call then RAMS perhaps so be it.

And as for people in rail getting upset isn't a TBB just a very long winded combined MS /RA written in client speak rather than in a comprehensible form for the workers....?