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.

A SSOW is a (low in the hierachy) control measure in my RA

Baffled that some would consider both the same thing, but gobsmacked by the notion that: Suggested further reading: http://www.healthandsafe...w/content/all-systems-go

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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?!!

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.

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 !