The term Safe System of Work derives  from a court case back in the 1930’s- Wilson and Clyde v English. The court case established once and for all that an employer is responsible for the Health and Safety of employees at work and expressed this as providing a ‘Safe System of Work’.  It does not refer to piece of paper but the overall management of  work so as to ensure that work is being done in a safe manner. So, the answer is that everything at work is covered by a safe system of work.

Originally Posted by: Mike Aspinall

What are user thoughts regarding the need for an SSOW/SSOP

The need to undertake a Risk Assessment is beyond question, with an SSOW/SSOP only being required as control measure for task with significant latent risk i.e. not every RA requires a SSOP/SSOW

Humbly I would argue, the point of completing an RA is to determine if the current or proposed system of work is safe. I think what you are asking is "when is it necassary to provide additional information, instruction, training and supervision to keep workers safe performing this particular work? 

An RA is not a document either, it is a process. It leads to a document most times, often referred to 'a risk assessment', but really it is the significant findings.

So the answer to your question is: A safe system of work (basically everything in section 2 general duties but more generally 'no hazards to health and safety') should ALWAYS be available. An RA should indicate if the system of work needs amending to keep it safe.

Is the SSOW the same as a Method Statement.

As I understand the ideals of a safe system of work, should only really be required if some poor sod could get injured because of somebodies inattention to the task at hand or from a systemic failure brought about by lax management or historical laziness (basicically saying 'isn't that common sense' or 'it'll do') and there are many examples which I'm sure IOSH members will be aware of. 

A recent incident on a new house building site that will remain annonymous, presented to me yet another example of a failed SSOW.  A generic and simplistic method statement that did not have a suitable and sufficient safe system of work and failed to take into the proximity of a contract worker to a load being lifted by a contract HIAB crane operator, who should have known better - it being common sense!  

I have previously mentioned the method statements and lack of a SSOW on many of my previous contracts, during the pre-work signing and briefing with the site manager, but it always boils down to being put into a situation that I could lose work if I didn't proceed.  For all lifting contracts, it is the AP (Appointed Person) who is meant to provide the SSOW / Method Statement and Risk Assessment.  The reality is to me always shocking with what I'm expected to accomplish and yet act professionally in a safety critical job - and there is aways the ticking clock of time, when some workers want to rush the job, which is less than professional.  You are only ever as good as your last contract.   

Well from my perspective I try to apply Reason’s Swiss Cheese model.

Layer One:  The Safe System of work ie a system for conveying work instructions that staff can follow and understand so that they can work safely

Layer Two: Staff Competency. This boils down to know how far you can rely on the staff to do the right thing, taking into account their training, knowledge, experience and attitudes.

Layer 3: Management Systems in particular their ability to select suitable controls including instruction, supervision and training for staff

Layer 4: Corporate Culture in particular establishing one which recognises that that approach to H&S management must be flexible and provide appropriate support for all staff and is not based in a one size fits all or tickbox approach.

And how do you know what it appropriate? Well that is what being a manager is all about: some people are fine with verbal instructions backed up by general documentation others need very specific detailed paperwork and others virtually need to have their hand held at all times.

Firesafety - that smacks of Principal Designers not doing their job as required by the Regulations and continuation of the bureaucratic approach that HSE criticised MANY CDM Co-ordinators (and previously Planning Supervisors) for AND failure to take sufficient action to mitigate risks before a project got to site.

Within that bureaucratic approach it is probably also indicative that the PDs are failing to identify the "significant risks" that remain within the design, within the meaning of "significant risks" as defined in the CDM guidance, L153 (page 88).

HSE drafted changes to the legislation that were specifically intended to deter continuation of such behaviour.

Originally Posted by: firesafety101

There is another way to answer this question.

When I receive Pre Construction Information there is usually a requirement made by the Principal Designer for RAMS to be provided for all works.  The MS part means a Method Statement.

I have in the past questioned this because the MS is only required for "A method statement is a type of health and safety document that people usually use for high-risk work. It describes the steps (method) that workers must take to carry out a particular job safely. Primarily, they are for the benefit of those who will physically be carrying out the work, usually those working in the construction sector" I copied that from the internet.

The PD always requires MS no matter what the work is, it could be laying a carpet in an empty premises, decorating a few walls and a ceiling, cleaning internal windows and such like.

So the answer to the question would be "whenever the PD requires one".

  

I would expect that the RAMS only deal with significant hazards /risks but there are very few jobs in construction that do not need one as most involve WAH / work equipment etc