The aim of this study is to introduce tools to improve the security of each IMRT patient treatment by determining action levels for the dose delivery process. To achieve this, the patient-specific quality control results performed with an ionization chamber—and which characterize the dose delivery process—have been retrospectively analyzed using a method borrowed from industry: Statistical process control (SPC). The latter consisted in fulfilling four principal well-structured steps. The authors first quantified the short term variability of ionization chamber measurements regarding the clinical tolerances used in the cancer center (±4% of deviation between the calculated and measured doses) by calculating a control process capability (Cpc) index. The Cpc index was found superior to 4, which implies that the observed variability of the dose delivery process is not biased by the short term variability of the measurement. Then, the authors demonstrated using a normality test that the quality control results could be approximated by a normal distribution with two parameters (mean and standard deviation). Finally, the authors used two complementary tools—control charts and performance indices—to thoroughly analyze the IMRT dose delivery process. Control charts aim at monitoring the process over time using statistical control limits to distinguish random (natural) variations from significant changes in the process, whereas performance indices aim at quantifying the ability of the process to produce data that are within the clinical tolerances, at a precise moment. The authors retrospectively showed that the analysis of three selected control charts (individual value, moving-range, and EWMA control charts) allowed efficient drift detection of the dose delivery process for prostate and head-and-neck treatments before the quality controls were outside the clinical tolerances. Therefore, when analyzed in real time, during quality controls, they should improve the security of treatments. They also showed that the dose delivery processes in the cancer center were in control for prostate and head-and-neck treatments. In parallel, long term process performance indices (Pp, Ppk, and Ppm) have been analyzed. Their analysis helped defining which actions should be undertaken in order to improve the performance of the process. The prostate dose delivery process has been shown statistically capable (0.08% of the results is expected to be outside the clinical tolerances) contrary to the head-and-neck dose delivery process (5.76% of the results are expected to be outside the clinical tolerances).