A method statement is a sequence, not a description
This is the thing most templates get wrong. They give you a box headed "methodology" and leave you to write a paragraph, and what comes back is a description of the finished job rather than an account of how it gets done.
A reviewer is looking for something specific: the order of operations, and who does each part. Set out, lift, fix, check, hand over. One step per line, in the order they happen, with a person or a trade named against every one.
How this tool works
The sequence is the document, so it is the biggest thing on the page. You write the steps in any order and sort them afterwards with the arrows, because that is how a job is actually planned: everything goes down first, then it gets put in order.
Each step carries who is responsible and, optionally, how long it takes. Duration is worth filling in on anything with a road closure, a possession or a crane hire, where the sequence has to fit a window.
Everything is worked out on this page and the PDF is generated in your browser. Nothing is uploaded and there is no account.
It will not let you leave a step without an owner
The most common reason a method statement comes back. "Erect the scaffold" is a wish until somebody is named against it, and it tells a reviewer nothing about who is competent to do the work or who is accountable if it goes wrong.
Any step with nobody against it is flagged while you are still writing, and the document will not finish until they all have one.
And it insists on a risk assessment reference
The two documents are a pair, and the reference goes on the front of this one rather than buried at the back, because whether the pair exists is the first thing anybody checks.
If you have not written the risk assessment yet, do that first: you cannot sensibly say a sequence is safe before you have worked out what could go wrong in it. There is a separate tool for it, or the RAMS builder produces both in one document.
What a good one contains beyond the sequence
Plant and equipment, so nobody turns up expecting a telehandler that was never booked. Competence, meaning the cards, tickets and appointments the work needs: CSCS, CPCS, IPAF, PASMA, appointed person, coded welder. A reviewer checks this against the sequence, so anything named in a step should appear here.
Emergency arrangements, including who is supervising and how to reach them, first aid provision, and the rescue plan if anybody is working at height or in a confined space. Welfare and environmental controls, which on a live site is usually dust, noise and working hours.
Where this stops
It structures your method properly and it will not let the obvious gaps through. It does not know your site, your programme or your people, and it cannot tell you whether the sequence you have written is a safe one. The person who signs it carries that, which is stated on the document itself rather than only here.
Work stops and the method gets reviewed if conditions, the sequence, the plant or the people differ from what is written. That is printed on the document too.
Your method is how you win work
A method statement is the sequence you actually use to do the job, and it usually goes to a main contractor who is pricing the same work. That is a more commercially sensitive document than most people treat it as, and it is a reason to care where it was assembled.
Everything here is typed and turned into a PDF on your own machine, and that is a claim you can check rather than take on trust: open your browser network tab and watch nothing leave while you build the document.
Common questions
How do I write a method statement?
Say what the work is, then write the sequence in the order it happens, one step per line, with somebody named against each one. Add the plant, the competence required, the PPE and the emergency arrangements, and reference the risk assessment it goes with. This builds it into a finished PDF.
What is the difference between a method statement and a risk assessment?
A method statement says how the job is done, in order. A risk assessment says what could hurt somebody while it is being done, and what is in place to stop it. They are a pair, and a RAMS is simply both in one document.
Why does every step need somebody named against it?
Because a sequence with no owner is a wish rather than a method. "Erect the scaffold" tells a reviewer nothing about who is competent to do it or who is accountable if it is done wrong. That is the reason most method statements get sent back.
Do I need a separate one for every job?
Effectively yes. A method statement covering everything a company does covers nothing, and a principal contractor will reject it. It should describe one activity on one site, which is why this tool asks for the activity first.
Is a method statement a legal requirement?
No. Nothing in British health and safety law says produce a method statement, and that is the most useful thing to know about the document. What the law requires is that risks are assessed and the significant findings recorded, which is the risk assessment. The method statement exists because principal contractors ask for one before letting you on site, which makes it contractually compulsory and legally optional at the same time. Australia is the opposite case: a SWMS is named in the regulations and genuinely required for high risk construction work.
How long should one be?
As long as the sequence takes to describe and no longer. A reviewer is looking for the order of work, who does each part, what plant is involved and what happens when it goes wrong. Padding it with generic paragraphs about the importance of safety is the fastest way to be marked as generic, which is the single biggest reason accreditation assessors reject submitted RAMS. If a step needs one line, give it one line.
Can I reuse one for a similar job?
As a starting point yes, and as a finished document no. The sequence usually survives from job to job; the site does not. Access, exclusion zones, who is working above and below you, the isolation points and the emergency arrangements all change with the address. Reusing the whole thing unedited is exactly what a reviewer is scanning for, because a document naming the wrong site tells them nobody read it before it was sent.
Is the method statement uploaded?
No. Everything is typed and turned into a PDF on this page using your own machine, which matters when the document carries your client, your site address and the names of your operatives.