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
fscott  
#1 Posted : 16 October 2013 15:42:05(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fscott

Can anyone define the difference, if there is one, between a safe system of work and a method statement? My understanding, and I'm ready to be corrected, is that a method statement should be a detailed written process (like a recipe) of how the job should be carried out and together with other relevant documentation (risk assessments, coshh assessments, pre-use inspection records etc) make up the safe system of work.
PIKEMAN  
#2 Posted : 16 October 2013 15:49:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
PIKEMAN

Really IMHO they are one and the same thing, although I would not disagree with your post. In reality a SSOW is a safe method for doing a job - the level of detail should reflect the risk, and the complexity of the job.
Ron Hunter  
#3 Posted : 16 October 2013 15:57:39(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

There used to be a definition of SSoW in the St John Holt course reader for the NEBOSH Cert. SSoW: The word "system" is the key. SSoW is the entirety of method, competency, correct equipment, measurement and monitoring etc. that ensures consistent safe working. By comparison, a Method Statement is only piece of paper. Certainly not the same thing.
walker  
#4 Posted : 16 October 2013 16:14:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

A SSOW is a (low in the hierachy) control measure in my RA
Canopener  
#5 Posted : 16 October 2013 16:55:19(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Neither are defined in statute (could be wrong) however, Holt suggests (and I paraphrase) SSOW - a formal procedure to identify hazard's, assess risks and identifies work methods to eliminate and reduce risks MS - the key feature is that they provide a sequence for carrying out a specific task and are typically sued for demolition work, asbestos removal, steel erection and other similar tasks where the order of work is critical to ensuring safety The fact is that what one person considers to be a SSOW, others will consider a MS and vice versa, and others will combine the 2. Some will combine the RA, with one or the other or both. In most cases it will matter very little so long as the risk is adequately controlled.
Ron Hunter  
#6 Posted : 16 October 2013 19:23:22(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

Baffled that some would consider both the same thing, but gobsmacked by the notion that:
walker wrote:
A SSOW is a (low in the hierachy) control measure in my RA
Suggested further reading: http://www.healthandsafe...w/content/all-systems-go
godscrasher  
#7 Posted : 16 October 2013 20:17:20(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
godscrasher

A Safe System of Work (SSoW) could consist of the following: An induction, site rules, vehicle training, supervision, first aiders etc... Method Statement will state how and by what methods the work will be done. This would then become part of a SSoW.
Canopener  
#8 Posted : 16 October 2013 20:48:24(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Ron, could I suggest that the fact that neither are 'formally' defined not only serves to lead to the op's question, but also the fact that the question has been asked on this forum a number of times before, and is illustrated by the variety of different answers that have previously been given to those threads. I have paraphrased from Principles/Holt (to which you referred) but others are entitled to their own opinion as to what they consider either to be. That doesn't necessarily make them wrong, and likewise nor does it make Holt right, merely one mans view. In its simplest form a SSOW could be a verbal instruction from mangers to 'workers' on how a job may be done safely. Or would that be a method statement?
Ron Hunter  
#9 Posted : 16 October 2013 22:34:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

I wholeheartedly agree, canopener. Effective communication is paramount to success in what we do. And yet our profession is plagued by ill-defined or misunderstood terms (SSoW, Method Statement, Dynamic Risk Assessment - even Risk Assessment itself when used outwith our immediate field). As for the OP, I still suggest the focus has to be on the word "system", and infer from that a "whole" system. It seems only logical.
fscott  
#10 Posted : 17 October 2013 09:09:57(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
fscott

Thanks for the replies guys. I'm relatively new to a stand alone H&S role so it's good to be able to bounce things off folk with more experience. My own opinion is that what it is called isn't critical providing all the right controls are in place and everything is communicated to all persons affected in an effective manner but it does get confusing at times when everyone uses different terminology for the same thing.
ctd167  
#11 Posted : 17 October 2013 13:21:29(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ctd167

One and the same thing really. My background is the construction industry where its called a RAMS (Risk Assessment Method Statement). A couple of years ago i moved to the manufacturing industry where its called SSOW (Safe System Of Work). The requirement for both sets of documentation is pretty similar, although the SSOW does place more emphasis on equipment use and machinary.
westonphil  
#12 Posted : 17 October 2013 13:44:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
westonphil

A method statement is a statement of the method(s) for carrying out a job, it could relate to any job and have nothing at all to do with health and safety. http://www.britishfootwe...SAFE-SYSTEMS-OF-WORK.pdf "A safe system of work is a procedure that results from a systematic examination of a working process, that identifies hazards and specifies work methods designed either to eliminate the hazards or controls and minimise the relevant risks." That is a reasonable guide and was put together with the HSE's input. Certain principles with regards to Safe Systems of Work have been established in case law, e.g., in both civil claims and in statute prosecutions, etc., however there will always be work for lawyers because changes in legislation and new court interpretations etc., are forever meaning you can quote one case and then someone later says it was superceeded by another decision somewhere else. Regards.
jarsmith83  
#13 Posted : 17 October 2013 14:40:47(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
jarsmith83

To be honest guys, does this terminology really matter? As alluded to already, they are pretty much the same. Besides, if someone drafts a SSOW and completes the process in the fashion of a method statement, it really matters what will ensure safe works to proceed (as already mentioned adequate communication is required) and, that legal requirements are met. All I know is HASAWA states: General duties of employers to their employees. 2. (a)the provision and maintenance of plant and SYSTEMS OF WORK that are, so far as is reasonably practicable, SAFE and without risks to health :-)
james fleming  
#14 Posted : 18 October 2013 12:05:09(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
james fleming

Oh, I like this! I would add that a SSoW and MS are chalk and cheese. One has a specific legal requirement, in which your company can be prosecuted. The other does not carry this. Section 2(2)(a) (HSWA) outlines this for business. Businesses have been prosecuted for not providing a SSoW. I don’t recall a company being prosecuted for not having a MS. A ‘system of work’ was described by Lord Greene in Speed V Swift 1943. A MS, as I understand it, come from the planning side of work. Duly, when a job is being planned the method in which the job will be outlined. Semantics? I don’t think so.
Canopener  
#15 Posted : 18 October 2013 15:01:36(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

I am not as convinced as you are and it is particularly interesting that you use the Swift case to support your argument. HASAWA S2 refers to “..systems of work..”, NOT SAFE systems of work. Holt, long used as a reference for NEBOSH suggests that the KEY feature of the MS is the SEQUENCE. The Swift case refers to systems of work NOT safe systems of work; nevertheless it is interesting to note that the judge refers to the sequence of work as perhaps forming part of a system of work as follows: “I do not venture to suggest a definition of what is meant by a system, but it includes, or may include according to circumstances, such matters as the physical layout of the job, the setting of the stage, the SEQUENCE in which the work is to be carried out, the provision of warnings and notices, and the issues of special instruction." So I am not convinced that your reference to the Swift case is actually that useful in supporting your argument. Holt and others consider that the key feature of an MS is sequence and Swift refers to sequence perhaps being part of a safe system. It would therefore seem rather difficult to sustain the argument that failure to provide an MS is something that you couldn’t be prosecuted for when the judge in Swift seems to suggest otherwise! So as such I would suggest that not only it is not defined in statute, it appears to be rather poorly defined in Swift and actually the judge in Swift appears to shy away from defining it. Knowing the idiosyncrasies of the legal system I would suggest that the term ‘safe systems’ as used in S2 has a very broad meaning and could include a whole range of methods including SSOW, MS, PTW, RAMS, ‘safe working practices’, safety guidance, or whatever term an individual company decides to use within their own ‘management’ or safety systems, or other term that ‘fashionable’ at the time. Caps used for emphasis
achrn  
#16 Posted : 18 October 2013 15:09:42(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
achrn

james fleming wrote:
Section 2(2)(a) (HSWA) outlines this for business. Businesses have been prosecuted for not providing a SSoW. I don’t recall a company being prosecuted for not having a MS.
That's a non-sequitur. Just because no-one has been prosecuted for not providing a MS it doesn't mean a MS is not a SSOW. You would need to find a case where they did provide an adequate MS and still got prosecuted for failing to have a SSOW to prove the case you seem to want to prove. As it happens, in my view a SSOW is not actually identical to a MS, but a MS is generally the main part of a SSOW and the two things overlap so significantly that there is no significant confusion if the terms are used interchangeably. In practice, the MS could be the only specific document documenting the SSOW (that is, it could encompass all the parts of the SSOW that need documenting). Thus, for almost all practical intents, the terms are synonymous. Anyway, on the railway they are WPPs. What you call it doesn't really matter.
Canopener  
#17 Posted : 18 October 2013 15:16:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

Oops – correction “..I would suggest that the term ‘systems of work’ as used in S2 has a very broad meaning………..etc etc”.
james fleming  
#18 Posted : 18 October 2013 15:44:44(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
james fleming

canopener wrote:
I am not as convinced as you are and it is particularly interesting that you use the Swift case to support your argument. HASAWA S2 refers to “..systems of work..”, NOT SAFE systems of work.
Yup, I agree with that. However, when prosecuted it is defined as a ‘safe system of work’. See case number (picked at random I have no axe to grind on this) 4319857 on the HSE prosecutions web site.
firesafety101  
#19 Posted : 18 October 2013 16:09:51(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Where it is not reasonably practicable to avoid entering a confined space to undertake work, the employer or self-employed person is responsible for ensuring that a safe system of work is used. In designing a safe system of work, they should give priority to eliminating the source of any danger before deciding what precautions are needed for entry. Confined space regs.
firesafety101  
#20 Posted : 18 October 2013 16:12:10(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
firesafety101

Method statements A method statement is a useful way of recording the hazards involved in specific work at height tasks and communicating the risk and precautions required to all those involved in the work. The statement need be no longer than necessary to achieve these objectives effectively. The method statement should be clear and illustrated by simple sketches where necessary. Avoid ambiguities or generalisations, which could lead to confusion. Statements are for the benefit of those carrying out the work and their immediate supervisors and should not be overcomplicated. Work at height regs.
Canopener  
#21 Posted : 18 October 2013 16:56:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Canopener

I am not sure if any of us has any particular axe to grind in this case. I am not greatly swayed by the terminology that is used on the prosecutions database, and I would certainly not consider that to be a ‘definition’. Again, I suggest that the reality is that SSOW, MS etc etc are not defined in statute, “.systems of work..” as S2 is not defined within HASAWA and it is apparent that in the case you used as an example, which considered this very issue, didn’t define it either. In saying that, in NOT choosing to define a system of work he did suggest that it may include a ‘bit of allsorts’. I suggest a system of work as S2(2) is highly likely to be considered by the courts in a very wide context, to consider the broader systems used in a particular work situation. For example I suggest that the failure of a PTW system that results in a prosecution might quite reasonably be taken under S2(2) despite the fact that PTW doesn’t feature in the wording. It is surely difficult to argue that all organisations use the same terminology for all of their systems? That would be bordering on the fantastical. The fact is that they don’t whether it is for health and safety or other aspects of their business. For example some businesses use appraisal, performance review, personal development review, annual assessment to describe much the same process. Whether it is semantics or not I don’t know, but it seems pretty clear to me that what one person or organisation may call a SSOW, another may call a MS, another safe working procedure, safe work method statement, safety procedure etc etc etc. You get the picture? It doesn’t mean that they are wrong, merely that they call it something different or take a different approach.
andybz  
#22 Posted : 18 October 2013 18:39:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
andybz

I am always baffled by this question as the differences between a SSOW and MS are very clear to me. Clearly others don't see it that way. Given that both names are using basic English words, I wonder if the following definitions may assist (got by typing the 'definition' then the word into Google). System (1) - A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole. System (2) - A set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method Method - A particular procedure for accomplishing or approaching something, especially a systematic or established one. Statement - A definite or clear expression of something in speech or writing The key point for me is that both definitions for system start with "A set of ...." To me it is clear that a MS can be part of a SSOW, but a SSOW is much more than a MS.
westonphil  
#23 Posted : 19 October 2013 13:23:04(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
westonphil

And these conversations show why there will always be work for the lawyers. :-) Regards.
LizBennett  
#24 Posted : 19 October 2013 16:51:01(UTC)
Rank: New forum user
LizBennett

I do so much love this debate every time it surfaces! Long ago and far away before the 1974 Act we Civil Engineers used to write Method Statements. This was a communication from designers to others about how the designer had envisaged a piece of construction was to be completed. It was assumed that this included "done safely" as accidents aside from anything else do not constitute success on projects and cost money and time. Oh yes and we used to care about people too in those days so did want to get things right. The phrase has been hi-jacked by the H&S world to mean something closely guarded. I personally do not mind if a document is labelled risk assessment, MS, SSW, H&S Plan, or anything else so long as it provides the right information to those who need to own and manage identified hazards and risks at the right time to allow them to do this management effectively. Also provided that those who receive it understand and take note of it. Comms is a multi channel two way process. When H&S professionals start to try to explain the difference to those struggling to come to grips with our scary world they have lost the point, I believe. I think it was Einstein who said that it takes real intelligence to make something complex seem simple (I paraphrase but the sense is there).
John M  
#25 Posted : 19 October 2013 19:48:30(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
John M

It is indeed no wonder that the H&S "game" is held in such low regard when there are so many "experts" with so many different opinions. Neither Method Statements or Safe Systems of Work are legally defined; have not (to my knowledge) been legally challenged - so where is the issue? Jon
Graham Bullough  
#26 Posted : 19 October 2013 23:35:23(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Graham Bullough

An interesting response from lizbennett at #24 with some excellent points in my opinion. These include the fact that it really doesn't matter what words are used as long as effective systems/methods are designed, understood and heeded by all who need to know in order to minimise or preferably prevent harm to people during work activities. Also, though some people seem to think that OS&H only really began with the arrival of the HSW Act 1974, it has been around for a lot longer. For a very good historical example consider the construction of the Eiffel Tower 1887-1889. Gustave Eiffel and his fellow civil engineers who designed and supervised the project intended from the outset to prevent deaths and were totally successful through the use of temporary guard rails (highly innovative at that time), moveable platforms and other measures such as nets. By contrast, at least 63 workers died during the construction of the Forth (Railway) Bridge 1883-1890 and perhaps more according to some websites. Even though the Forth Bridge was a much larger and more complex structure and its construction involved many more workers over much longer period and with a wider range of activities and hazards (. e.g. compression chamber work, and deep open water below most of the structure) it's tempting to speculate whether or not better planning and use of safety measures could have reduced the death toll. Looking back to more recent history, it's also tempting to contrast British and French safety performances during the construction (well, mostly digging) of the Channel Tunnel 1988-1994. Eight people died in the British side and apparently none in the French one. (Am happy to be corrected about this because clear statistics don't seem to be readily available from a skim through websites.) Moreover, I've read elsewhere that those planning the British side actually anticipated that some deaths would occur in them. (To be fair, I don't know if any deaths were anticipated in the French side.) Also there may have been significant differences in factors such as geology and water ingress which created greater problems and risks in the British side. Even so, does anyone happen to know of information sources which indicate that with regard to OS&H (and other aspects) the French side was better planned, managed and had more effective methods/systems of work?. Death toll comparisons of just the above-mentioned construction projects obviously cannot be used to provide a general comparison of OS&H attitudes, standards and systems between Britain and France. Therefore, please can any forum users with reasonable knowledge and preferably experience of projects in both countries provide a brief comparison? Furthermore, does it seem that people involved with British construction laws, systems/methods and bureaucracy could learn something from the French with regard to OS&H?!!
teh_boy  
#27 Posted : 21 October 2013 11:45:44(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
teh_boy

ron hunter wrote:
Baffled that some would consider both the same thing, but gobsmacked by the notion that:
walker wrote:
A SSOW is a (low in the hierachy) control measure in my RA
Suggested further reading: http://www.healthandsafe...w/content/all-systems-go
This is from IOSH's courses - In IOSH Managing Safely the hierarchy of control reads Eliminate Reduce Prevent Contact SSoW PPE
walker  
#28 Posted : 21 October 2013 15:03:07(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
walker

Ron, Not interested in a battle about who is right, but Ferret & Hughes 2005 is used as NEBOSH intro to H&S Only have 2nd edn (I think there is a newer one) but hierachy is outlined in para 5.11 SSoW is 7th on their list I checked today, in case I'd had a stroke and got it all wrong, as I generally agree with you.
Mr.Flibble  
#29 Posted : 21 October 2013 15:53:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Mr.Flibble

They call them SWI's (Safe Working Instruction) at a site I visit :)
Ron Hunter  
#30 Posted : 21 October 2013 20:21:17(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

walker wrote:
Ron, Not interested in a battle about who is right, but Ferret & Hughes 2005 is used as NEBOSH intro to H&S Only have 2nd edn (I think there is a newer one) but hierachy is outlined in para 5.11 SSoW is 7th on their list I checked today, in case I'd had a stroke and got it all wrong, as I generally agree with you.
Check out the 5th Edition, page 117, section 4.5.1. A definition that accords with my viewpoint. You can see this via Google Books as a preview page.
Ron Hunter  
#31 Posted : 21 October 2013 20:25:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Ron Hunter

teh_boy wrote:
ron hunter wrote:
Baffled that some would consider both the same thing, but gobsmacked by the notion that:
walker wrote:
A SSOW is a (low in the hierachy) control measure in my RA
Suggested further reading: http://www.healthandsafe...w/content/all-systems-go
This is from IOSH's courses - In IOSH Managing Safely the hierarchy of control reads Eliminate Reduce Prevent Contact SSoW PPE
I don't dispute the hierarchy, it was your statement that confused me. I contend that the SSoW is the summation/whole of your control measures to counter residual risk, so can't be "low down" on the list?
chris42  
#32 Posted : 22 October 2013 09:14:57(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

I’ve always felt that SSoW in the hierarchy, was intended to mean administrative type control, hence its position (relative to Technical / engineering solutions etc). However sometimes SSoW is used to mean the whole thing including the Engineering / Technical and any other controls. Then again I also thought that Method statement not only included the Safe system of work, but encompassed all the things to be done including Quality, Environmental and how to actually do the job. It seems a rose by any other name still has thorns !
Users browsing this topic
Guest (11)
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.