The question every tradesperson asks — and why it matters
Every tradesperson who has submitted RAMS to a principal contractor has been asked for "the RAMS" — sometimes meaning the risk assessment, sometimes meaning the method statement, and sometimes meaning both together. The confusion is understandable. RAMS is an acronym that stands for Risk Assessment and Method Statement. It's a combined term for two separate documents that are almost always submitted together. RAMS is not a single document — it's two documents.
Here's the thing: RAMS vs method statement are fundamentally different documents that answer different questions. A risk assessment asks: what could go wrong, who could be harmed, and what are we doing about it? A method statement asks: how exactly are we going to do this work, step by step, from start to finish? Confusing these two documents — or producing one that tries to do both jobs — is a common reason RAMS get sent back for revision.
In practice, the two documents are almost always submitted as a combined package, often bound together under a single document number with shared header and version control. But they are not the same document, they don't serve the same purpose, and principal contractors review them differently — looking for different things in each.
What a risk assessment actually does
A risk assessment is an analytical document. Its job is to identify what can go wrong, who can be harmed, and what controls are needed to prevent harm. It answers the question: "What are the risks of this work, and how are we managing them?" The risk assessment is where you demonstrate that you've thought carefully about the specific hazards of this job, assessed their likelihood and severity, and applied controls in the correct order to reduce the risk to an acceptable level.
The structure of a risk assessment follows the HSE's five-step framework: identify the hazards; decide who might be harmed and how; evaluate the risks and decide on precautions; record findings; and review and update. For each hazard identified, the risk assessment must show: the hazard — described specifically, not generically; who is at risk — including operative, other trades, public, clients; the initial risk rating — Likelihood (1-5) multiplied by Severity (1-5); the controls applied — following the hierarchy of risk controls; and the residual risk rating — after controls have been applied.
The critical feature of a risk assessment is the risk rating. This is where it differs most clearly from a method statement. A risk assessment is not just a list of hazards and controls — it is an analytical tool that assesses the magnitude of each risk using a consistent scale and demonstrates that the controls in place reduce the risk to an acceptable level. The 5×5 risk matrix — Likelihood (1-5) multiplied by Severity (1-5) — is the standard tool used on UK construction sites. A risk rating above 12 is generally High and requires immediate action. Between 6 and 12 is Medium and requires controls. Below 6 is Low and may be acceptable. Without these numbers, a risk assessment is an opinion. With them, it is evidence.
The risk assessment must demonstrate that the hierarchy of risk controls has been applied for each hazard. The hierarchy — eliminate, reduce, isolate, control, PPE — must be worked through in order. If PPE is the only control for a significant hazard, the hierarchy has not been properly applied. The principal contractor will identify this immediately.
A risk assessment is required by law under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 for every work activity that involves a risk to health and safety. For construction work, CDM 2015 adds additional requirements — specifically, that the risk assessment must be site-specific, must be prepared by a competent person, and must be reviewed and updated when circumstances change.
What a risk assessment does not do
A risk assessment does not describe how the work will be carried out. It does not say "first we do X, then we do Y, then we do Z." It does not give step-by-step instructions for completing the work. That is the method statement's job. A common mistake is to write a risk assessment that tries to do both jobs — resulting in a document that is neither a good risk assessment nor a usable method statement.
What a method statement actually does
A method statement is a planning and communication document. Its job is to describe, step by step, how the work will be carried out safely. It answers the question: "What exactly are we going to do, and in what order?" The method statement is written for the operative on site — it must be specific enough that an experienced tradesperson can read it and know exactly what to do at each step without additional instruction. Vague method steps — "install the unit," "make safe," "carry out the work" — are not method statements. They are headings.
The structure of a method statement is fundamentally different from a risk assessment. Where a risk assessment is organised by hazard — each hazard gets its own entry, with Likelihood, Severity, Controls — a method statement is organised by work sequence. It describes the work in the order it will happen, and for each step, it describes what is done, how it is done, what equipment is used, what hazards arise at that step, and what controls apply. The method statement assumes the risk assessment has been done — and translates the controls from the risk assessment into practical, step-by-step instructions.
A method statement must include: the scope and boundaries of the work — what is included and excluded, so there is no ambiguity about where your responsibility ends; the sequence of work — numbered steps from arrival on site to demobilisation, including the access route to the work area and the demobilisation procedure; the plant, tools, and equipment required — named specifically, not generically; the materials to be used — including any hazardous substances requiring COSHH assessment; the personnel and competence requirements — CSCS cards, trade qualifications, specialist tickets for specific equipment; the emergency procedures specific to this job — not a generic statement; the environmental controls — dust suppression, noise control, waste management; the quality checks and hold points — what will be inspected, by whom, and the evidence produced; and the approval and version control — author, reviewer, date, version number.
The sequence of work section is the most important part of a method statement. It must be a genuine step-by-step sequence — each step numbered and described in enough detail to be verifiable. Generic steps like "set up access equipment," "carry out works," and "make good" are not adequate. The principal contractor reading the method statement wants to know what access equipment, what works, and what making good means for this specific job.
What a method statement does not do
A method statement does not analyse risk. It does not assess likelihood or severity. It does not apply the hierarchy of risk controls. It assumes that the risk assessment has been done, and it translates the controls identified in the risk assessment into practical steps on site. If a hazard is identified in the risk assessment but the method statement does not describe how the control will be implemented in practice, there is a gap — and principal contractors will find it. The method statement is where the word "PPE" in the risk assessment becomes "full face visor, EN 166 rated, to be worn during all drilling operations."
Why RAMS vs method statement are always submitted together
The term RAMS — Risk Assessment and Method Statement — exists because the two documents are interdependent. A risk assessment without a method statement is a list of hazards and controls in the abstract. A method statement without a risk assessment is a sequence of steps with no justification for the controls embedded in it. Together, they form a complete picture of the work: what can go wrong, how the risks are managed, and how the work will actually be done.
When a principal contractor asks for RAMS, they are asking for both documents — or a combined document that serves both purposes. The combined format is common and practical: a single document with a risk assessment section and a method statement section, sharing the same header, document number, and version control. RAMS Builder generates RAMS in this combined format.
The risk assessment and method statement are prepared separately but cross-refer to each other. The risk assessment identifies the hazards and the controls. The method statement describes the work in which those controls are implemented. The cross-reference must be explicit: the risk assessment should reference the method statement for the sequence of work; the method statement should reference the risk assessment for the hazard controls. This cross-referencing demonstrates that both documents have been prepared together and that the controls in the risk assessment are actually implemented through the method of work.
When you need a risk assessment, a method statement, or both
The clearest legal requirement is to have a risk assessment. The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 require risk assessment for work activities involving risk, and significant findings must be recorded. There is no general legal rule that always requires a separate method statement, but CDM 2015 arrangements, permits, and principal contractor review processes commonly mean one is expected.
For routine, low-risk work — a straightforward like-for-like repair, work that doesn't involve significant hazards, work that doesn't require coordination with other trades — a risk assessment alone may be sufficient. An example would be replacing a single socket on an isolated circuit in a vacant property — the hazards are limited, the work is simple, and the controls are straightforward. A principal contractor reviewing this RAMS might accept just the risk assessment with a brief note of the method.
For most construction work, both documents are required. The risk assessment identifies the hazards and the controls. The method statement demonstrates that the work has been planned in detail. Any work involving multiple hazards, significant plant or equipment, access equipment, hazardous substances, or more than one worker should have both documents. Principal contractors will almost always require both documents for any work they are engaging a sub-contractor to carry out.
CDM 2015 notifiable projects
On CDM 2015 notifiable projects — projects lasting longer than 30 working days with more than 20 workers simultaneously, or more than 500 person-days — the principal contractor is required to ensure that contractors submit RAMS before work begins. Both documents are required as a minimum. Regulation 15 of CDM 2015 requires that all contractors plan, manage, and monitor their own work. This includes carrying out risk assessments before work begins and preparing method statements for work that involves more than straightforward hazards. The principal contractor will review the RAMS and will not allow work to commence until they are satisfied.
Common RAMS mistakes that get documents sent back
The most common mistake is treating the risk assessment and method statement as two separate documents that happen to be submitted together. When they are written independently — without checking for consistency — the gaps and contradictions that result are exactly what principal contractors are looking to find. A RAMS that looks like two documents written by two different people at two different times, with no cross-referencing, tells the principal contractor that there was no coherent planning process — only a document assembly exercise.
Mistake 1: Task descriptions that are too vague to be useful
"Electrical installation" is not a task description. "First-fix electrical installation in a new-build three-bedroom semi-detached house at 45 Oak Road, Bristol, including cable routing via JoistDrill notching to first-floor ring final circuits and lighting circuits" is a task description. The specific task description is what the principal contractor is looking for.
Mistake 2: Mixing up the purpose of the two documents
Listing hazards as steps in the method statement, or including step-by-step sequences in the risk assessment, signals that the person writing the RAMS does not understand the difference. Principal contractors interpret this as a sign that the planning may not be adequate. A method statement that lists hazards alongside each step — without the separate analytical framework of Likelihood × Severity — is not a risk assessment. It does not give the principal contractor the evidence of risk analysis that they are looking for.
Mistake 3: Not demonstrating the hierarchy of controls
A risk assessment that leads with PPE — "wear gloves, wear eye protection" — without first considering elimination, substitution, and isolation has not properly applied the hierarchy. The principal contractor knows this, and the RAMS will be returned for revision. The hierarchy — eliminate, reduce, isolate, control, PPE — must be worked through in order for each significant hazard.
Mistake 4: Emergency procedures that are too generic
"Follow site emergency procedures" is not an emergency procedure. It is a reference to a document that may not be attached, may not be specific to this work, and may not even exist. The emergency section of the RAMS must describe what to do in specific scenarios that could arise from the specific work being planned.
Mistake 5: Listing hazards that aren't actually relevant to this work
A risk assessment that lists "asbestos exposure" for a job in a new-build property, or "working in confined spaces" for straightforward first-fix electrical work, tells the principal contractor that the risk assessment was copied from a generic template rather than written for this specific job. For each hazard in the risk assessment, be able to explain why it is relevant to this specific work. If you can't, remove it.
How to write RAMS that demonstrates genuine planning
The key to writing RAMS that demonstrates genuine planning — rather than paperwork compliance — is to start with the risk assessment, then write the method statement with the risk assessment open beside you.
Write the risk assessment first. Identify hazards by walking through the actual work sequence. For each hazard, assess the initial risk rating, identify controls at each level of the hierarchy, and calculate the residual risk rating using the 5×5 matrix.
Write the method statement second. Using the risk assessment as your source, describe the work sequence step by step. At each step, reference the hazard from the risk assessment and describe how the control will be implemented in practice.
Cross-check for consistency. Read the risk assessment hazards against the method statement steps. Every significant hazard in the risk assessment should have a corresponding control in the method statement. Read the method statement steps against the risk assessment hazards. Every method step that introduces a hazard should have a corresponding hazard entry in the risk assessment.
Verify the risk ratings. The residual risk ratings in the risk assessment should match the controls described in the method statement. If the residual risk is Low, the controls in the method statement should be sufficient to achieve that rating.
This connection is what makes RAMS credible. A RAMS that was clearly assembled from a template — with hazards listed that don't appear in the method statement, and method steps that introduce hazards not covered in the risk assessment — looks like paperwork, not planning. A principal contractor can tell the difference.
The Risk Assessment Matrix — How to Calculate Risk Ratings Correctly
The risk assessment matrix is the tool used to calculate risk ratings and to make consistent decisions about which risks require additional controls. The standard construction industry approach uses a 5×5 matrix — Likelihood rated from 1 (very unlikely) to 5 (very likely), and Severity rated from 1 (minor injury) to 5 (fatality). Multiplying Likelihood by Severity gives a Risk Rating. Risk ratings are typically banded into Low (1-8), Medium (9-15), and High (16-25) categories, with different categories requiring different levels of control.
The initial risk rating shows the risk before any controls are applied. The residual risk rating shows the risk after all controls are in place. If the residual risk is still too high, more controls are needed before work can commence. The risk assessment must show both ratings — initial and residual — for every significant hazard. Without these numbers, a risk assessment is an opinion. With them, it is evidence.
What principal contractors actually check when reviewing RAMS
Principal contractors reviewing RAMS are specifically looking for: site-specific task descriptions — not generic categories; evidence of the hierarchy of controls applied for each significant hazard; initial and residual risk ratings shown as Likelihood × Severity equations; competence evidence — named preparer with qualifications; correct EN standard references for all PPE; site-specific emergency procedures; and cross-references between the risk assessment and method statement.
A RAMS document that addresses all of these points — in a site-specific way, for a specific task, prepared by a named competent person — is more likely to move through review smoothly. A RAMS document that is generic, template-driven, or incomplete on any of these points is much more likely to be returned. The difference is not the volume of paperwork — it is the quality of the thinking behind it.
Draft RAMS that reflect both documents more clearly
RAMS Builder helps you draft both the risk assessment and the method statement from a single job description. Each document is structured to address the issues principal contractors commonly review: site-specific task descriptions, hierarchy-based controls, full risk rating equations, competence evidence, site-specific emergency procedures, and cross-references between the two documents. Describe your job in plain English, then review and tailor the output before submission.