## 5 Implementation
### Phase 3--Selected Methodology Application
#### 5.3.2 Improve and Deploy/Stabilization/Standardization/Optimization  
The results from evaluation showed that the selected process 'Milling operation 2' was stable and it did not require the first-off inspection process, which is the most manual task that was highlighted earlier in this paper. The business objectives were met by the results as a manual action was identified to be removed from the overall process, and the capability study supported the removal of the inspection step, thus standardizing and automating the process by reducing the number of non-value added manual steps. The strategy for deploying this improvement to the process was discussed via brainstorming sessions with the team of process engineers and operators to recommend significant improvement to the process. Other than removal of the manual step, several other solutions were proposed. Around 80% of the scrap from milling operation 2 results from defects caused by the CNC tool (i.e., process parameter #1, machine lines, tool breakage, process parameter #3), machine set-up and first-off. The following solutions were proposed for process optimization based on the scrap causes and results achieved from the analyze phase,  
* Solution 1--remove the manual step, first-off inspection. * Solution 2--based on the categorization of different levels of capability in CNC tools, the training protocol for new operators can be simplified by focusing only on the critical tools, thus saving training time. Monitoring only the critical tools will also reduce cognitive load on the operator since the nature of the tool adjustment calculations is complicated. * Solution 3--improve accuracy of the previously developed expert system for automating CNC tool adjustments to correct faults [60]. * Solution 4--install more sensors on the line and collect more data. This can be used to isolate the different variables that have an impact on the CNC tool during machining. Deploying Solution 1 reduced the average cycle-time and increased the output of the implant manufacturing process. The average cycle time, with and without manual steps, were calculated using Equations (5) and (6), respectively. The difference and the percentage difference in cycle time from removing manual steps were calculated using Equations (7) and (8), respectively. \[\mathrm{T_{M}}= \frac{\mathrm{t_{M}}}{\mathrm{N}} \tag{5}\] \[\mathrm{T_{WM}}= \frac{\mathrm{t_{WM}}}{\mathrm{N}} \tag{6}\]\[\Delta\mathrm{T}=\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{M}}\ -\ \mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{WM}} \tag{7}\] \[\Delta\mathrm{T}\%\ =\frac{\Delta\mathrm{T}}{\mathrm{T}_{ \mathrm{M}}}\times 100 \tag{8}\]  
where  
\(\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{M}}\) = total time taken to machine a number of parts with the manual steps during the process in minutes. \(\mathrm{t}_{\mathrm{WM}}\) = total time taken to machine a number of parts without the manual steps during the process in minutes. \(\mathrm{N}\) = number of parts machined during the process. \(\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{M}}\) = average cycle time with manual steps in minutes. \(\mathrm{T}_{\mathrm{WM}}\) = average cycle time without manual steps in minutes. \(\Delta\mathrm{T}\) = difference in cycle time from removing manual steps in minutes. \(\Delta\mathrm{T}\)% = difference in cycle time from removing manual steps as a percentage. The percentage difference in daily product output was calculated using Equations (9) and (10). \[\Delta\mathrm{P}\ =\ \mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{WM}}\ -\ \mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{M}} \tag{9}\]  
\[\Delta\mathrm{P}\%\ =\frac{\Delta\mathrm{P}}{\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{M}}}\times 100 \tag{10}\]  
where  
\(\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{M}}\) = product output per day with manual steps. \(\mathrm{P}_{\mathrm{WM}}\) = product output per day without manual steps. \(\Delta\mathrm{P}\) = difference in cycle time from removing manual steps as a percentage. \(\Delta\mathrm{P}\)% = difference in cycle time from removing manual steps as a percentage.