A risk assessment and method statement are supplied together so often that the pair has its own acronym, and the reason is simple: neither one is sufficient evidence on its own. The assessment shows you understood the risk; the statement shows what you are going to do about it in practice. When they are written by the same person at the same time they reinforce each other. When they are assembled separately, the mismatches between them are the first thing an experienced reviewer looks for.
What each half contributes
The assessment contributes judgement: these are the hazards in this work, these are the people who could be harmed and how, this is what is already controlling it, this is what still has to be done and by whom. The statement contributes plan: this is the order of work, these are the people and the plant, and this must be true before that can start. A reviewer reads the first for whether you understood the job and the second for whether you can do it here.
The mismatches that get a pack sent back
A control named in the assessment that appears nowhere in the sequence. A stage in the sequence that introduces a hazard the assessment never mentions. Personnel in the statement whose competence the assessment assumed but did not evidence. Residual risks rated low in the assessment while the method describes work that plainly carries them. Each of those is a sign the two halves were written apart, and each is easy for a reader to spot and awkward to explain.
Write the sequence first, then assess against it
Most firms write the assessment first because it feels like the compliant order, and then the method statement drifts. The more productive order is to write the sequence of work first, because that is the thing you actually know, and then walk it stage by stage identifying what could go wrong at each. The assessment that comes out of that walk is specific by construction and the two documents cannot contradict each other, because one was derived from the other.
They change together, or they stop agreeing
When the job changes, both halves change. In practice one gets updated and the other does not, usually the assessment, because the sequence change is the visible one. Holding them as one pack against the job, with a version and a date, is what keeps them in step, and it is what lets you answer the question about which version was live when something happened.
Questions people ask about risk assessment and method statement
Should the risk assessment and method statement be one document or two?
Either, as long as they are issued together and stay in step. Many firms produce them as one pack with two clearly separated sections, which makes it obvious when a control in the assessment has no matching step in the method.
Which comes first?
In compliance order the assessment; in practical order the sequence. Write down how the job will actually be done, then walk the sequence identifying hazards at each stage. The assessment that results is specific to the job rather than to the trade, which is the whole quality difference.
How often does the pair need updating?
Whenever the work, the site, the plant or the people change materially, and on a review cycle for work that repeats. The trigger is the change rather than the anniversary, which is why the worksheet on this site treats out-of-cycle revisions as a separate cost from scheduled reviews.