RAMS comparison

RAMS software vs Word templates

Word templates are fine for drafting RAMS. The weak point is control: site-specific changes, approvals, version history, briefings, signatures and evidence that the team worked to the current method.

For UK contractors, inspection firms, compliance managers and site supervisors preparing risk assessments and method statements.

RAMS often start as reusable documents, which is sensible. The risk appears when the document is copied for a new site but not properly adapted, approved, briefed or version-controlled.

CertFlow keeps RAMS linked to the job, site, team and approval history. It helps manage the workflow; it does not make generic RAMS suitable for complex work without competent review.

Side by side

Word RAMS templates vs CertFlow.

Word RAMS templates
CertFlow
Drafting
Reusable Word templates copied for each job
Reusable templates converted into job-specific RAMS workflows
Approval
Email chains and filename versions
Approval status, reviewer and version history in one place
Briefing
Paper signatures or separate forms
Mobile acknowledgement tied to the job record
Changes
Manual edits and reissued PDFs
Updated versions and change history visible to the team
Evidence
RAMS stored separately from job photos and actions
RAMS, inspections, actions and close-out evidence linked to the job

This page is practical guidance for UK inspection and compliance teams, not legal advice. Confirm duties, intervals and competent-person decisions against the official sources and your own site circumstances.

Honest fit

When Word RAMS templates is enough

  • You do simple, repeatable low-risk work and a competent person controls template updates.
  • RAMS are site-specific, approved, briefed and filed reliably.
  • You do not need mobile signatures, job links, client portals or version dashboards.

Next step

See the workflow on your own data.

Bring a sample asset list, certificate or inspection form. CertFlow can show how the workflow changes from first record to issued evidence.

Book a demo

From the field

What inspectors commonly see

  • Generic hazards left in while site-specific hazards are missed.
  • Old versions sent to engineers after changes.
  • Briefing signatures captured on paper and never filed with the job.
  • Method statement steps that do not match the actual work sequence.
  • Changes on site not recorded or re-approved.

Audit risk

Common mistakes

  • Treating RAMS as a client paperwork request rather than a working control document.
  • Copying a template without checking the task, site, plant and people.
  • Not recording who approved the RAMS and when.
  • Failing to brief the current version to the people doing the work.
  • Leaving actions or permit requirements outside the job evidence.

Evidence

Records to keep

  • Risk assessment and method statement.
  • Site-specific hazards, controls, plant, substances and access arrangements.
  • Approval, issue and version history.
  • Briefing, acknowledgement and signature evidence.
  • Change notes, dynamic risk assessment notes and close-out actions.

Questions

RAMS software vs Word templates, answered.

Are Word templates bad for RAMS?

No. They can be a good starting point. The risk is using them generically, losing version control or missing evidence that the current RAMS were approved and briefed.

Does CertFlow write the RAMS for me?

CertFlow helps build, issue, approve and store RAMS from templates. The content still needs competent review for the task and site.

Can workers sign RAMS on mobile?

Yes. RAMS can be issued and acknowledged on mobile so briefing evidence stays with the job.

References

RAMS software vs Word templates: official sources

Links to primary UK legislation and official regulator guidance. CertFlow is independent and not affiliated with these bodies.

Get started

Replace the spreadsheet before your next audit.

See CertFlow on your own data in a 20-minute demo, or start a free trial today.

14-day free trial · No credit card needed