This question is meant to open a discussion about the problems that a Method Statement can cause to a project. It should be a useful tool, but it often causes big problems.
In your opinion, what are the biggest problems related to this document? Does it happen in one of these three cases:
1. When a company considers the Method Statement as pure bureaucracy: The only goal is to finish it as fast as possible, any way they can, just so the works can start. This brings a low-quality, incomplete, and flawed document.
2. When there is a deviation from the approved document: When the actual works being executed on site are not in accordance with the approved Method Statement—whether intentionally or due to poor communication.
3. When Supervision misuses its right of refusal: When the Supervisor or Engineer bases their rejection on subjective opinions, nitpicking over minor details, or failing to provide clear guidance on what needs to be improved. This creates endless revisions and delays the project.
What do you think about this?
Could you share some interesting examples from your practice? I would love to hear your experiences and lessons learned, as they will be highly valuable for turning good practices into solid rules and procedures for the future.
I believe all three situations can negatively affect a project, but the most serious issue is when the actual work on-site deviates from the approved method statement. A poorly prepared Method Statement is already a problem, but failing to follow an approved one creates even greater risks, including safety incidents, poor workmanship, rework, increased costs, and project delays. For example, during concrete work, a Method Statement may specify the required surface preparation, inspection procedures, and curing process. If workers skip these steps to save time, the work may initially appear satisfactory but develop defects later, resulting in expensive repairs. I also believe supervision plays an important role. Engineers and supervisors should provide clear, technically justified feedback rather than reject documents based on personal preferences or minor issues that do not affect safety or quality. My biggest takeaway is that a Method Statement should be treated as a practical working document, not just paperwork required for approval. Proper communication, worker training, regular site inspections, and clear accountability can help ensure that what is approved on paper is actually implemented on-site. Ultimately, the goal should not simply be to get the Method Statement approved, but to ensure the work is executed safely, efficiently, and according to the required standards.
...
1 reply by Aleksandar Loncar
Oct 27, 2026 1:48 AM
Aleksandar Loncar
...
Victor,
Thank you for this excellent response. I completely agree with your assessment that Scenario 2 is the most critical and dangerous risk for any project. You have mapped out a comprehensive framework for making sure the approved document is actually implemented on-site (communication, training, inspections, and clear accountability). I would love to expand slightly on your point about clear accountability. In your practical experience, what does "clear accountability" look like on the ground? Can you describe "clear accountability" in few sentences?Who holds the ultimate responsibility when a deviation happens—the site engineer, the foreman, or the project manager? Thank you again for sharing your experience.
I believe all three situations can negatively affect a project, but the most serious issue is when the actual work on-site deviates from the approved method statement. A poorly prepared Method Statement is already a problem, but failing to follow an approved one creates even greater risks, including safety incidents, poor workmanship, rework, increased costs, and project delays. For example, during concrete work, a Method Statement may specify the required surface preparation, inspection procedures, and curing process. If workers skip these steps to save time, the work may initially appear satisfactory but develop defects later, resulting in expensive repairs. I also believe supervision plays an important role. Engineers and supervisors should provide clear, technically justified feedback rather than reject documents based on personal preferences or minor issues that do not affect safety or quality. My biggest takeaway is that a Method Statement should be treated as a practical working document, not just paperwork required for approval. Proper communication, worker training, regular site inspections, and clear accountability can help ensure that what is approved on paper is actually implemented on-site. Ultimately, the goal should not simply be to get the Method Statement approved, but to ensure the work is executed safely, efficiently, and according to the required standards.
Victor,
Thank you for this excellent response. I completely agree with your assessment that Scenario 2 is the most critical and dangerous risk for any project. You have mapped out a comprehensive framework for making sure the approved document is actually implemented on-site (communication, training, inspections, and clear accountability). I would love to expand slightly on your point about clear accountability. In your practical experience, what does "clear accountability" look like on the ground? Can you describe "clear accountability" in few sentences?Who holds the ultimate responsibility when a deviation happens—the site engineer, the foreman, or the project manager? Thank you again for sharing your experience.
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
Aleksandar, the second scenario concerns me most. When the work being performed no longer matches the approved Method Statement, the team may be operating under assumptions that are no longer valid. Even a reasonable adjustment on site can create safety, quality, or contractual issues if it isn't communicated and reviewed. How often do these deviations happen simply because the document isn't revisited once work begins? Saving Changes...
PMI Team Member
Community Champion
