ISO/IEC 17025 clause 8.6: improve laboratory work using feedback
Clause 8.6 requires the laboratory to identify and select improvement opportunities and implement necessary actions. It also requires seeking positive and negative customer feedback, analysing it and using it to improve the management system, laboratory activities and customer service. Improvement is an active responsibility, not just a list of suggestions.
What clause 8.6 requires in practice
Clause 8.6 has two parts. First, the laboratory identifies and selects opportunities for improvement and carries out any actions that are needed. A note lists where such opportunities can come from: a look at operating procedures, how policies are applied, broad objectives, the findings of audits, corrective actions, management review, ideas from staff, risk assessment, data analysis and proficiency testing results.
Second, the laboratory seeks feedback from its customers, both positive and negative. The laboratory analyses that feedback and acts on it to strengthen the management system, its laboratory work and the service customers receive. A note gives examples of ways to gather it: satisfaction surveys, communication records and reviewing reports together with customers.
The clause applies under Option A. It asks for action, not just collection: improvement opportunities are chosen and implemented, and feedback has to change something where the analysis shows it should.
Why improvement and customer feedback matter
Customers who are satisfied rarely say so, and customers who are quietly dissatisfied often leave without a complaint. Asking deliberately lets the laboratory see problems early and learn what it does well.
Improvement also keeps the laboratory competitive. Faster sample receipt, clearer reports and better advice are the details that make a customer return. Because the clause links feedback to the management system, it also exposes internal weaknesses that never produce a formal complaint. Choosing improvements on evidence, rather than enthusiasm, keeps effort aimed at what matters to results and customers.
How to implement clause 8.6
Make feedback part of normal contact with customers, and choose improvements with the same care as technical changes. Customers are more likely to reply when asking is easy and the laboratory visibly acts on what it hears, so keep the method light and share outcomes with those who took part. Tell customers what changed because of their comments.
- Pick two or three simple ways to hear from customers, such as a short survey, a call after a large job or a review of a report together.
- Gather positive comments as well as criticism, and note both in one place.
- Classify each piece of negative feedback by substance, routing complaints to clause 7.9 and technical faults to nonconforming work.
- Collect improvement ideas from audits, corrective actions, staff suggestions and proficiency testing.
- Select improvements by value and risk, assign owners and state the expected benefit.
- Check afterwards that the change worked and did not weaken result validity.
Find opportunities in operating evidence
Use information from procedures, objectives, audits, corrective actions, management review, staff suggestions, risk consideration, monitoring and external comparisons where relevant. These sources can reveal both technical weaknesses and service friction. The standard does not require a separate improvement project for every comment.
Prioritise opportunities according to their value and effect on the laboratory's work. A simpler sample-receipt process, clearer report explanation or better competence support can be valuable. Evaluate changes technically before introducing them so an efficiency improvement does not weaken result validity.
Seek feedback rather than waiting only for complaints
Feedback may be gathered through surveys, discussions, communication records or review of reports with customers. The standard does not prescribe a particular survey platform or one universal frequency. Use a method capable of obtaining meaningful information from the customers and services involved.
Analyse positive feedback as well as criticism. It can reveal what customers find useful and what should be preserved during change. Negative feedback may identify an improvement opportunity, a complaint requiring clause 7.9 handling or nonconforming work requiring technical action. Classify the issue by substance rather than selecting the least demanding process.
Turn selection into action
Define the intended benefit, responsibility and relevant checks. Review whether the improvement achieved its purpose and whether it introduced unintended effects. The standard's requirement is to implement necessary action; a practical action log can help, but the format is not prescribed.
Connect significant improvement information with management review. Decisions about resources, priorities or changes should be informed by actual laboratory performance and customer experience, not only by a count of ideas submitted.
Two illustrative improvements
A calibration laboratory learns that customers struggle to interpret an uncertainty statement. It improves the explanation and staff communication while retaining technically correct reporting. The response addresses understanding rather than removing necessary information to make the certificate look simpler.
A materials laboratory receives positive feedback about early clarification of sample requirements and negative feedback about repeated receipt queries. It analyses the pattern and improves pre-submission guidance. It checks whether the change reduces confusion without creating unsupported acceptance promises.
Evidence and common mistakes
Useful evidence includes feedback received, analysis, selected actions and relevant results. Clause 8.6 does not prescribe an annual customer-satisfaction score or a particular register. Demonstrate how feedback influenced decisions instead of presenting an unread survey export.
Avoid counting only compliments, treating every complaint as a marketing issue, or prioritising turnaround time without checking technical effects. Improvement should strengthen the system and service together, with appropriate controls maintained.
Frequently asked questions
Is a formal customer survey mandatory?
No particular survey format is prescribed. The laboratory must seek positive and negative feedback, analyse it and use it to improve relevant aspects of its work.
Is every improvement a corrective action?
No. Improvement can develop an already conforming process. Corrective action addresses causes of nonconformity to prevent recurrence or occurrence elsewhere.
Can positive feedback lead to useful action?
Yes. It can identify valuable practices to preserve or extend, particularly when the laboratory changes systems, expands services or introduces new ways of working.
Turn this requirement into reliable laboratory practice
Ask Sterling to help connect laboratory feedback with a practical improvement programme. A free consultation can identify where clearer processes, employee learning and appropriate system support would improve both technical reliability and customer experience.
Build the team's understanding through ISO/IEC 17025 Awareness. Discuss the relevant scope, employee learning and agreed access to Effivity ISO & GRC automation software with Sterling; laboratory technical decisions remain with competent, authorised personnel.
ISO/IEC 17025 requirements hub · Management-system requirements · Complaints · Corrective action · Management review