Method statements are getting shorter and sharper — and reviewers prefer it

The problem with the library document

Most rejected MSRAs share a signature: generic hazards, controls that name equipment the site does not have, and a residual score that drops to 'low' with no explanation. Consultants have become quick at spotting it, and a rejection cycle costs more programme time than writing the document properly.

A structure that survives review

Keep the document to what a supervisor and a reviewer both need:

• Scope and location — the specific activity, area and duration.
• Sequence of work in numbered steps, in the order the crew will do them.
• Hazard, initial 5x5 score, controls, residual score — with the controls doing visible work between the two scores.
• Roles: who supervises, who is competent to do what, who stops the job.
• Emergency arrangements and the permits the activity depends on.

Keep the three documents aligned

The most common site-level inconsistency is an MSRA describing one method, a permit authorising another, and a checklist inspecting a third. Before issue, read all three together — it takes ten minutes and prevents the finding.

Put it to use