Method statements
Method statement help for construction teams
A method statement earns its keep by describing the sequence of work accurately enough that somebody who was not in the planning meeting can follow it safely. Your team writes that sequence. Aldbry's system checks it against your template, the risk assessment and the actual task, flags assumptions and gaps, and leaves the judgement about whether the method suits the site with your competent person.
Where they go wrong
The failures are nearly always in the sequence
A method statement can be well written and still be wrong, because the problem is rarely the prose.
01
Steps that assume a condition
The method works if the ground is dry, the road is closed or the crane is already on site. The assumption is never written down, so nobody checks it.
02
Interfaces left out
Who else is working nearby, and whether both methods can be true at the same time. This is the gap that a single-document read never closes.
03
Controls that drift from the assessment
The exclusion zone, the load, the depth. Where the same figure appears in two documents it must be the same figure.
04
Written for the reviewer, not the gang
A document that passes review and cannot be briefed on site has solved the wrong problem.
What the support covers
Checked, cross-referenced and briefed
- The sequence, step by stepChecked against the task and your template, with any unstated assumption flagged for your team to confirm or correct.
- Controls matched to the assessmentFigures cross-checked against the risk assessment so the two documents agree before anyone submits them.
- Interfaces namedAdjacent works, permits and temporary works that the method depends on, listed so the coordination conversation actually happens.
- A version people can be briefed fromPlain enough to read at a toolbox talk, which is the only test that matters on the day.
Being straight about it
How this differs from our RAMS pages
A RAMS pack is the risk assessment and the method statement together, usually with supporting records. Our RAMS assurance service checks your own submission before it goes, and the RAMS review service checks packs that arrive from subcontractors. This page is narrower: the method statement itself, where the sequence and the interfaces are the thing that has to be right.
It is worth separating because the two documents fail differently. A risk assessment fails by omission, missing a hazard. A method statement fails by assumption, describing a sequence that only works in conditions nobody confirmed. Our article on using AI to review and check RAMS and method statements works through a safe workflow for both.
What never changes is who writes and who decides. AI checks and flags. Whether a proposed method suits the actual site, on the day, with the people available, is a judgement about conditions and it stays with a competent person.
Common questions
Questions about method statement help
Can AI write RAMS?
No. We do not use AI to write RAMS. Generating safety-critical documents with AI that has no knowledge of the site is dangerous. What we do is the opposite: our system reviews and cross-checks the RAMS your team produces, flags conflicts and gaps, and a competent person makes the final decision and signs off. The judgment stays human.
Is it safe to use AI on RAMS and safety documents?
Yes, provided AI checks and flags while competent people write, review and sign off. AI is good at finding missing sections, inconsistent figures, expired certificates and requirements that have not been addressed, and it does not get tired at the end of a long pack. It is not a competent person and should never be treated as one. Aldbry designs every workflow so that a named person approves the output, and Corvleo presents findings for review rather than issuing decisions. Accountability under CDM 2015, LOLER 1998, COSHH 2002 and your other duties stays exactly where it sits today.
What should a method statement actually contain?
A sequence somebody can follow, the controls that make each step safe, and the conditions the method depends on. In practice that means the order of operations, the plant and people needed at each stage, access and egress, the controls carried across from the risk assessment with the same figures, the interfaces with other work happening nearby, and the arrangements if something stops. The most common omission is the assumption: the method that works only if the ground is dry or the road is closed, with that condition never written down. Stating assumptions explicitly is what lets a reviewer test them.
Can you help brief the method statement to the gang?
Yes, by checking the briefing rather than writing it. A method statement written to pass review is often too dense to deliver at a toolbox talk, so supervisors usually brief from a short, plain restatement of the sequence and the controls. We check that restatement against the controlled document, so no step or control is lost between the two. What we do not do is stand in front of the gang, because the person briefing the work needs to be the person accountable for it.
Read next
Go deeper
Next step
Send one method statement and see what the cross-check finds.
The free RAMS pack check reviews one pack and sends the findings back, with the documents quoted.