Posted By TonyB SJ There is a fundamental difference between a method statement (MS) and a safe system of work (SSoW). A basic explanation follows. The SSoW is more than a written procedure. It is everything that makes the way of work the safest it can be, SFARP. It includes the method, equipment, protective devices (inc. PPE), training, instruction, supervision, competence etc, etc. In short - the outcome of the Risk Assessment. The Method statement is simply that - a documented record of the intend SSoW. Usually companies use the term MS to relate to contractors only. It is a document provided by the contractor to the client to inform him/her of how they intend to work and what potential issues could arise, in particular to the client's employees from the work activity. The client has a legal (S3 HSAW) and moral duty to assess the contractors intended way of working before appointing them and the MS can be used to do this. However, Your company may use the terms to mean something else. Unfortunately many H&S terms can be incorrectly used by some companies. This is not a problem in itself, as lone as everybody knows what the term relates to. It can cause problems if you want to seek help from elsewhere and the outside world uses other terminology. Hope it helps. Tony

Posted By Andy Brazier I can't agree with Raymond on this one, and believe Tony has it pretty spot on. The main steps to follow are: 1. Define thew activity 2. Complete the risk assessment 3. Develop a safe system of work to address the requirements of the RA. May require equipment, competences, preparation of site etc. 4. Identify any procedures that need to be followed 5. Identify any method statements that need to be developed 6. Implement You may need several method statements, depending on the nature of the activity. Whist it is fine to use your terminology own terminology in-house, in this case there is likely to be some confusion if you ever use contractors as I believe it is pretty common for them to produce method statements for their work (as Tony says)

Posted By Andy Brazier Why do we need a regulation to say method statements are required? It is something that works in practice and is generally seen as beneficial. I don't really understand why you are asking the question.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Okay, having defined your activity, done your RAs and so on, what are you going to call the document...a method statement?

Posted By Andy Brazier Crim Totally agree with you about avoiding writing method statements when they add no value. As you say the risk assessment should identify if a one is required or not. What I find is people find it very easy to say when a method statement or procedure is required but very difficult to say when it is not. I am currently working with a couple of clients at the moment developing systems that identify when a procedure is required and what form it should take. Only the most critical tasks will get full procedures, low criticality tasks get nothing. We are not looking at method statements, but I think the same issues apply. Raymond No. Assuming we are relating method statement to work carried out by contractors. How are the contractors asked to bid for the work? How are they appointed for the work? How is their scope of work agreed? All these things are part of the SSOW. The method statement is a small part of this.

Posted By Crim Phil, you are right, the method should always contain the sequence. What I find from sub contractors is a general description of the work without this sequence of events. I have hardly ever seen a MS with the sequence although whenever I write a MS it is always sequenced.