I have been looking to see  how much debate there is for the use of RAMS within the H & S fraternity.  The company that I advise are  often asked for these. It might be the fact that they may fall just under general risk assessments discussions, but it would be interesting to see the bigger picture to they're use.

Personally I find RAMS to be a unique aspect related to construction activities.

They are unfortunately some form of panacea for the site "administrator"

- refuse to submit = access denied

- submit a titled document = access (most of the time)

- very rarely someone who knows what they are doing picks up the phone and discusses the actual written content with respect to the unique work site and the proposed activity.

They seem to be a must for receipt and filing "in case of" rather than the opportunity for exchange and discorse along with the copies of ISO certificates, insurances, SSIP accreditations, CSCS cards, SSTS/SSMTS.... and latterly Covid assessment (excuse me - it is your site so shouldn't these be your rules?)

Trouble is construction has long been a herd activity of superstition - do I truly need the boots, the Hi-Vis, the hard hat, the goggles, the gloves? Of  course not but it is easier to stick a sign at the site gate and demand compliance than actually try and run a safe site.

as above, mainly construction.  They are becoming more about box ticking to get on site than saving lives.  I've had some bounce today because they want dont want smoke headers isolating whilst we carry out spray works.  So I've emailed the client and said that I'm not removing the request and either they are isolated as per our request or there will be an unscheduled fire drill when we start spraying.... lets see what they come back with.

As a facilities manager I will often request RAMS where non-routine work is being done in our building such as machinery installation, building maintenance etc. This is usually to extract useful information to help me manage the work i.e. which areas need to be shut down and for how long, what do I need to communicate to our staff etc. etc. Very rarely do I get a useful document back. Usually it is some generic document issued for every job containing things like information on their staff training or records of examination for their lifting equipment.

Most useful information is gained by picking up the phone and talking to the contractor and discussing how they will do the job, however rarely do you speak to the person who will actually rock up on the day who often has their own ideas so having an agreed plan in writing is still useful.

When I worked in construction/engineering (food factories) no/poor RAMS meant no permit to work. The test was to walk the job location and ask them to describe how they’re going to do it. They should be able to say in plain English what’s written down.

Good companies learn to knock them out quickly and train/empower their supervisors to do them.

I also recall the ones I rejected most often were produced using online systems. Be careful of those because some site safety managers (ie: me when I did it) see them as a possible indicator nobody properly trained in H&S is involved.

Good site managers (I like to think I was one)  also work with their contractors to improve the process.

At the big sites no RAMS still=no job.

Work in a CHP, every job* whether done by the site engineering team or external contract requires RAMS.

Quality is a bit hit and miss, the method statements are normally fine, the risk assessments often vague and generic. The site SAPs do feel empowered enough to kick them back if unhappy though.

*There's a handfull of incredibly routine jobs, such as filter changes where no RAMS are required but there is an official and verified procedure for all of those jobs.

Persnally I don't feel that rams are a good way forward when planning and carsying out a task.  They in my view should be two different documents. A risk assessment is a document where the risk associated with a task or process is documented and the risk assessed. This is then reviewed and signed off. There is a legal requirement to carry out a risk assessment in some form. 

A method statement is a detailed description of how a task is to be carried out and what equipment is to be used.  Once produced (normally by the organisation carrying out the task in conjunction with the organisation who has asked for the work to be carried out) it is reviewed and signed off.  Should an alteration be made for example to the way the work is to be carried out work has to stop and the agreed changes made. The risk assessment should also be reviewed, modified and signed off.  These are then signed off by all parties and the changes communicated to all concerned.  

It is much easier to have two documents than one where the need to assess risk and the method of work can easily be confused.

Just my view. 

Merry Christmas one and all>