My manager and I have had this discussion on many occasions, all I can suggest is don't worry too much how you get there and what order, it's the final product that matters. ie you have full and comprehesive safe systems and you have risk assessments that are suitable and sufficent, regards

I was always told in my younger days that the risk assessment(s) are first and then the method statement if you cannot adequately control the hazards. I still use this as my guide as previously stated RA is the legal document, however there seems to be the need for method statements regardless of the task, especially in the construction. I am a firm believer that sometimes less is more, taking into account some of the task we carry out and the level of operative used. Regards PaulR

Agree that Scoping comes kick off then everything else falls into place. I assess risk as i progress through each stage of the tender and don't treat it has a seperate task, rather part of a jigsaw. Don't get the part where Haz ID is considered as seperate from the RA? The safe method of work only becomes apparent as the process is assessed... I think 'we' over engineer what should be a simple methodology.

I like your comment on clients benefit rather than the workforce, as this is true. THe end user should be the person that the document is for, as they are the ones who need to know the information. THe RAM's go hand in hand, you have to know the method prior to doing the RA in order to make the MS

Risk assessment is a process not a document. The legal requirement is to record the significant findings of your assessment. The important thing is that the MS documents how the task is going to be performed and that you have confirmed that the risks of that method are tolerable or as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP). In my mind there is no chicken and egg.

At the risk of stating the obvious, anyone composing/adapting method statements and risk assessments should wherever feasible talk to and listen to people involved with the activities or situations to which the MSs and RAs relate. This can allow the consideration and resolution of aspects which might not be apparent to people who simply work with MSs and RAs on paper in an office. Also, such discussions shouldn't necessarily be one-off events - have them again as the MSs and RAs are developed or reviewed.

I'm trying to achieve improvements on MSs that seem to be written for the client's benefit rather than to guide the workforce, and RAs that end up generic inaccurate cut-and-paste efforts.' Kay, I think this is a real problem in industry. Clients are often dictating what must be included in a method statement. This often results in an unwieldy document which is not really what a method statement should be about. Indeed I have seen some which look more like a construction phase plan than a method statement. With regards to generic documents, they have a place where the work is basic and repeated. However, producing good quality (which will be accepted by the client) method statements takes a lot of input and time. Hence people are resorting to copying and pasting. In short, there is too much unnecessary documentation in project management which serves no good to anyone.