What the clause requires
Clause 6.2 asks for quality objectives at the relevant functions, levels and processes. They have to be consistent with the quality policy, measurable, take the applicable requirements into account, be relevant to the conformity of products and services and to enhancing customer satisfaction, and be monitored, communicated and updated as appropriate. They also have to be maintained as documented information, which makes them one of the few things the standard insists on seeing written down. The words "functions, levels and processes" matter here: an objective that lives only in the boardroom will never change what happens on the line.
The second half of the clause is the planning. For each objective the company determines what will be done, what resources will be required, who will be responsible, when it will be completed and how the results will be evaluated. This is the part most companies forget: an objective without a plan is just a wish with a number attached to it. Five columns on a single sheet are enough to satisfy the requirement, provided somebody keeps them up to date and reviews them during the year rather than the week before the audit.
An objective is not the same thing as a process indicator. The indicator tracks day-to-day performance; the objective represents an improvement or a level the company wants to reach within a period. An example makes the difference obvious: the indicator is the number of complaints per thousand orders; the objective is to bring it down from 12 to 6 by December, supported by a plan of actions to get there. Companies that turn every indicator into an objective end up with thirty objectives and no focus, and a handful that people can actually name is worth more than a full page nobody reads.
What the auditor asks to see
- Objectives documented, each with a target, a deadline and a method of measurement
- Consistency with the commitments made in the quality policy
- A plan for each objective: actions, resources, owner, deadline and evaluation
- Periodic follow-up of the result, not only at the end of the year
- Results taken to the management review and discussed there
Where companies most often get it wrong
- An objective with no number in it ("improve customer satisfaction")
- An objective with no plan explaining how it will be reached
- Targets always met with room to spare, with no real challenge in them
- Objectives set only at company level, never cascaded to the relevant processes
Example of a nonconformity
- Requirement
- ISO 9001, 6.2.2: when planning how to achieve the quality objectives, determine what will be done, the resources, the person responsible, the deadline and how the results will be evaluated.
- Evidence
- The 2026 objective "reduce paint rework from 8% to 4%" has no actions, no owner and no deadline defined; the figure for 06/2026 stands at 9.1%.
- Finding
- There is no planning for how the defined quality objective will be achieved.
How to comply using PrismaBiz
Ready-made templates for this clause
Frequently asked questions
How many quality objectives should I have?
There is no minimum. Between 3 and 6 at company level, cascaded into the processes, is common. A few that are genuinely followed are worth more than many that are forgotten.
Do objectives have to be annual?
No. The period is set by the company. Annual is the most common choice because it matches the planning cycle and the management review.
Can I change a target in the middle of the year?
Yes, provided the change is justified and recorded. The standard asks for objectives to be updated as appropriate.