I do find the note on work environment 6.4 in the 2008 DIS to be misleading compared to the ISO9000:2005 definition :
3.3.4
work environment
set of conditions under which work is performed
NOTE Conditions include physical, social, psychological and environmental factors (such as temperature, recognition
schemes, ergonomics and atmospheric composition).


why they keep the psycological and social factors in the definition when is clear that these are not being addressed in 6.4 (according to the "Note"??

any suggestions as what to focus on during audits???

RV:confused:

Did you go through one of the earlier discussions - Auditing 6.4 Work Environment (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showthread.php?t=5025) ?

I did but, most of the discussion refers to the physical aspects of the environment not the "psychological-social" ones...which I'm concerned about.

RV:frust:

any suggestions as what to focus on during audits???It is very simple. If you are auditing the QMS against a standard such as ISO 9001, you check anything related to the work environment as it affects (or might affect) PRODUCT INTEGRITY and CONFORMITY.

:nope:
nice try Sidney:bigwave:
but my point is: what constitutes work environment?!?!?

according to ISO9000:2005 a mean angry supervisor who threatens his staff
constitutes work environment, right?? (as in social and psychological conditions) And if this behaviour happens to affect product conformity (provided that you can demonstrate this) then you have a NC to 6.4.

Then why the note on 6.4 "clarifies" the term work environment saying that it relates to conditions necessary to achive conformity to product requirements such as clean rooms, antistatic precautions and hygiene controls.

any words of wisdom?

any words of wisdom?Sorry my words are not wise enough:(.

If you are concerned with the fact that the note under 6.4 of the ISO 9001:2008 DIS is not as "inclusive" as the definition contained in ISO 9000:2005, my unwise comment is that the definition of ISO 9000 (a normative reference) supersedes the note in the DIS. Thus, in case a threatening supervisor, manager, etc. is NEGATIVELY affecting product quality by undue intimidation of the workforce, yes, that would be an NC against 6.4.

Collecting data to demonstrate that would not be easy, though.

<snip> Collecting data to demonstrate that would not be easy, though.

Sidney,

Audit evidence includes "statements of fact." So, is it fair to state that when the auditor collects sufficient information from a number of employees, regarding intimidation, fear, etc., would that suffice?

Stijloor.

:agree1:My only concern is that Notes are supposed to be for guidance in understanding or clarifying the requirements, and this is not the case and I've seen auditors and users (not to mention consultants!) going all over the spectrum in determining what constitutes work environment and how to manage it.:mad:

I'd rather leave the lousy notes out of the print and stick to the definitions...


Keep the good posts!:applause::applause:

RV

Audit evidence includes "statements of fact." So, is it fair to state that when the auditor collects sufficient information from a number of employees, regarding intimidation, fear, etc., would that suffice?Yes, statements of fact are "admissible". But what is a "fact"? I can also see people "playing games" trying to get rid of a supervisor they don't like for whatever reason. Imagine what can happen when the workforce discovers that they can "justify" shoddy workmanship and claim it is a result of (what they feel) is undue psychological pressure or mistreatment.

Notwithstanding the above, if, indeed, an abusive supervisor is negatively impacting product integrity, the organization should be the first one to want it fixed, and waiting to discover that, via an audit (either internal or external) is poor management, imuho.