Method Statements Vs Procedures? (2024)

Posted By Karl 78

Hello,

I'm hoping someone might be able to differentiate between the two above. If a company had a small suite of method statements detailing how Job A is completed from step 1 - step 20, is that sufficient?

There seems to be a suggestion that an accompanying procedures manual is in place in many organisations. I think they are basically talking about the same thing. Very minor issue but needs to be resolved here.

Any thoughts?

Posted By Safety officer
I would say that the procedure is the overall document controlling the management of the topic (e.g. use of company vehicles or working at height).

The method statement is specific to a certain job which may be subject to frequent change or rewriting depending on the area, people machinery etc. I generally see method statements and risk assessments that are job specific with a higher level controlling procedure.

Posted By SteveD-M
Karl
So long as the steps in Job A match the risk assessment then yes they are the same.

Be aware tho' that any changes made during a site specific risk assessment will mean updating the procedure.

Posted By Crim
I think I agree with the above responses?

A method statement (safe system of work) is required by HASWA74 and should be written for a specific task.

Procedure manuals would be written for general guidance and would probable require a method statement for specific tasks.

Risk assessments could be sufficient providing they are correct at time of writing and job specific. A risk assessment can detail the steps required if not too big a task?

Posted By Andy Brazier
I'm not sure I agree with everything that is said above.

I don't think MHSW74 requires method statements, although they could be the way you choose to document a safe system of work and/or communicate information to employees.

I think there is potentially a significant overlap between method statements and procedures.

I would say procedures are typically used for tasks that are expected to be repeated. They can apply to system management tasks (e.g. how to perform a risk assessment) through to the shop floor (how to start a pump). I would be wary of saying a procedure is a guide as if the task is safety critical you don't want to leave the method used open to the individual.

Method statements tend to be used for one-off type tasks. However, you quickly realise that the same task is often performed many times, but maybe in a different location. So you may have a set of 'generic method statements' that you can pull out each time the task is performed. However, you need to make sure they are reviewed before each use in case the exact circ*mstances on the day are different to those covered.

I would not say a risk assessment can be used instead of a procedure or method statement. That is simply not the purpose of the assessment.

Having said all that, I do think people use some of this terminology interchangeable, and the details of what they do differs greatly.

Posted By Karl 78

Thanks for your input, there are some well considered thoughts there and I appreciate it. I probably should have provided more detail as I am giving you very little to consider. On one contract there are civils crews who carry out roadworks and ductlaying daily. My thoughts were to have a method statement for excavation, duct laying and reinstatment - Hazards and CMs included.

All crews carry out a daily site specific risk assessment.

My debate is what needs to be in place to ensure the crew have access to step by step guides and exactly how much depth they require?
e.g. 'Operate excavator as per training'.

Thanks

Posted By Andy Brazier
Question seems to be a bit different!

You are quite right to question when you need to provide procedures and what depth they need to go to. I believe there is a range of option between providing full step-by-step at one end of the spectrum through to providing nothing and relying on on-the-job training and competency management.

The actual requirement depends on how complex the task is, how frequently someone performs the task and the consequences of getting it wrong. However, it is not a simple formula. If someone does a job frequently they will not read a procedure, no matter how complex it is or the consequence of getting it wrong. In some circ*mstances it may look like they are reading the procedure (because they have been made to) but they will not be actively reading as they will already know what it says. Also, it is no good saying people must read a procedure because the potential consequences of getting wrong are dire if the people themselves perceive the risk to be much lower.

The main question to ask yourself is, when and why do you want people to read a procedure? If it is primarily for training that means its format is different than if it is to be used by competent people. On the other hand if you do want it used on the job by competent people you want to minimise detail (so that people do not think it is beneath them) and it needs to be a format that is easy for them to use (no good being lots of pages of text for most real workplace situations).

You may find the following useful from HSE http://www.hse.gov.uk/hu...ctors/comah/procinfo.pdf

Posted By Karl 78

Thanks Guys

Andy - much appreciated.

Posted By Raymond Rapp
Mogcat

Most method statements also combine a risk matrix in the document. There is no legal requirement to do and a qualitative risk assessment is just as good, arguably better, than a quantitative one.

Personally, I think a risk assessment matrix in a method statement is a waste of time, very few are properly conducted, even less look at them and less still understand them.

There are many forms of risk assessment but I do not care for most. Simply because I believe that they are just another form of 'paper safety'. For example, the so-called dynamic risk assessment is often used by operatives for assessing a routine type job. Many do not even complete the form until the job is done!

Similarly I do not care much for generic method statements. Okay they have their uses, but in the main they are not worth the paper they are written on.

Ray

Posted By Safety officer
Well its basically step by step instructions on the task (MS) along with a careful examination of the hazards and controls of each step (RA).

So I was thinking a combination of the MS & RA already exists in a JSA. I'm not sure if its predominantly an oil industry tool but that's where I first heard of it and used it.

Posted By justgossip
Procedure vs method, the difference here,

TO excavate safely.

the Procedure informs

Senior management,
management
supervisor
foreman

of the actions they should complete for a safe excavation.

method statement

tells my operative how they should do the task safely

garry

Posted By Andy Brazier
Garry
Can you clarify. Is the method statement given to your operative specific to the excavation on the day or is it generic? To me the main distinction is that a procedure is for a repeated task and method statement is one off.

With regard to including risk assessments. My concern is that people seem to be saying a risk assessment is something tangible that can be tagged on to a procedure or method statement. Let's be clear - a risk matrix is NOT a risk assessment. I think recording the findings from a risk assessment (e.g. significant hazards and precautions/controls) can be useful. However, the procedure or risk assessment should have been developed as a result of a risk assessment showing that one was required.