Construction compliance guide
Generating the RAMS is not the end of the compliance process
A fast first draft is genuinely useful. But the review, issue, sign-off, revision and audit stages that follow are where site compliance is actually won or lost — and where most RAMS tools stop helping.
TL;DR
Generating the RAMS is step one, not the finish line. The draft still has to be checked by a competent person, issued to the right people, acknowledged by the workers doing the job, revised when the work changes, and produced as evidence when a client or inspector asks. This guide walks each stage and ends with a checklist for judging RAMS software on the whole workflow.
In this guide
1. Review against the actual project
Every generated document — from any tool, including The Site Book — is a first draft until someone competent has checked it against the real job. Does the method statement match the sequence the crew will actually follow? Are the hazards the ones on this site, not a generic list? Do the control measures reflect the plant, materials and people who will be there on Monday? That check is a legal expectation, not an optional extra: HSE guidance puts the duty to plan, manage and monitor the work on the contractor, and no software transfers it away.
The practical question for software is whether that review leaves a record. In The Site Book, every document is versioned and confirmed before issue; Business plans add recorded review status, reviewer notes and named-approver routing on controlled documents, so “who checked this and when” has an answer that is not an email search.
2. Confirm and issue the current version
Once reviewed, the document has to reach the right people: your own team, the client or principal contractor who asked for it, and the workers who will follow it. On a disconnected setup this is where version drift starts — the PDF attached to Tuesday's email is not necessarily the file that got edited on Wednesday. In The Site Book the project holds one current version, clients and principal contractors can be given a controlled share link to it, and the issue step is confirmed rather than assumed.
3. Version-specific worker sign-off
A RAMS nobody has read protects nobody. The evidence that matters is acknowledgment: which workers saw the document, and — crucially — which version they saw. In The Site Book, workers sign from their phone via a link, and each signature is tied to the exact document version presented. That distinction sounds pedantic until a principal contractor or inspector asks whether the operative injured on Thursday had signed the method statement that was current on Thursday.
4. Revision, supersession and re-signing
Work changes: the scaffold design is revised, an extra trade arrives, the client moves the skip. CDM 2015 expects the construction phase plan to be reviewed and revised so it remains fit for purpose, and the same logic applies to RAMS. The workflow question is what happens to the paperwork when it does. In The Site Book the previous version is marked superseded and workers sign the new one — signatures against the superseded version are kept, so you can always show which version each worker had signed at any point in time.
5. Evidence for clients, auditors and inspectors
Eventually somebody asks for the record — a principal contractor vetting you for the next job, a client's auditor, or an HSE inspector after an incident. Assembling that pack by hand from inboxes, folders and paper is the slowest, most stressful version of this job. The Site Book's Audit Pack exports the project's documents, versions, reviews and sign-off evidence as one bundle, because the whole trail already lives against the project record.
| Stage | What happens | Evidence to keep |
|---|---|---|
| Review | A competent person checks the draft against the real job | Who reviewed it, when, and the outcome |
| Issue | The confirmed version goes to the team, client or principal contractor | Which version was issued, and to whom |
| Sign | Workers acknowledge the document before starting | Signature tied to the exact version signed |
| Revise | Scope or method changes trigger a new version | Superseded version retained with its signatures |
| Re-sign | Workers acknowledge the replacement version | New signatures against the new version |
| Prove | A client, auditor or inspector asks for the record | Exportable trail of versions, reviews and sign-offs |
“plan, manage, monitor and coordinate the entire construction phase … regularly review and revise it to make sure it remains fit for purpose”
Standalone generator vs connected workflow
Pros
- A standalone generator is quick to adopt and cheap for occasional documents
- Fine for an individual who mainly needs a professional-looking document
- No workflow to learn if one person writes, checks and files everything
Cons
- Review decisions live in email threads with no recorded status
- No link between the version workers signed and the version on site
- Revisions restart the paper round — old signatures prove nothing
- Audit evidence is assembled by hand from inboxes and folders
15 questions to ask after a RAMS generator creates the PDF
Use this checklist when evaluating any RAMS software — including ours. A tool that only wins on first-draft speed should be cheap, because you will be paying for the rest of the workflow somewhere else.
- Can the CPP, induction and COSHH assessments use the same project information as the RAMS?
- How many times is the site address, scope and hazard list typed in per project?
- Can a manager record a review decision — approved, rejected, notes — against the document?
- Is there a recorded confirmation step before a document is issued?
- Can a client or principal contractor see the current version through a controlled link?
- How do workers receive the document — a tracked link, or a PDF forwarded on WhatsApp?
- Is each worker's signature tied to the exact version they were shown?
- What happens to the old signatures when the document is revised?
- Does a revision automatically request acknowledgment of the replacement version?
- Can you tell, today, which workers have not yet signed the current version?
- Can subcontractor RAMS and certificates live against the same project?
- How long does it take to assemble the evidence pack when a client asks?
- Does the export show versions, review decisions and sign-offs together?
- Does any of this depend on one person's inbox still existing?
- What does the tool cost once every one of these gaps is plugged with another product?
Want to compare tools on these criteria? See RAMS and CPP generators compared or the direct HandsHQ comparison.
A fast RAMS is only the start.
Create connected RAMS, CPP and induction first drafts from one project record — then review, issue, collect worker sign-off, manage revisions and export the evidence from the same project. Every first draft must be checked by a competent person before issue.
Frequently asked questions
Frequently asked questions
What happens after a RAMS is generated?
Five things, whichever tool produced the draft. First, a competent person reviews it against the actual project, site, people, materials and working methods. Second, it is issued — to your own team, to the client or principal contractor, and to the workers doing the job. Third, workers acknowledge it, ideally against the exact version they were shown. Fourth, it gets revised when the scope, sequence, equipment or conditions change, and the workforce acknowledges the replacement. Fifth, someone eventually asks for the evidence — a principal contractor, an auditor or an HSE inspector — and you need to produce who signed which version, when. A generator that stops at the PDF leaves all five stages to email, WhatsApp and a filing cabinet.
Can The Site Book create RAMS and a CPP from the same project information?
Yes. You describe the project once, and the same project record drives the RAMS, the Construction Phase Plan, the site induction, COSHH assessments and toolbox talks. Site address, scope, hazards, welfare and emergency arrangements are entered once and reused, rather than retyped into each document. Every draft still needs competent-person review before issue — the shared record removes the duplicated typing, not the checking.
Does The Site Book approve RAMS automatically?
No, and it shouldn't. Every document is a first draft until someone competent has checked it against the real job and confirmed it for issue. What The Site Book adds is the record around that decision: documents are versioned and confirmed before issue, and Business plans add recorded review status, reviewer notes and named-approver routing, so you can show who reviewed what and when instead of relying on an email trail.
What happens when a RAMS changes mid-job?
The previous version is marked superseded and workers sign the new version. Signatures against the superseded version are kept, so you can always show which version each worker had actually signed at any point in time — that is the record an HSE inspector or principal contractor cares about. Without version control, a changed method statement usually means a fresh paper round or, worse, workers on site working to a version they never saw.
Is a generated RAMS automatically CDM 2015 compliant?
No. Compliance is never automatic, from any software. The Site Book structures RAMS, Construction Phase Plans and related records around CDM 2015 requirements and HSE guidance, but compliance depends on the arrangements being suitable for the actual project, implemented on site and kept up to date. A competent person must check each document against the real site, workforce, materials and working methods before issue, and update it when the work changes.
How long does the complete workflow take?
First drafts are normally produced in minutes. The review, issue and sign-off stages depend on project complexity, the information supplied and the people involved — a domestic extension with three workers moves faster than a multi-trade refurbishment with subcontractors. Be wary of any tool that quotes one headline number for the whole process: an isolated fastest run is not the typical experience, and the stages after generation are where most of the real-world time goes.
Sources
- CDM 2015: principal contractors — roles and duties — Health and Safety Executive · Accessed 22 July 2026
- Managing health and safety in construction (L153) — Health and Safety Executive · Accessed 22 July 2026