Differences between 6.1 vs 10 (9001:2015)?

Hi all
I want to know if opportunities in 6.1 have other purpose compared to clause 10
in respect to improvements?
If there are no differences, why is mentioned in both?
I suppose would it be better just be mentioned in clause 10, because is
in a global coverage.

Please advice
Thanks

 

I believe 6.1.1 wants to know how you plan to achieve improvement (using risks and opportunities), and 10.3 wants to see evidence (achieve quality objectives? Action items from management reviews).

 

W

Would it be valid to state that opportunities detected in 6.1 are always external opportunities?, while improvements (10.3) are internal? Both are improvements to the system,

 

Hi I have drawn you a small ppt to show the difference. Sorry for the quality - have some problems with my laptop.
Basically 6.1 grows out of the global context of the organization and is in general an external input into QMS at its planning stage (plan) while needs and opportunities at 10.3 are results of monitoring and measurement of existing QMS (act)

 

Identifying "opportunities" in clauses 6.1 and 10 have common expectations, which are:

• to enhance desirable effects;
• to enhance customer satisfaction;
• to improve products and services;
• to improve the quality management system and its processes;
• to improve performance and effectiveness;
• to improve suitability, adequacy, etc.

However, the timing and intentions are different. One is when an organization is "planning" for its system and processes while another is when an organization is "checking and acting" on its system and processes.

 

Tha

Thanks Tonys
When You say "planning' you mean when a system is being setup for the first time? the starting of a qms? Or could exist planning while a system is running ?
On the other hand, why in 6.1 requests to ensure effectiveness and not so in clause 10?
Could you help me in Clarify?
Thanks

 

Both. Typically, on a periodical basis e.g. annually, organization plans for their processes and operations. Planning can also happen when changes on the organization are needed.

According to 6.1.2 "The organization shall PLAN...how to evaluate the effectiveness...". That's why it is stated in clause 6 - PLANNING. The actual conduct of the evaluation, as specified in the standard, happens at clause 9 - PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

 

Thanks Tonys
Maybe I didn't explain clearly.
Why in 6.1 requires to ensure effectiveness and in 10.3 (continual improvement) doesn't require the effectiveness?
Thanks

 

Effectiveness of what? Clause 10 mentions "effectiveness" several times:

• improving the performance and effectiveness of the quality management system (10.1c);
  
• review the effectiveness of any corrective action taken (10.2.1d);
  
• The organization shall continually improve the suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the quality management system (10.3).

 

I refer to this:
If in 6.1 opportunities (which is improvement) the standard requires to evaluate effectiveness of actions, while in 10, 10.3 don't specifically require to evaluate effectiveness of improvements (which in my point of view are also actions).
Thanks

 

The standard is structured using the PDCA cycle.

PLAN - 6.1 requires the organization to plan how to evaluate effectiveness of the actions to address risks/opportunities;
DO - 8.1 requires to implement the actions determined in 6.1;
CHECK - 9.1, 9.3 requires to evaluate and review effectiveness of the actions;
ACT - 10.2.1 prescribes that when we take corrective actions, we need to update risks/opportunities. Then in 10.3, through the outputs of the management review, says that we have to determine opportunities in order to continually improve. Then we go back to PLAN. Thus, there's no need to require evaluation of effectiveness again.​

 

Hello. 'Opportunity' defined in clause 6.1 is somewhat different from clause 10.3. Although both are proactive measurements, the one in clause 6.1 is basically taking benefits from organization's changing environment. On the other hand, clause 10.3 requires you to determine internal opportunities (by considering the results of analysis, evaluation and management review) for continual improvement. The reason for this is to have a full control over an opportunity determined for continual improvement.

Note that you must still plan actions for opportunities detected during analysis and evaluation phase. This is required to complete the PDCA cycle.

 

Perfect explanation reflecting clear difference between the two.

 

Consider an example like this...

1. I have to cross the road to reach the opposite side in a shortest possible time. To accomplish this, I've to take risk since there is traffic on the road. ----> Risks (according to Clause 6.1)

2. I'll keep waiting beside the road. When there are no cars approaching, I'll cross the road. ----> Opportunities (according to Clause 6.1)

3. While crossing the road, I'll measure width of the road and the time I spent to complete it. I'll later analyse the data, evaluate and seek a better solution. What if I use the time waiting for the traffic to ease, plus time for crossing the road, for a footbridge only 50 meters away? ----> Opportunities (according to Clause 10.3)

In the first situation, you're taking risk.
In the second situation, you're trying to take advantage of your changing environment (which is not under your control).
In the third situation, you're trying to improve your operation (which is under your control).