Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Mike Aspinall  
#1 Posted : 07 December 2020 08:51:26(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
Mike Aspinall

What are user thoughts regarding the need for an SSOW/SSOP

The need to undertake a Risk Assessment is beyond question, with an SSOW/SSOP only being required as control measure for task with significant latent risk i.e. not every RA requires a SSOP/SSOW

A Kurdziel  
#2 Posted : 07 December 2020 09:50:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

The term Safe System of Work derives  from a court case back in the 1930’s- Wilson and Clyde v English. The court case established once and for all that an employer is responsible for the Health and Safety of employees at work and expressed this as providing a ‘Safe System of Work’.  It does not refer to piece of paper but the overall management of  work so as to ensure that work is being done in a safe manner. So, the answer is that everything at work is covered by a safe system of work.

thanks 6 users thanked A Kurdziel for this useful post.
Dave5705 on 11/12/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 24/12/2020(UTC), toe on 02/01/2021(UTC), maryam_haider on 05/01/2021(UTC), O'Donnell54548 on 06/01/2021(UTC), aud on 11/01/2021(UTC)
Ian Bell2  
#3 Posted : 07 December 2020 11:46:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ian Bell2

Agree with #2, there should always be a 'safe system of work' regardless of the workplace, work activity etc the only difference is how regulated/managed/controlled and monitored that the estabished safe system of work should be.

thanks 2 users thanked Ian Bell2 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 11/12/2020(UTC), Kim Hedges on 24/12/2020(UTC)
Dave5705  
#4 Posted : 11 December 2020 11:41:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Dave5705

Originally Posted by: Mike Aspinall Go to Quoted Post

What are user thoughts regarding the need for an SSOW/SSOP

The need to undertake a Risk Assessment is beyond question, with an SSOW/SSOP only being required as control measure for task with significant latent risk i.e. not every RA requires a SSOP/SSOW

Andy is right. This is a misnomer of terminology and a common one.

Humbly I would argue, the point of completing an RA is to determine if the current or proposed system of work is safe. I think what you are asking is "when is it necassary to provide additional information, instruction, training and supervision to keep workers safe performing this particular work? 

An RA is not a document either, it is a process. It leads to a document most times, often referred to 'a risk assessment', but really it is the significant findings.

So the answer to your question is: A safe system of work (basically everything in section 2 general duties but more generally 'no hazards to health and safety') should ALWAYS be available. An RA should indicate if the system of work needs amending to keep it safe.

thanks 3 users thanked Dave5705 for this useful post.
A Kurdziel on 11/12/2020(UTC), Wailes900134 on 22/12/2020(UTC), aud on 07/01/2021(UTC)
firesafety101  
#5 Posted : 21 December 2020 10:19:28(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Morning all and compliments of the season.

How detailed should the SSOW be, should it detail every single task as if the worker knows very little or should it be tailored to suit the competence of the individual/s doing the work.

thanks 1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
Kim Hedges on 24/12/2020(UTC)
firesafety101  
#6 Posted : 21 December 2020 10:23:40(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Is the SSOW the same as a Method Statement.

peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 21 December 2020 17:12:48(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Firesafety, think you have answered your own QQ at least in part.....

How detailed should the SSOW be, should it detail every single task as if the worker knows very little or should it be tailored to suit the competence of the individual/s doing the work.

In my opinion, it's very common to include far too much in documentation. As example, if there are site wide rules that apply to anything that is done, there is very little point in repeating them in a document setting out a task-specific Safe System of Work though of course those standard items do form part of the overall SSOW.

What is much more important is to identify the measures that are task specific including where any site rules are NOT to be followed. 

Is the SSOW the same as a Method Statement.

Not if the method statement is not usually going to contain excessive information. Less is more.

thanks 2 users thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
Kim Hedges on 24/12/2020(UTC), aud on 07/01/2021(UTC)
Kim Hedges  
#8 Posted : 24 December 2020 18:35:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kim Hedges

As I understand the ideals of a safe system of work, should only really be required if some poor sod could get injured because of somebodies inattention to the task at hand or from a systemic failure brought about by lax management or historical laziness (basicically saying 'isn't that common sense' or 'it'll do') and there are many examples which I'm sure IOSH members will be aware of. 

A recent incident on a new house building site that will remain annonymous, presented to me yet another example of a failed SSOW.  A generic and simplistic method statement that did not have a suitable and sufficient safe system of work and failed to take into the proximity of a contract worker to a load being lifted by a contract HIAB crane operator, who should have known better - it being common sense!  

I have previously mentioned the method statements and lack of a SSOW on many of my previous contracts, during the pre-work signing and briefing with the site manager, but it always boils down to being put into a situation that I could lose work if I didn't proceed.  For all lifting contracts, it is the AP (Appointed Person) who is meant to provide the SSOW / Method Statement and Risk Assessment.  The reality is to me always shocking with what I'm expected to accomplish and yet act professionally in a safety critical job - and there is aways the ticking clock of time, when some workers want to rush the job, which is less than professional.  You are only ever as good as your last contract.   

toe  
#9 Posted : 02 January 2021 01:59:37(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
toe

Originally Posted by: firesafety101 Go to Quoted Post

Is the SSOW the same as a Method Statement.

I tend to use a SSW (or safe working procedure) for static hazards, for example, machinery in a factory may have a SSW for its use and another SSW for maintaining the machinery etc. Therefore, the safe procedure will take into account all the hazards for the task and the safe procedure will be used each time the machine is used or maintained.

A method statement is normally used where the risks may be different or may change. A good example (as used in the previous post) a lifting operation for an outside portable crane will have a method statement that is specific to the task (the lift) and the environment. Method statements should be site and/or task specific and not generic.

thanks 2 users thanked toe for this useful post.
CptBeaky on 04/01/2021(UTC), aud on 07/01/2021(UTC)
A Kurdziel  
#10 Posted : 04 January 2021 09:11:03(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
A Kurdziel

Well from my perspective I try to apply Reason’s Swiss Cheese model.

Layer One:  The Safe System of work ie a system for conveying work instructions that staff can follow and understand so that they can work safely

Layer Two: Staff Competency. This boils down to know how far you can rely on the staff to do the right thing, taking into account their training, knowledge, experience and attitudes.

Layer 3: Management Systems in particular their ability to select suitable controls including instruction, supervision and training for staff

Layer 4: Corporate Culture in particular establishing one which recognises that that approach to H&S management must be flexible and provide appropriate support for all staff and is not based in a one size fits all or tickbox approach.

And how do you know what it appropriate? Well that is what being a manager is all about: some people are fine with verbal instructions backed up by general documentation others need very specific detailed paperwork and others virtually need to have their hand held at all times.

firesafety101  
#11 Posted : 04 January 2021 12:11:15(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

There is another way to answer this question.

When I receive Pre Construction Information there is usually a requirement made by the Principal Designer for RAMS to be provided for all works.  The MS part means a Method Statement.

I have in the past questioned this because the MS is only required for "A method statement is a type of health and safety document that people usually use for high-risk work. It describes the steps (method) that workers must take to carry out a particular job safely. Primarily, they are for the benefit of those who will physically be carrying out the work, usually those working in the construction sector" I copied that from the internet.

The PD always requires MS no matter what the work is, it could be laying a carpet in an empty premises, decorating a few walls and a ceiling, cleaning internal windows and such like.

So the answer to the question would be "whenever the PD requires one".

  

thanks 1 user thanked firesafety101 for this useful post.
aud on 07/01/2021(UTC)
peter gotch  
#12 Posted : 04 January 2021 12:49:59(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Firesafety - that smacks of Principal Designers not doing their job as required by the Regulations and continuation of the bureaucratic approach that HSE criticised MANY CDM Co-ordinators (and previously Planning Supervisors) for AND failure to take sufficient action to mitigate risks before a project got to site.

Within that bureaucratic approach it is probably also indicative that the PDs are failing to identify the "significant risks" that remain within the design, within the meaning of "significant risks" as defined in the CDM guidance, L153 (page 88).

HSE drafted changes to the legislation that were specifically intended to deter continuation of such behaviour.

thanks 1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
aud on 07/01/2021(UTC)
firesafety101  
#13 Posted : 06 January 2021 15:29:21(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Peter, thank you for understanding this is a real issue.

Please point me to the changes to legislation and I may use that in future although I have hit dead ends in the past so not confident anything will change.

Cheers

Dazzling Puddock  
#14 Posted : 07 January 2021 16:07:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Dazzling Puddock

Originally Posted by: firesafety101 Go to Quoted Post

There is another way to answer this question.

When I receive Pre Construction Information there is usually a requirement made by the Principal Designer for RAMS to be provided for all works.  The MS part means a Method Statement.

I have in the past questioned this because the MS is only required for "A method statement is a type of health and safety document that people usually use for high-risk work. It describes the steps (method) that workers must take to carry out a particular job safely. Primarily, they are for the benefit of those who will physically be carrying out the work, usually those working in the construction sector" I copied that from the internet.

The PD always requires MS no matter what the work is, it could be laying a carpet in an empty premises, decorating a few walls and a ceiling, cleaning internal windows and such like.

So the answer to the question would be "whenever the PD requires one".

  

Fitting carpets can have numerous hazards such as use of adhesives or the manaul handling of heavy rolls of floor coverings etc  and painting usually involves work at height and / or the use of some finishes that may require extra ventilation etc   there is also the issue of the PC having to co ordinate all the trades on site which is why they ask for RAMS from everyone.

I would expect that the RAMS only deal with significant hazards /risks but there are very few jobs in construction that do not need one as most involve WAH / work equipment etc

firesafety101  
#15 Posted : 07 January 2021 18:10:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Dazzling Puddleduck, I agree with the way you have answered my point but you have fallen into the trap by expecting all construction work to be high hazard.

A carpet fitter may be doing just that, fitting a carpet, maybe into an office, underlay and carpet, knife, knee kicker, hammer and nails, finally a door plate, screws, with screwdriver.

Can you or anyone else find anything highly hazardous in that.

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.