Rank: Forum user 
|
Hi all, I work for a plant hire company and we have fitters on site who do servicing/repairs on machinery both here and on customers sites. I am new to H&S and am familiarising myself looking through the Method Statements and there are a couple of things I wondered if someone could clarify for me. Firstly, am I right in thinking a Method Statement is written as a result from a Risk Assessment? In other words, I have some method statements here but no risk assessments to accompany them, so am unsure of the process that would have been used to write these. Also, in your experience, how is a decision made on what tasks require a method statement? I thought it would have been for those tasks which are at higher risk of injury/more complex but a colleague in management believes it should be the tasks which are carried out the most regularly. TIA
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
A method statement should indeed follow on from a risk assessment, since you would need to identify the risk controls needed for the method statement from the risk assessment process. I think one way of looking at this is that the method statement is the detail on controls to be used that those doing the job can be given and instructed on, rather than distributing risk assessments to them. As to what jobs a method statement is needed for, that would depend on the outcomes of the risk assessments, and may not necessarily be for jobs done most regularly; it would depend on the level of risk identified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
A Method Statement is a Safe System of Work articulating how the task will be performed in terms of sequence of work, materials, supervision, hazards, etc. It has the dual purpose of providing information to those carrying out the task as well as informing those who are checking the work is being carried out competently.
A Risk Assesssment should be provided with the MS, either as a stand alone document or sometimes it is incorporated into the MS. There is no legal requirement to provide a MS per se, but there is for a RA. In theory the MS will be produced after the RA, but it does not always follow.
The detail in the MS should be proprotionate to the task and the inherent hazards associated with it. Sometimes there might be additional documents e.g. a Lift Plan, which can be added as a supplement or stand alone document.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I have to disagree with that Ray. A method statement (MS) may form part of a SSoW, but does not by any means constitute the whole safe system.
You'll probably find that many (if not most) of your MS have been produced only because your Clients insisted on them, and that in practical terms, they add little or no value to the SSoW.
We've had this debate many times over. Time-served competent trades rately if ever need additional paperwork to tell them how to do the job - they've got maintenance manuals for that, along with other forms of information, instruction and training = competence.
I doubt very much that any of your fitters will ever refer to the Method Statements - but they might well give your Client's a cosy warm feeling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Ron,
I never said a MS is the whole SSoW, I was giving a precis of what the MS and RA should be - in answer to the question! Clearly there can be other aspects which form the SSoW as I have alluded to in my last paragraph.
Whilst I agree many operatives will never read the MS, there is nonetheless sometimes information about access, parking, welfare facilites, etc, which might be of interest to some. Anyway, that is not really answering the query.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From experience i can confirm that the HSE will prosecute if they don't feel the method statement is up to scratch.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Indeed they might - but only after a serious accident! And that my friend is half of the problem. There is so much rubbish documentation whether that is a RA, MS, CPP, FRA, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Ray, Funnily enough it was after an almost fatal incident i had to investigte. I won't go too deep into the details of the incident (or the disgraceful and borderline slanderous behaviour of the HSE) but they directly criticised the method statement of the subbie involved, not the risk assessment interestingly. You're correct though, there is far too much documentation and far too much overlapping. The best way i ever had it explained to me (and the way i still approach it to this day) is to think of it like maths back at school. The MS is you writing down the answer, the RA is your "working out". You could have 20 pages of COSHH assessments and risk assessments for a simple tak but the end user doesn't need to see all that "working out". All he/she needs to see is the answer; The method statement. The approach has always worked for me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
I always thought the SSoW/MS was the magnifying glass to the R/A you have identified the hazards then you are looking at how these can be managed in a sequence of events.
I would never of put were to park unless of course there was a crane about to land something and I don't put welfare facilties on either or even on the risk assessment, unless of cous absolutly necessary, how to remove contanated clothing etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Invictus, The method statement is, in it's simplest form, a written sequence of how the task is going to be undertaken and puts all the relevant bits from the Risk Assessments and COSHH assessments into an easy to understand formar. If, for example, step 1 of the method statement says "barrier off the working area", this is becuase barriering off the area has been identified as a necessary control measure in the risk assessment (Hazard: public wandering in and dying. Control: barrier area off before starting) Similarly, if step 2 said "erect scaffold tower" and not "climb on Dave's shoulders" then this would be becuase the scaffold tower has been idemtified in the risk assessment as being the apporpriate piece of work at height equipment for the job. I appreciate that there's more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to RA/MS but for me, this has always seemed the most logical approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
With all due respect U should get in a competent person to guide U until U become competent as such things, if wrong, may lead to death etc. U would not rewire a 3 phase system uless U were a competent spark would U? This is the same as for the arguements herein re what is a SSW etc. is so listen learn and 1 day you will be competent and then make your own decisions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: sappery760  With all due respect U should get in a competent person to guide U until U become competent as such things, if wrong, may lead to death etc. U would not rewire a 3 phase system uless U were a competent spark would U? This is the same as for the arguements herein re what is a SSW etc. is so listen learn and 1 day you will be competent and then make your own decisions
[/quot
Strongly agree with the sentiments expressed here. This is a task where mentoring on a one to one basis is the only real way to come to grips with MSs
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Thanks all for the replies. Just to confirm, I am not repsonsible/the competent person for the health and safety for the company, I am studying for the role and have been looking through documents to familiarise myself as at the moment my course subject is safe systems of work. Our advisor wasn't available last week and so I asked on here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.