Partly. The drafting, yes. The sign-off, no, and it never should be.
The drafting is where the hours go. The sign-off is where the responsibility sits, and it stays with you.
What a RAMS system can do
Most of a method statement is not new writing. It is the same sequence, the same controls, the same plant, rewritten for a different site with different access, different hours and a different client’s template.
A system can do that part. It reads what is already recorded about the job and produces a draft in your own wording and your own format. Someone who knows the job then checks it.
Things it can fill in without being asked:
- Site address, client, dates, duration
- The scope, taken from the job record rather than retyped
- Plant and equipment, from what is allocated to the job
- The standard sequence of works for that type of work, from your own library
- Your standard control measures for that type of work, in your own words
- The client’s template, if they insist on theirs rather than yours
That is the bulk of the document, and it is the part that eats an afternoon.
What it does not do
It does not decide the hazards. It does not sign anything. It does not send anything to a client or to site.
Where a mistake would cost money or affect safety, the system never sends on its own. A person checks it first. That rule does not bend. It is how the system is built.
So what arrives is a draft, not a document. Somebody who knows the job reads it, changes what is wrong, adds what is specific to that site, and signs it. The time saved is the typing and the copying, not the thinking.
What the first version gets wrong
The first version will get something wrong that only the person doing the job would spot. That is normal, and it is what the parallel run is for. The old way and the new way run side by side, and the old way stops only when your team says so.
Common things that come out wrong at first:
- Two people describe the same control differently, so the library has two versions of one rule
- A job type exists in practice but not in your templates
- The access arrangements are in someone’s email, not in the job record
- A spreadsheet nobody mentioned turns out to be holding the sequence together
None of that stops the build. It just has to surface before go-live rather than after.
When it is not worth doing
Unless you write method statements more than once a month, do not build anything. If every job is genuinely unlike the last one, the library will not hold and you will spend longer correcting drafts than writing them.
The case is strongest when the same shape of document keeps going out, changes by client or council, and no generic template fits any of them.
We would rather say that on the call than take the work.
What we build
RAMS pre-fill is one of the routes we build. It pre-fills site-specific RAMS and method statements from your own templates and your own job data, with the gaps flagged for the person who signs.
It runs on Claude, in a plan you own, around the software you already use. We do not ask anyone to change their job system, their accounts package or their spreadsheets.
Some of the systems we have running now:
- A job qualification gate, which holds back a job with pieces missing and drafts the email to the client for a person to check and send
- Estimation, with the quote priced against your own rules and drafted for a person to adjust and send
- RAMS pre-filled from the details of the job, emailed as a draft to the person who signs it off
- A quote board, so you can see every open quote and which ones are waiting
- Quote chasing, with each chase drafted in your wording for a person to check and send
- Monthly sales figures, built without anyone assembling them by hand
How to find out whether it fits
It starts with a free 10-minute call. You describe the document that eats the most time. We say whether it is worth automating and give you a rough estimate, a range for the first route. Then a paid audit works out what that paperwork is costing you a year in your own figures, and what to build first. The quote comes from the audit: a fixed price for one route, with three options that cut scope rather than corners.
Signature to live is from 4 weeks, depending on the size of the job and the state of your data.
Fenwick Automation builds bespoke automation for UK small businesses weighed down by paperwork. We take the repetitive document work - quotes, forms, process documents, client reporting - and turn it into a system that runs on your own rules, with a person still checking anything that matters.