Beyond technology

Why process improvement starts with leadership

Technological innovation has transformed contact lens manufacturing over the past decades. Yet sustainable progress depends on more than advanced equipment. Regularly reviewing established manufacturing processes and encouraging a culture of continuous improvement can uncover hidden inefficiencies and improve long-term competitiveness. To complement this perspective, industrial psychologist Dr. M. Peter Scontrino contributes a guest commentary on leadership and Lean principles.

When Technology Evolves but Processes Stay the Same

Over the years, my articles have concentrated on the technical side of lens manufacturing as it relates to lathes, workholding (blocking) and polishing. More recently, I have discussed how leadership influences operational success. This article continues that discussion by looking at how manufacturing processes evolve—or sometimes fail to evolve—alongside technological advances.

Having worked in the industry since the 1970s, I have seen most manufacturing advances driven by new technology: CNC lathes, automated blockers, bladder polishing systems and increasingly sophisticated metrology. Companies adopted these innovations because they offered competitive advantages.

Processes, however, often change much more slowly.

The fact that laboratories continue to manufacture contact lenses and intraocular lenses using a wide variety of production methods suggests that many manufacturing processes have become internal traditions rather than objective best practices. In some organizations, these methods are closely guarded and rarely questioned. Common explanations include, “The founder developed this process,” or simply, “We’ve always done it this way.”

While tradition certainly has its place, today’s manufacturing technologies provide an opportunity to revisit long-established workflows. One example is the adoption of modern blocking methods designed to protect the complex geometry of the posterior lens surface during CNC machining. Yet many laboratories continue to operate modern equipment using production philosophies inherited from the manual lathe era.

Process Audits Reveal Opportunities

In recent years, we have worked with a manufacturing consultant who performs comprehensive process audits. Beginning with order entry—often through Focal Points—and ending with final packaging, every stage of production is evaluated to identify strengths and opportunities for improvement.

One recurring observation is the reliance on correction or “fudge factors” for certain lens designs or materials. These adjustments often indicate that the manufacturing process itself is no longer fully under control. In one laboratory, for example, lens powers consistently fell outside tolerance, requiring costly manual rework after production. From both a productivity and cost perspective, this is something every manufacturer should strive to eliminate.

A thorough audit often uncovers issues that are difficult to recognize internally. The real value lies in identifying problems and approaching the findings with an open mind and a willingness to improve.

Leadership Makes the Difference

In my previous article, I discussed the difference between management and leadership. Managers ensure that established processes run efficiently and production flows smoothly. Leaders, on the other hand, focus on the bigger picture: productivity, profitability and the company’s future direction.

Effective leaders regularly evaluate whether existing processes still represent the best way of working. They encourage internal reviews, welcome external expertise and create a culture where continuous improvement is viewed as an ongoing responsibility rather than a one-time project.

Fortunately, I see this mindset developing in several organizations throughout our industry. These companies actively encourage employees to look for opportunities to improve manufacturing.

As many readers know, I have spent much of my career promoting better manufacturing practices. It is difficult to watch laboratories struggle with inefficient processes when I have seen other organizations dramatically improve performance simply by adopting different methods.

Recently, I met industrial psychologist Dr. M. Peter Scontrino. Our conversation reinforced my belief that successful process improvement depends not only on technology but also on organizational culture and leadership. His perspective complements many of the ideas discussed above, so I invited him to share his experience with implementing Lean principles in manufacturing organizations.

Lead into Lean

By M. Peter Scontrino, Ph.D.

During more than forty years as a consultant, I have encountered many definitions of leadership. The one that has stayed with me is simple: “The role of the leader is to create an environment that facilitates the accomplishment of organizational goals.” In many ways, this definition captures the essence of effective leadership.

Throughout my work implementing Lean and other organizational improvement initiatives, I have repeatedly seen this principle proven true. Organizations whose leaders embraced Lean without fully understanding its philosophy—or without considering their existing culture and defining clear objectives—typically achieved only modest results.

By contrast, organizations that understood Lean as a philosophy built around employee engagement experienced far greater and more sustainable improvements. Simply put, Lean cannot succeed without involving the people who perform the work every day.

When I begin working with a leadership team, I introduce the eight forms of waste identified decades ago by quality pioneer Dr. W. Edwards Deming. I then ask each leader to identify examples of waste within their own department and estimate the associated costs.

This simple exercise almost always demonstrates that waste exists on a much larger scale than expected. In my experience, leadership teams typically identify only 10 to 20 percent of the inefficiencies actually present within their organizations.

People working on the production floor and in the office experience inefficient systems, procedures and equipment every day. They often know where valuable time is being lost. Given the opportunity, employee teams are remarkably effective at identifying root causes and practical solutions.

One recent project illustrates this well. A manufacturing company was spending sixteen hours each week on a production cleanup that should have required only twelve hours. Those four additional hours represented approximately $250,000 in lost annual production capacity.

Working together, five production employees and two supervisors documented every step of the cleanup process, identified what worked and what did not, and proposed improvements. After six days, the team had developed 130 specific recommendations.

Some were surprisingly simple: additional hoses, properly organized storage for personal protective equipment, clearer task assignments, pre-staging cleaning chemicals and standardized operating procedures.

One example stood out. Each week, protective equipment was thrown into a corner after cleanup. The following week, every employee spent ten to fifteen minutes searching for equipment that fit. A simple storage rack eliminated this unnecessary waste.

On the final day, the employees presented all 130 recommendations directly to the company’s CEO. He endorsed their ideas and thanked them for their contributions.

Most recommendations were implemented. Cleanup time decreased significantly, production improved and employees took genuine pride in the results. Soon afterwards, other departments began asking when they would have the opportunity to improve their own processes.

At Scontrino-Powell, Inc., we help organizations become more effective through Lean implementation, executive coaching, team development and strategies that strengthen employee engagement. Sustainable improvement begins by creating an environment where people are encouraged to contribute ideas—and where leadership is prepared to listen.