standard morgen – Økt seriøsitet i renholdsbransjen morgen/renhold/3 insta 800 til...
TRANSCRIPT
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 1
Standard Morgen – Økt seriøsitet i renholdsbransjen
INSTA 800 – Erfaringer og revisjonsarbeid
av Steinar K. NilsenSeniorforsker, SINTEF Byggforsk
21-04-2016
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 2
History
NS-INSTA 800: First edition: October 2000 Second edition: July 2006 Third edition: September 2011
Guidance to NS-INSTA 800: First edition: October 2003 Second edition: May 2008 Third edition: April 2012
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 3
Sales
NS-INSTA 800 ed.: 1st ed.: approx. 1500 2nd ed.: 1218 (dec. 2009) 3rd ed.: 1079 (dec. 2015)TOTAL sold: approx. 4000
Guidance to NS-INSTA 800: 2nd ed.: 585 (dec. 2009) 3rd ed.: 329 (dec. 2015)
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 4
Users Public sector:
Large hospitals (St. Olav/ Trondheim, Rikshospitalet/Oslo)
Universities (NTNU/Trondheim, UiB/Bergen, UiO/Oslo)
The Defence (Norwegian Defence Estates Agency)
Local governments (Oslo, Gjerdrum, Os) Central government
(Regjeringskvartalet/Oslo) Norwegian Broadcasting Coorp. (NRK) ++
Private sector: Large property owners (ENTRA
Eiendom) Private companies (Telenor) Cleaning contractors Cleaning consultants
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 5
Experiences in general INSTA 800 is a good tool for establishing and
assessing cleaning quality INSTA 800 facilitates communication
between contractrors and customers INSTA 800 can be used for improving and
keeping good indoor air quality Focus is lifted from the floor to higher levels in
the room (total evaluation of quality)
A transitional period of 3-6 months may be needed when moving from programmed to quality/demand based cleaning
Some details regarding inspection and evaluation of inspection units are still causingdiscussions when carrying out qualitycontrols
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 6
Experiences – Published research
Indoor Air 2002, Monterrey, USA:“AN INTERVENTION STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN INDOOR AIR-RELATED HEALTH PROBLEMS, PRODUCTIVITY AND CLEANLINESS IN AN OFFICE SETTING”Authors: Steinar K. Nilsen, Peter Blom, James Rydock, Jonny Nersveen, Knut I. Fostervold
Healthy Buildings 2006, Lisbon, Portugal:”Best Practice Cleaning” – Reducing costs, dust levels and chemical load by introducing a modern cleaning concept (Lisbon 2006) Authors: Steinar K. Nilsen, Inger E. Dahl, Trond H. Kristiansen, Bjørn O. Brønnstad, Alf G. Høstmark
Sustainable Buildings 2008, Melbourne, Australia:”Best PracticeCleaning” – Reducing costs, waste and use of chemicals by introducing a modern cleaning concept (Melbourne 2008)Authors: Steinar K. Nilsen, Inger E. Dahl, Trond H. Kristiansen, Bjørn O. Brønnstad, Alf G. Høstmark
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 7
INTERVENTION STUDY - RESULTS:
Visual cleaning qualityFurniture and fixtures
012345
Control Intervention
Group
Qua
lity
leve
lAv
erag
e BeforeAfterIntended, after
Dust on surfaces Difficult accessible furniture and fixtures
0,0
5,0
10,0
15,0
Control Intervention
Group
Dust
cov
erag
e, %
BeforeAfterIntended, after
Differences in cleaning quality between the two groups found for: Dust on difficult accessible surfaces
Tendencies to reduced occurrence of mucousal and diffuse general symptoms in the intervention group
Large reduction in short time sickness absence giving a considerable reduction in production costs (> 2x total cleaning costs)
INSTA 800 proved to be a good tool to assess cleaning quality
No correlation between visual control and measurements of dust
Short time sickness absence
0,0 %
1,0 %
2,0 %
3,0 %
4,0 %
Control Intervention
Group
Sick
leav
e in
% o
f da
y's
wor
k
BeforeAfter
Diagram2
ControlControlControl
InterventionInterventionIntervention
Before
After
Intended, after
Group
Quality levelAverage
Visual cleaning qualityFurniture and fixtures
0.27
1.75
3
0.33
2.62
3
Diagram1
U. ETG
U. ETG.INVENTAR (lt)VEGG (lt)GULV (lt)FLATESMUSS (GULV)
Avfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅ
U222305200115002244
MAM U251416200005003333
THE U271405300115000052
U2042410100005002243
000
000
TOTALT813526800222000771612
ANDEL TOT31%50%19%0%0%100%0%0%100%
Gjennomsnitt2.003.251.254.332.000.000.000.500.335.000.000.001.751.174.003.000.00
RØD SKRIFT: Nivå gitt av vanskelig tilgjengelige flater
U+1 etg 2000U+1 etg 20012+3 etg 20002+3 etg 2001Avtalt nivå (min)BeforeAfterIntended, after
Inventar, løst smuss med mer0.271.750.332.623Control0.271.753
Vegg, løst smuss med mer33.53.674.634Intervention0.332.623
Gulv, løst smuss med mer2.633.831.783.693
Gulv, flatesmuss3.092.834.113.883
U. ETG
U+1 etg 2000
U+1 etg 2001
2+3 etg 2000
2+3 etg 2001
Avtalt nivå (min)
Overflater og smusstyper
Kvalitetsnivåer
1. ETG
Before
After
Intended, after
Lokaltyper
Kvalitetsnivå, gjennomsnitt
Visuell rengjøringskvalitet, Inventar
2. ETG
Before
After
Intended, after
Group
Quality levelAverage
Visual cleaning qualityFurniture and fixtures
3 ETG
1. ETG.INVENTAR (lt)VEGG (lt)GULV (lt)FLATESMUSS (GULV)
Avfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅ
1235117207071100152
1303306100005102332
1380213100114002243
1100123300003000053
1173306100005204624
119110210100101004432
1450011304152103432
124010110100101000054
TOTALT121252913031233225015203022
ANDEL TOT41%41%17%0%94%6%25%0%75%
Gjennomsnitt1.501.500.633.631.630.003.880.254.132.750.630.001.882.503.752.750.00
RØDT:Nivå gitt av resultat fra vanskelig tilgjengelige flater
2. ETG.INVENTAR (lt)VEGG (lt)GULV (lt)FLATESMUSS (GULV)
Avfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅ
2191113300005000054
2221012400005002243
2302024300115201335
2312114300005001154
2360213300115000034
2482204300005200244
MF Mursentret0000200005103444
TS Kontrollr2024300224001145
TOTALT10682424004439508133233
ANDEL TOT42%25%33%0%0%100%38%0%62%
Gjennomsnitt1.250.751.003.003.000.000.000.500.504.880.630.001.001.634.004.130.00
3. ETG.INVENTAR (lt)VEGG (lt)GULV (lt)FLATESMUSS (GULV)
Avfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅAvfall&løstStøvFlekkerTOTALTNIVÅ
3231012200115001144
3241214300115003334
3310325200224000044
3341034200624006623
3370224300005103433
3380011400333005533
3600011100224003335
3621102100115000053
TOTALT48112318001612351021222729
ANDEL TOT17%35%48%0%0%133%5%0%95%
Gjennomsnitt0.501.001.382.882.250.000.002.001.504.380.130.002.632.753.383.630.00
Diagram1
ControlControlControl
InterventionInterventionIntervention
Before
After
Intended, after
Group
Dust coverage, %
Dust on surfaces Difficult accessible furniture and fixtures
11.5
13.9
5
9.1
2.9
5
Diagram2
PersonnærtPersonnærtPersonnærtPersonnært
Inventar LTInventar LTInventar LTInventar LT
Inventar VTInventar VTInventar VTInventar VT
GulvGulvGulvGulv
&A
Page &P
Vår 00
Vår 01 ref
Vår 01 int
"Innemiljøkvalitet"
Overflate
Støvdekkeprosent
1.7078947368
0.9266666667
0.935
1
3.6605263158
1.8
1.33
1.5
10.4176470588
15.1214285714
3.065
5
4.1638888889
6.8642857143
5.13
3
Ark1
4. ETASJE407477413478420429433437445452GjennomsnittStd. avvik
Personnært0.000.00
Inventar LT0.000.00
Inventar VT0.000.00
Gulv0.000.00
Gjennomsnitt alle:0.00
3. ETASJE323324331334337338360361343365GjennomsnittStd. avvik
Personnært0.23.41.20.91.31.30.81.30.101.050.97
Inventar LT0.81.21.50.74.102.68.600.92.042.61
Inventar VT0.70.80.53.52.70.11.140.33.11.681.48
Gulv5.72.54.74.65.942.61056.85.182.17
Gjennomsnitt alle:2.49
2. ETASJE219225227228231234236248SAVNGjennomsnittStd. avvik
Personnært00.70.81.30021.51.10.80.820.68
Inventar LT0.70.1011.101.11.10.50.60.620.46
Inventar VT2.50.88.31.462.62.99.44.36.34.452.93
Gulv2.96.202.66.15.75.44.76.910.35.082.79
Gjennomsnitt alle:2.74
1. ETASJE109110114115121127130141145146GjennomsnittStd. avvik
Personnært1.10.32.20.70.71.52.91.80.41.31.290.83
Inventar LT1.11.52.91.31.721.61.13.32.51.900.76
Inventar VT4.511.410.6155.811.310.216.122.411.811.915.11
Gulv2.85.14.45.34.88.96.44.816.996.844.03
Gjennomsnitt alle:5.49
U.ETASJEU19U20U21U22U24U25U27GjennomsnittStd. avvik
Personnært2.300.5000.500.470.84
Inventar LT00.30.2002.94.91.191.95
Inventar VT23.120.44.811.517.632.530.720.099.91
Gulv5.18.854.57.8118.47.232.43
Gjennomsnitt alle:7.24
Vår 00Vår 01 refVår 01 int"Innemiljøkvalitet"
Personnært1.70.90.91
Inventar LT3.71.81.31.5
Inventar VT10.415.13.15
Gulv4.26.95.13
Inventar LT
FørEtterAvtalt nivå
Kontrollokaler4.71.71.5
Intervensjonslokaler2.11.31.5
Inventar VT
BeforeAfterIntended, after
Control11.513.95
Intervention9.12.95
&LMÅLING AV STØVDEKKE - FASE 3
Ark1
Før
Etter
Avtalt nivå
Lokaltyper
Støvdekke-%
Støvavsetninger, lett tilgjengelig inventar
Ark2
Before
After
Intended, after
Lokaltyper
Støvdekke-%
Støvavsetninger, vanskelig tilgjengelig inventar
Ark3
Before
After
Intended, after
Group
Dust coverage, %
Dust on surfaces Difficult accessible furniture and fixtures
Diagram1
ControlControl
InterventionIntervention
Before
After
Group
Sick leave in % of day's work
Short time sickness absence
0.0243076923
0.0305059524
0.0368718406
0.0229260935
Ark1
SYKEFRAVÆR 2000
Antall dagsverkAntall sykedager1-3 dg.4-16 dg.LangtidLuftveisplagerDiffuse plagerInnemiljørelatertAntall svar
U + 1. Etg3250157394078381138
2.+3. Etg.3363216824292577952
NBI 2. Etg.13227447270267018
Kontrollrådet28672507009
NBR 3. Etg175513533109224925
SYKEFRAVÆR 2001
Antall dagsverkAntall sykedager1-3 dg.4-16 dgLangtidLuftveisplagerDiffuse plagerInnemiljørelatert
U + 1. Etg2688136275553140533
2.+3. Etg.331526441351893901548
NBI 2. Etg.14211152013832501530
Kontrollrådet2942200
NBR 3. Etg16001471922106140018
Sykedager % før og etter
U+1etg 2000U+1 etg 20012+3 etg 20002+3 etg 2001
Totalt sykefravær4.8 %5.1 %6.4 %8.0 %
1-3 dg1.2 %1.0 %2.4 %1.2 %
4-16 dg1.2 %2.0 %1.2 %1.1 %
Langtid2.4 %2.0 %2.7 %5.7 %
Innemiljørelaterte forekomster i forhold til antall dagsverk (omregnet til 100 personer i begge grupper)
Luftveisplager3.1 %3.3 %1.6 %2.5 %
Diffuse plager0.1 %0.4 %0.0 %0.0 %
Innemiljø årsak i fohold til antall dager rapportert innemiljørelatert fravær
U+1etg 2000U+1 etg 20012+3 etg 20002+3 etg 2001
Andel innemiljø mulig årsak2.6 %35.7 %14.1 %38.5 %
BeforeAfter
Control2.4 %3.1 %
Intervention3.7 %2.3 %
&LOVERSIKT OVER SYKEFRAVÆR
Steinar Klubben Nilsen: Hele 2. Etg., ikke bare NBI
Ark1
U+1etg 2000
2+3 etg 2000
U+1 etg 2001
2+3 etg 2001
Typer sykefravær
Fravær i % av antall dagsverk
Ark2
U+1etg 2000
2+3 etg 2000
U+1 etg 2001
2+3 etg 2001
Relativ forekomst
Ark3
Andel innemiljø mulig årsak
Before
After
Lokaltyper
Fravær i % av antall dagsverk
Sykefravær innenfor areidsgiverperioden
Before
After
Group
Sick leave in % of day's work
Short time sickness absence
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 8
BEST PRACTICE CLEANING PROJECT DESIGN
STEP 1 (2002): Analyze “present situation” for cleaning services in the Defence’s
buildings (20 % of the total area) Compare with other buildings Establish a set of benchmarks and goals which can be measured
STEP 2 (2002-2003): Develop a new cleaning concept with the tools and systems needed
for planning, skills upgrading, purchasing equipment and materials, and following up
STEP 3 (2003-2005): Upgrade cleaner skills and introduce the new cleaning system in all
buildings Evaluate effects
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 9
BPR - RESULTS Summary – ”Win-win”
Cleaning costs were reduced by NOK 77 mill. (2005, from 300 mill.)
Quality requirements were fullfilled in 79 % of the buildings
Average dust load on surfaces was reduced by 32 %
Consumption of cleaning chemicals was reduced from 100 tons to 54 tons/year (70 % with ecolabel)
Consumption of dustbin bags was reduced from 20 tons to 2,6 tons
Sick leave was reduced from 20 % to 12 % (2005)
High score in evaluation of courses and employee and costomer satisfaction
Awarded the Norwegian environment prize “The Glass Bear 2006”
Reductions
29
32
46
86
40
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Costs (2005)
Dust load
Chemical load
Plastics waste
Sick leave (2005)
%
Diagram6
Costs (2005)
Dust load
Chemical load
Plastics waste
Sick leave (2005)
%
Reductions
29
32
46
86
40
Ark1
Costs (2005)Dust loadChemical loadPlastics wasteSick leave (2005)
2932468640
2002200420052008 estimate
195153137118
2002200320042005200620072008 estimate
195153137118
BeforeAfter
Cleaning chem. consumpt.12065
Proportion Swan (%)1870
Plastic bags15121
BeforeAfter
Cleaning chem. consumpt.23
Proportion Swan15
Plastic bags25
Ark1
% reduction
Ark2
%
Reductions
Ark3
Year
NOK pr sq. m and year
Costs
Cleaning chem. consumpt.
Proportion Swan (%)
Plastic bags
mg pr. cleaned sq.m and year
Environmental factors
Cleaning chem. consumpt.
Proportion Swan
Plastic bags
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 10
Sertifisering i henhold til INSTA 800 Standarden ble gjort "sertifiserbar"
ved revisjonen i 2010 – 2011 Der er etablert ordninger for
sertifisering i Danmark, Norge og Finland
SINTEF Certification har fra 2012 utstedt personsertifikater til hele det nordiske markedet
Personsertifikater utstedes for Kunnskapsnivå 3 og Kunnskapsnivå 4 i hht standardens Tillegg B
470 sertifikater har så langt blitt utstedt av SINTEF Certification: 311 til det norske markedet 158 til det danske markedet 1 til det finske markedet
427 sertifikater er fortsatt gyldige 43 sertifikater er under utarbeidelse
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 11
Experiences – Tools for planning and control Several suppliers offer INSTA-supporting tools: Datec; Jonathan Clean/Clean Pilot (planning and control) KBD-gruppen; RenData 800 (planning and control) Renplan 2000 (planning and control (2005-version of INSTA 800) Plania (planning) Data-know-how (planning and control) Digital pen; control, for registration of data from inspections and
automatic calclulation of results
Some interest groups have developed "standard" quality profiles: NHO Service/Digital pen (employers' federation) Forum for sykehusrenhold (hospitals) Norsk kommunalteknisk forening (association of local governments) SINTEF Building and Infrastructure/Norwegian Institute of Technology
(consultants)
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 12
Revisjon av INSTA 800 i 2016 - 2017 Det ble avholdt et felles nordisk standardiseringsmøte i København 17.
desember 2015. Der ble det besluttet å starte arbeidet med revisjon av INSTA 800
Det tas sikte på å ha et forslag til revidert standard klart sommeren 2017, og utgi en versjon 4 av standarden i løpet av 2017 (kan komme noe senere i norsk versjon grunnet oversettelsesarbeid)
Arbeidet ledes av Dansk Standard (sekretariat)
Målet er å gjøre standarden mer brukervennlig
Det er etablert speilkomiteer i Norge, Sverige, Finland og Danmark
Speilkomiteene møtes i forkant av de nordiske møtene, og tar stilling til innspill fra de øvrige nordiske landene samt diskuterer forbedringer som den norske gruppen vil spille inn til den nordiske komiteen
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 13
Norsk speilkomite for revisjonsarbeidetSECRETARIAT: Hege Thorkildsen, Standard Norge
CLEANING COMPANIES: Nils Finstad, Eurest Unny Ingvaldsen, Toma
CLEANING CONSULTANTS: Ann-Kristin Mork, Teknologisk Institutt Karin Bergsetn Lied, KBD-gruppen Lena Furuberg, Bygg & Facility Consult AS Per Arne Løvstad, Ren-Consult AS
TRADE ORGANISATIONS: Tore Barlo, NHO Service
EMPLOYER ORGANISATIONS: Mette Sætervold, Fagforbundet/St. Olavs
hospital Brede Edvardsen, Arbeidsmandsforbundet
CUSTOMERS/CLIENTS: Edith Stakvik, Forsvaret Gunda Djupvik, NAV
TECHNICAL SCHOOLS/UNIVERSITIES: Nora Klungseth, NTNU
RESEARCH INSTITUTES/CERTIFICATION BODIES: Steinar K. Nilsen (L), SINTEF
CLEANING TECHNICAL ORGANISATIONS: Inger E. Dahl, NFSR
SUPPLIERS: Bjørn Olav Erland, DATEC AS
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 14
MEETINGS
Meetings will be held before each Nordic meetings.
First meeting: Tuesday 16th of February
Planned meetings: April (21st) August (31st)
No working groups have been established so far.
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 15
I de påfølgende lysark er innspill til det nordiske arbeidet gitt fra norsk gruppe listet opp
For spesielt interesserte:
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 16
INSTA 800 – Need for revision (input to the meeting 17.12.2015)
2 Normative references: Needs updating (revised standards, new FM-standards),
3.2 (or a new sub-clause under clause 5): Make clear (by examples) how soiling (group 1) on complex furniture (e.g. office chairs, hospital beds) can be divided into "accumulationsof soiling"
3.2 (or a new sub-clause under clause 5, see above): Make clear (by examples) howsoiling on long, narrow, continuous surfaces (skirting boards etc.) can be divided into"accumulations of soiling"
6.1.2: Make clear how soiling group 2 shall be evaluated, for a given inspection unit and object group; evaluate soiling-% on LT and VT separately based on the area of LT and VT respectively? Or: evaluate soling-% on LT and VT based on the total area of the surface?
6.1.4: Instrumental methods are more accurate than visual methods . It must be madeclear that when both visual inspection and instrumental methods are used, resultsobtained with instrumental methods shall take precedence over visual results whenevaluating the result for the sample (accepted/not accepted).
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 17
INSTA 800 – Need for revision(input to the meeting 17.12.2015)
7.2.1.1 (Contract): Add a bullet point; quality frequencies for all room types/inspection units (+ define quality frequency; how often the quality requirements for the inspection unit (room) shall be met)
7.2.2, 4th section: Must be re-written. AQL is not 4 for small lot sizes (up to 25), and AQL in table 6b is 2,5.
7.2.2, 7th section: It must be made clear (by examples) what this means. Which conditions have to be met in order to ensure that "the cleaning is uniform and in accordance with the same instructions"? Same cleaning methods? (dry methods/wet methods) Same cleaning principles? (machines/manual methods) Same kind of rooms? (offices/wetrooms) Same building? Same building type? Same level of maintenance? Same kind of flooring? (carpets/hard floors) ???
7.2.2.1: Total control is mentionned, but it is not described when it should be used. Need for explanation/examples, add new sub-clause?
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 18
INSTA 800 – Need for revision(input to the meeting 17.12.2015)
Table 5: This table was revised in 2010 and is now not in accordance with ISO 2859, buta mixture of 3 different tables. AQL 4 should be used for all lot sizes due to:
Use of a "self-constructed" table may conflict with the requirements in EN 13549 Small lot sizes are often comprised of rooms which require a high hygienic and cleaning standard (toilets,
sanitary rooms, operating theatres, laboratories, clean-rooms). AQL up to 10 % is unacceptable for such rooms.
There are some minor mis-prints in Annex A and Annex D
Annex D: should be "Normative" (it is not mandatory to use the methods, but when theyare used the methods described should be followed)
D.1 Measuring dust/D.1.6.1: Measurements frequency is "once a quarter" for all othermethods. Should be quarterly for this method as well, as it is an important method for ensuring good indoor air quality.
D.2 Hygiene conditions: ATP-measurements are now widely used in all the Nordic countries, and it should be considered to include this method in the standard
D.4 Gloss/D.4.7: The assessment method is complicated and should be re-considered
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 19
INSTA 800 – Need for revision(input to the meeting 02.03.2016)
3. Define "cleaning" Define "walking around" Define "damage or lack of maintenance…" Define "not accessible surfaces" if accepted as new surface category Define "totaql sampling" Define "simpel random sampling"
4. Contradiction: The standard says 6 quality levels. Only 5 are described. Delete level 05. Add notes to table 2 for surfaces that are difficult to place in the right surface
category/inspection unit (doors, joints)5.1 Add a new group of surfaces: Not accessible5 Add a new clause giving information about accumulations; how to evaluate long narrow
surfaces6. Add a note describing how dirt in grooves shall be evaluated as part of a tiled floor7. Add "Damages" to the sentence mentioning "lack of maintenance"7. Set an upper limit for time used for inspection of an inspection unit7. Add a note telling that upper limit for cleaning shall be described in the contract7. Give recommendations regarding how to save inspection time by correct
stratification/selection 7. Add a reference to Annex C regarding performance of simple random sampling
-
SINTEF Building and Infrastructure 20
INSTA 800 – Need for revision(input to the meeting 02.03.2016)
Annex A: Correct referencesAnnex A: Make following up actions mandatory ("shall" instead of "can")Annex D: Delete D.5 and D.6 (and maybe D.2 as well??)Annex F: Improve the assessment form
Standard Morgen – Økt seriøsitet i renholdsbransjen��INSTA 800 – Erfaringer og revisjonsarbeidHistorySalesUsersExperiences in generalExperiences – Published research Lysbildenummer 7BEST PRACTICE CLEANING �PROJECT DESIGNBPR - RESULTS �Summary – ”Win-win”Sertifisering i henhold til INSTA 800Experiences – Tools for planning and control Revisjon av INSTA 800 i 2016 - 2017 Norsk speilkomite for revisjonsarbeidetMEETINGSFor spesielt interesserte:INSTA 800 – Need for revision �(input to the meeting 17.12.2015)INSTA 800 – Need for revision�(input to the meeting 17.12.2015)INSTA 800 – Need for revision�(input to the meeting 17.12.2015)INSTA 800 – Need for revision�(input to the meeting 02.03.2016)INSTA 800 – Need for revision�(input to the meeting 02.03.2016)