True excellence

Always room for improvement!

Excellence in contact lens manufacturing is driven by leadership, culture and a constant willingness to improve. Inspired by observations from elite sports and international industry meetings such as the Global Specialty Lens Symposium (GSLS), this article explores what distinguishes highly efficient laboratories from average performers. From legacy processes and regulatory frameworks to modern cost awareness and operational change, it highlights why continuous improvement is essential for long-term success. 

Choosing a title was a quandary for me because three titles all apply to a mission to elevate the industry. This article addresses the titles in order.

Excellence beyond size: lessons from sport and industry

As I write this, the Winter Olympic Games are winding down. Norway leads the medal count — with a population of just 5.5 million. The United States, with more than 340 million people, trails behind.

How does that happen?
Culture.
Excellence is rarely accidental. It is cultivated.

This season, the NFL Super Bowl offered another example. The Seahawks surprised many by winning the championship under a head coach in only his second season — one who never played college football. Strong leadership, a clearly defined culture, and a largely hands-off ownership philosophy combined to produce exceptional results.

What does this have to do with the contact lens industry?
Everything.

GSLS insights: observing excellence in the lab

In January, the Global Specialty Lens Symposium (GSLS) was held in Las Vegas. This international event attracts colleagues from around the world. I do not rent a booth; I value the freedom to meet peers when they are not busy with customers. These meetings provide insight into how labs are run and what managers are pursuing in the spirit of “Always room for improvement.” More on this later.

Highlights included a Lifetime Achievement Award to Professor Dr. Patrick Caroline (Pacific University School of Optometry) and to Lorenzo Benelli receiving the Contact Lens Manufacture’s Association (CLMA) Trailblazer Award for his support of the industry via the Focal Points Software platform. I have had the privilege of knowing these two gentlemen for decades. Beyond his professional influence, Pat has helped members of my family on particular optometric issues. I often reference Lorenzo when advising prospective customers considering opening a manufacturing facility: if they are unfamiliar with Focal Points, more homework is needed.

Clearly the companies exhibiting at the GSLS are providing great service to the fitters and patients. Their consulting staff are a great asset to the industry. As a machinery and tooling supplier, I visit many labs. Most excel operationally and financially – others less so. The difference is rarely geography, equipment, or market size. The difference is culture.

The best-run labs share one defining belief: There is always room for improvement.

This culture can be supported in many ways. It can take the formal approach of implementing ISO (process improvement is a tenant of ISO, even if cumbersome). It can make use of LEAN practices (again needs to be adapted to the lab process). Or it can stem from progressive leadership to engage line people to participate to make improvements. If all three protocols are implemented, how can they fail?

Another source leadership can take advantage of are their vendor partners, especially the material and machinery people. They have “seen it all” and are an invaluable resource for state-of-the-art technologies.  

Process, regulation and the evolution of manufacturing practices 

But let’s move on. I was looking in my tech library and came across a few of the good manufacturing practice manuals from the various lens material companies. ‘Fun reading, but totally out of date. They were from the early ‘90’s just before freeform optics, static blocking, and bladder polishing (wide use of transfer blocking and scleral lens processing came much later). In the manuals, step-by-step lens processing was laid out in detail including setting sphere on the lathes and making a pitch lap. Today, ISO standards and regulatory frameworks have largely replaced those documents.

Yet one essential truth remains unchanged: Process excellence is ultimately a leadership decision. No regulation mandates innovation. No ISO clause requires curiosity. Improvement must be chosen.

Leadership defines process

The Manufacturers Forum, initiated within the CLMA and later at EFCLIN, aimed to examine processing practices. Managers shared approaches, often reflecting their distance from daily production realities. But – as one respected colleague once told me – the best way to understand how a lab truly runs is to ask a line operator (lathe operator or polisher). My own visits have confirmed this repeatedly.

Some leaders seem born to the rule. Most are not – myself included – but grow into it. Analytical training helps. A key leadership trait is recognizing difficulty and seeking help from staff, management or external partners. 

“Always room for improvement.” This clearly implies that there is a culture of allowing change. There are many impediments to changing a process. You have all heard “We’ve always done it this way”, “We don’t see any advantage to changing to that, it’s too expensive”. “I’ll never get that past ownership.” “We will need to amend the ISO (or FDA) protocol which will take months”. You can probably add a few phrases to this list. The “ownership” quotation illustrates the inertia of the upper management. This takes the form of cost analyses and reports to convince them that a process change makes good financial sense. The “ISO” quotation illustrates the inertia of the regulatory environment. I see this as somewhat artificial owing to the fact that labs are buying new machines and thus processes all the time. 

The Cost of standing still

In every laboratory, Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) tells a story. A 5% reduction in COGS can translate directly into a comparable increase in net profit – without raising prices or expanding market share. And this is a much better deal. Reject rates are often the most obvious starting point. A facility operating with a 10% reject rate that cuts this figure in half can achieve substantial financial improvement. Beyond that, gains can come from reducing bottlenecks, improving inspection flow, introducing automation such as autoloading lathe systems and continuously refining production processes.

Despite this, familiar resistance phrases continue to surface:
“We’ve always done it this way, ownership will never approve it.” Or “regulation makes change too difficult.”
High-performing laboratories recognise these as challenges to solve – not reasons to stand still.

Excellence is not a destination. It is a discipline.

The laboratories I admire most are not necessarily the largest or best equipped. They are the most curious. They actively seek outside perspectives. They question long-standing assumptions. They empower line personnel and focus relentlessly on measurable performance. Leadership takes many forms. Some individuals appear naturally suited to the role. Most grow into it through experience, reflection and the willingness to learn.

The defining characteristic, however, is simple: when confronted with difficulty, effective leaders seek support – internally or externally – and take action.

There is always room for improvement.

Laboratories that embrace this mindset move steadily toward world-class performance. Those that do not simply remain where they are.

Erik Larsen graduated from the University of Washington with a Mechanical Engineering degree in 1981 and started Larsen Equipment Design later that year. Erik Larsen has industry awards from CLMA and EFCLIN.