What the clause requires
Clause 10.3 requires the organization to continually improve the suitability, the adequacy and the effectiveness of the quality management system. A suitable system is one that fits the purpose and the context of the organization; an adequate system is one that covers everything it needs to cover; an effective system is one that achieves the planned results. Those three words are not decoration, they are three different questions an auditor can ask separately.
To do this, the organization considers the results of analysis and evaluation from 9.1.3 and the outputs from the management review in 9.3, and determines whether there are needs or opportunities that have to be addressed as part of continual improvement. In other words, continual improvement is fed by data and by the decisions of top management, not by isolated initiatives launched by whoever happens to be enthusiastic that quarter. That link is also what makes the clause auditable: the auditor can start from a management review output and follow it through to a change that was actually made in the system.
How is it evidenced? Through the way the system evolves over time: indicators that improve, targets that become more demanding once they are comfortably met, processes that get simpler, complaints that fall, audit findings that drop in severity and in number. The auditor compares the system as it is today with the system as it was one or two years ago and looks for the difference, which is why a stable record over three years with no change at all is so difficult to defend.
What changes in ISO 9001:2026
In ISO 9001:2026 the role of top management in leading continual improvement becomes more explicit. See everything that changed in the revision.
What the auditor asks to see
- A trend of improvement in the indicators across successive periods, rather than a single good month
- Targets made more demanding once they have been met comfortably for some time
- Improvement decisions coming out of the management review and actually implemented and closed
- Changes to the system that made it simpler, faster or more effective to operate day to day
Where companies most often get it wrong
- Indicators flat for years, with no new or more demanding target ever set for any of them
- Management review that generates no improvement decision at all, year after year
- Continual improvement that exists only in the wording of the quality policy on the wall
- A system that keeps growing in paperwork and controls with no corresponding gain in results
Example of a nonconformity
- Requirement
- ISO 9001, 10.3: consider the outputs from management review to determine the needs and opportunities to be addressed as part of continual improvement.
- Evidence
- The management reviews of 2024, 2025 and 2026 repeat the same targets and record the instruction to keep the system as it is; meanwhile the on-time delivery and complaints indicators worsened across all three years.
- Finding
- There is no evidence of continual improvement of the effectiveness of the system.
How to comply using PrismaBiz
Ready-made templates for this clause
Frequently asked questions
Does every indicator have to improve all the time?
No. The system as a whole has to evolve. An indicator that is stable and comfortably inside its target can be acceptable if the organization decided to concentrate its effort somewhere else.
How do I prove continual improvement to the auditor?
With history: a comparison of indicators, targets and audit results between periods, together with management review decisions that were actually implemented.
Does continual improvement require a methodology such as lean or six sigma?
No. Any method is acceptable, and so is no formal method at all, as long as there is evidence that the system has improved.