TECHNOLOGY
BEYOND PAPER: WHAT REALLY CHANGES WHEN RAMS GO DIGITAL?
As organisations move away from paper-based RAMS, Rob Bullen CFIOSH, Senior EHS Specialist at HSI, explores how digital systems can improve efficiency, strengthen compliance and give businesses greater visibility over risk.
Walk into many organisations and you will still find risk assessments and method statements (RAMS) produced the way they always have been: in Word or Excel templates, saved as PDFs. It is familiar, and for individual risk assessors, it feels safe.
THE REAL COST OF PAPER
The costs of paper-based RAMS rarely appear on a balance sheet, but they are real and can be named: time, reputation, quality, compliance, and environment.
The time cost is the one many teams underestimate. Paper and PDF documents get lost, and when they do, the work begins again from scratch. That cost never falls on one person. It lands on the risk assessor who wrote the RAMS, on everyone who reviewed and approved it, and on every stakeholder who must be brought back up to speed. The hours compound across the whole organisation.
There is a reputational cost too. Going back to a client to admit the original cannot be found, and must be rebuilt, is not a conversation anyone wants to have. Do it often enough and it chips away at the client’s confidence and impacts future work.
“DIGITISING RAMS CAN HALVE THE TIME IT TAKES TO PRODUCE A COMPLIANT ASSESSMENT WHILE SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCING CUSTOMER REJECTIONS.”
The compliance cost has a hard legal floor. Any UK business with five or more employees must record its risk assessments, which creates two things to prove: that the assessment existed and that its findings were communicated to and understood by the workforce. Paper makes both harder to evidence, so inspectors, external auditors and insurers will often dig deeper and find gaps.
Finally, the environmental cost. Even where paper is recycled, there is still a carbon and resource footprint. There is an easily missed running cost alongside it: RAMS
The quality cost shows up as rework. RAMS that are inconsistent or don’t match site and job requirements get rejected by the client and sent back for revision, which costs more time, money and effort, and shapes how EHS management is seen.
26
WWW.TOMORROWSHS.COM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44
