I have ID'd the need for SSoW or SOPs in some tasks, processes on site. The client do not have precedent of this site/global wide.

Why need SSoW/SOPs?

How do you ID processes or tasks which requires them?

What actions will be needed if the requirements are met? 

For example; this could be a task analysis documenting how the task will be carried out etc.

What I am hoping for is some examples of where you have implemented SSoW/SOPs. Will using hazard identification be a good start? For example; high hazard ratings equates to SSoW? Using the risk assessments may also help but will this be enough or should I be sittiing with Supervisors, Managers etc. to discuss and then get them onboard?

I'm trying to simplify this activity however, I also need it to be comprehensive enough for the client to self-manage afterwards.

Am I on the right track or should I be looking at it from another angle? This is the joy of this forum for me because when in doubt, I either read about it or post a new topic. 

For example; will using a Power Press automatically qualify for a SSoW due to the inherent risks? How about Folders, Grinders, Radial drills etc?

Many thanks for your comments in advance.

Thanks Dave5705.

The client already have risk assessments carried out recently (not by myself). I have done the PUWER & COSHH assessments. My report suggests SSoW should be done on some of these activities. The thing is, the client is now suggesting I catalogue ALL tasks, activities, processes that requires SSoW.

However, this was never highlighted in their previous RAs. Your suggestions is the perfect scenerio if starting from scratch. 

I need to manage this project without ruffling feathers by saying ALL their existing RAs needs reviewing. I know that's what should be done but it is sensitive.

Anyway, thanks for your comment which is highly appreciated.

Regards.

Basically, if after you have implemented all your engineering controls and assuming you have gone through the elimination/substitute route, you still has a residual risk that shows more controls are needed; that is the time to implement a SOP/SSOW. Remember it is in the heirachy of controls.

So any tasks that are now considered "low risk" (subjective as that is) may not require a SOP/SSOW. Any tasks that are still considered 'medium' or 'high' risk almost certainly will.

Remember administative controls come before PPE. So, in theory, if you feel a task requires PPE then it also probably needs a SOP/SSOW, if only to remind your workers what PPE is required.

Sorry jdc. Your OP was just a seemingly random blurt of disconnected half-finished sentences, couldn't work out where you were coming from so I started at the beginning. Had you had too much coffee? lol

I didn't mean to teach my grandma to suck eggs. My apologies. So you asked:

"I have ID'd the need for SSoW or SOPs in some tasks, processes on site" followed by "Why need SSoW/SOPs?" If you don't know, how have you identified that some tasks need them?

"What actions will be needed if the requirements are met?" What does that mean?

"Will using hazard identification be a good start?" Yes

"For example; high hazard ratings equates to SSoW?" Not necessarily, it depends if you can reduce the risk using the hierarchy of controls, but an SSoW could be used as a basis for training.

"Using the risk assessments may also help but will this be enough?" No. 

"should I be sitting with Supervisors, Managers etc. to discuss and then get them on board?" Yes, every time.

"For example; will using a Power Press automatically qualify for an SSoW due to the inherent risks?" I would say yes (or the user instructions), even if only to cement the view of maintaining the safety features and not by-passing them. The SSoW would be useful if the task presents particular hazards that the machine in normal use would not. 

"I need to manage this project without ruffling feathers by saying ALL their existing RAs needs reviewing. I know that's what should be done but it is sensitive." A conundrum

"the client is now suggesting I catalogue ALL tasks, activities, processes that require SSoW." That sounds sensible, and surely it solves your conundrum. If the client is telling you to do that, an SSoW is a risk control which needs to be added to the RA's so you have no option but to update them. Why would they be so upset if you suggested adding something to an RA? (It's only a piece of paper.) Ask them would they sign a management policy without reviewing it? You didn't write them, if the SMS is to be robust you should at least point out that they should be updated. As Mark-W says, protect yourself. You may want to tell them that if they ask you to, once you identify the tasks that need SSoW's, there will be a paper trail suggesting SSoW's are needed which you would have no option but to disclose in the event of an accident so they really should be done.

Captain Beaky's point is a valid one: "Remember administative controls come before PPE. So, in theory, if you feel a task requires PPE then it also probably needs a SOP/SSOW, if only to remind your workers what PPE is required." A good point well made.

Then you ask: "By the way, should there not be a procedure for when to introduce SSoW? within their management system?" The risk assessment procedure includes 'how will you control the risks?' If the need for an SSoW is identified, that is the point where it should be actioned and the procedure should then kick in for who, by when and how it is managed, communicated and reviewed.

Good luck with this, protect yourself.

Edited by user 27 April 2019 07:29:05(UTC)  | Reason: it's early!

You are right Andy.

We (well I, though I know it's wrong) when I am talking to staff often refer to the RA like it was a document because I am so used to them using the term in that way. It's often just easier than getting into a side discussion: "Are you using the safe system of work for this?" Do you mean the risk assessment?" "Ok yes" (though I do think of the controls as a safe system of work even if one has not been drawn up as a separate document, for example, if controls are written into policy)

It's this ownership of an actual document that I think causes so much confusion.

"Do you have a safe system of work?"

"Yes, of course we do!"

"I'd like to see it please"

"Oh, err...."

You of course then have the difficult task of proving you have one by demonstrating that everyone knows it and it is routinely adopted. Having an SSoW does not mean having one in a file, but I'm with Helen on this, it's by far easier to have it written down. 

I began using the term 'safe working'  as a descriptive verb to indicate the contents of a SSoW as a way of indicating an agreed process or behaviour, rather than a document, it seems to simplify things a little. ( "Are you using safe working?" "Did you use safe working?" "Can you tell me what the safe working is for this?" )

I think Standard Operating Procedure is such a colloquial term now that many people use it as an expression meaning normal practice, being careful, (commonly- not flouting danger), but I take your point on the quality assurance.

I have seen SSoW used as the title for the controls pages on a risk assessment findings document, I like that.

But just to clarify what others do, do you keep just one written SSoW as Andy says, covering the whole operation, or do you have SSoW documents for individual duties? (One for cleaning staff, one for delivery drivers, one for warehouse staff etc) which seems common practice too?