S
Wow, a lively thread to jump into for a first-timer!
As a "rookie", please forgive my inexperience.
As a I was writing my response, I expected some may mis-interpret my intentions.
Are people part of the System? You bet!
I just struggle with how we would measure "motivation".
I agree with Energy.
When I read 6.2.2.d "ensure that it's personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives", or 6.4 "The organization shall determine and manage the work environment needed to achieve conformity to product requirements", I don't see any reference to a requirement regarding "motivation".
I agree with Mike S., in that these issues are responsible for problems outside the scope or visibility of the QMS, and that they are important. Important enough to comment on. But, I would opt for reporting them outside the scope of an audit. Managment does need to be aware of these issues, if they aren't so already.
Some of the examples, such as "fudging QA records", should be a non-conformance and reported as such within the audit.
When I first read the thread, I thought we were talking about an external auditor.
I'm in the infancy stages of implementation, and tend to focus on meeting the minimum requirements.
As our system matures, I will be looking at how can we build upon it. Expanding the scope of the audits to include "motivation" may be a good idea . . . . when the time and conditions are right.

As a "rookie", please forgive my inexperience.
As a I was writing my response, I expected some may mis-interpret my intentions.
Are people part of the System? You bet!
I just struggle with how we would measure "motivation".
I agree with Energy.
When I read 6.2.2.d "ensure that it's personnel are aware of the relevance and importance of their activities and how they contribute to the achievement of the quality objectives", or 6.4 "The organization shall determine and manage the work environment needed to achieve conformity to product requirements", I don't see any reference to a requirement regarding "motivation".
I agree with Mike S., in that these issues are responsible for problems outside the scope or visibility of the QMS, and that they are important. Important enough to comment on. But, I would opt for reporting them outside the scope of an audit. Managment does need to be aware of these issues, if they aren't so already.
Some of the examples, such as "fudging QA records", should be a non-conformance and reported as such within the audit.
When I first read the thread, I thought we were talking about an external auditor.
I'm in the infancy stages of implementation, and tend to focus on meeting the minimum requirements.
As our system matures, I will be looking at how can we build upon it. Expanding the scope of the audits to include "motivation" may be a good idea . . . . when the time and conditions are right.
