detailed design review p10712 wegmans cheesecake process improvement

1

DETAILED DESIGN REVIEW P10712 WEGMANS CHEESECAKE PROCESS IMPROVEMENT

Andreana CranceKevin RodasRob Santora

Jeremy SmithMatt Syska

2

DETAILED DESIGN REVIEW DISCUSSION AGENDA

Meeting Agenda Time

Design Review Goals 1:00-1:05

Review of Customer Needs 1:05-1:10

Review of Engineering Specs

1:10-1:15

Cheesecake Process Information

1:15-1:30

Proposals #1, #2, #3, #4 1:30-2:45

MSD II Preliminary Project Plan

2:45-2:50

Q & A 2:50-3:00

3

GOALS FOR DETAILED DESIGN REVIEW Bring Wegmans up to date with process

improvement findings

Review proposals for process improvement

Set the stage for MSD II and implementing changes

4

CUSTOMER NEEDSCustomer Need Description Comment Rank

CN1 All solutions meet food safety needs. 1Safety

CN2The dumping water task is efficient and safe for the

employees.Will reduce cycle time and ergonomic issues associated with

oven unload water spillage 2

Throughput /

Process Time

CN3 Reduce variability throughout entire cheesecake line.Improve worker efficiency for new workers. Reduce safety and ergonomic issues associated with current process. 2

CN4 Minimize excess time spent on marble cheesecake. Will reduce cycle time for marble cheesecakes. 2

CN5 Efficient bread basket loading.Standard process for employees to follow will increase

productiveness. 2

CN6Reduce the distance to push/pull heavy material and

carts. Reduce ergonomic concern for employee. 2

CN7 Labor at water pouring is minimized. Eliminate amount of labor needed at oven load. 2

CN8Eliminate excess water throughout cheesecake tunnel

oven.Reduce the need to spill water and end of oven. Reduce the

possible safety issues associated with current process. 2

CN9 Effective use of labor at batter dropper.Will eliminate double handling of cheesecakes after batter is

poured. 2

CN10Organization at oven load due to baking sheets is

efficient. Will eliminate clutter in area due to pans. 2

5

CUSTOMER NEEDSCustomer Need Description Comment Rank

CN11Reduce scrap issues associated with unloading

cheesecakes from pans.Will reduce concern for possible scrap. Will reduce

ergonomic concern. 3 Scrap

CN12 The cheesecakes have a standard weight pre bake. Will ensure a standard product. 3

CN13 Safety standards at loading process' are insufficient.Will improve the ergonomic safety conditions for the mixing

process. 4

Ergonomics

CN14Minimize physical stress on employees loading/unloading of cheesecake trays.

Improve worker morale and health due to reducing the amount of lifting he/she must do. 4

CN15Minimize physical stress on employees loading/unloading of bread baskets. Will improve safety of lifting from high location. 4

CN16 Batter scooping task is ergonomically safe for employee. 4

CN17Reduce variability in mixing to address ergonomic

concerns.Will reduce and eliminate ergonomic concerns for

employees. 4

CN18 Ensure safety conditions at oven load process.Will create a safer work environment at the oven load

process. 4

CN19 Decrease amount of batter spilled at oven load.Will create a more standard final product as well as a safer

work environment. 4

CN20The oven sensor recognizes present activity without

employee interference.Eliminates the possibility of possible hazards for oven load

employees. 5Misc

6

ENGINEERING SPECSMetric

No.Metric Importance Units Marginal Value Target Value Proposal(s)

to Obtain Spec

1 Cheesecake per labor hour 9 # of Cheesecake 45 50 1, 2, 3, 42 Risk of injuries 3 (benchmarking unit

using NIOSH, etc)25% reduction of benchmarking unit

75% reduction of benchmarking unit

2, 3, 4

3 People travel distance 1 % travel distance reduction

10% 25% 1

4 Number of reworked products

3 Percentage rework 25% reduction of current rework rate

50% reduction of current rework rate

2, 3, 4

5 Throughput Rate 9 # of Cheesecake/hour

475 Small Cakes/Hror

420 Large Cakes/Hr

560 Small Cakes/Hror

470 Large Cakes/Hr

3, 4

6 Process improvement has full ROI for customer

9 Years 1 Year 0.5 Years 1, 2, 3, 4

7 Solutions meet Wegmans specific health code

standards

9 Y/N Y Y 1, 2, 3, 4

8 Cheesecake retains “homemade” feel

9 Y/N Y Y 1, 2, 3, 4

9 Process changes can meet holiday demand

9 Y/N Y Y 1, 2, 3, 4

7

PROCESS STEPS AND 7 FORMS OF WASTEProcess Steps

& Categories

of Waste

Set up for process Mixing (through first cycle) Mixing (Adding ingredients)

Transportation Travel distance to mixing blades storage.

Travel distance to cake dropper, 2nd dropper, yellow water buckets.

Travel distance to raw ingredient storage (sugar, cream cheese)

Get mixing bowls from storage location

Travel distance to mixer guards

Travel distance to move mixing bowls to dropper queue

Inventory Raw material (sugar) Raw material (cream

cheese)

Queue of ready mixing bowls in front of mixer

Queue of ready mixing bowls in front of mixer

Motion Filling buckets with extra sugar (11.4 lb)

Repetitive motion of cream cheese loading

Scraping batter off sides of mixing bowl & blade

Scraping batter off sides of mixing bowl & blade Move completed bowls to dropper queue Prepping yellow buckets with eggs, lemon juice and

vanilla Waiting Waiting for mixer setup Wait for mixer to get up to speed

Waiting for dropper set up Over

Processing Raw material (sugar) pallet

– process only calls for 6-8 bags

Can opener process

Over Production

Defects Entire mixing bowl scrapped due to faulty

mixing blades

8

Process Steps

& Categories of Waste

Dropping Marble Oven Load Oven Unload & Depanning

Transportation Getting new pans from storage location

Getting material needed for dropping

Travel distance between dropper and chocolate mixer

Travel distance between choc. Mixer and table

Travel dist. To return trays for load

Travel distance to refill water bucket

Large cheesecakes into and out of freezer

Inventory Dropper to loading queue

Queue of racks waiting for loading Queue of cheesecakes to be depanned

Motion Loading and unloading of carts

Repetitive motion of twirling

Loading batter into choc. Dropper

Loading and unloading trays

Water pouring into pans Unloading carts

Loading/Unloading carts Pouring water out of pan Repetitive motion of flipping

cheesecakes out of pan

Waiting Wait for dropper setup

Wait for first bowl of batter

Wait on cheesecakes

Wait for oven intake Wait for large cheesecakes to freeze

Queue between unload and depanning

Wait for operator to change bread basket/reload trays

PROCESS STEPS AND 7 FORMS OF WASTE

9

PROCESS STEPS AND 7 FORMS OF WASTEProcess Steps

& Categories

of Waste

Dropping Marble Oven Load Oven Unload & Depanning

Over

Processing Calibration of

dropper settings

Too much water in pan Measuring water accuracy

Over Production

Defects Incorrect weight of cake

Not enough water in pan Cakes sticking to pans (in pans too long)

Cakes too warm to depan

10

PRE & POST

TUNNEL OVEN

11

PROPOSAL 1: MARBLE CHEESECAKE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

Suggestion:-Relocate marble cheesecake tableCurrent Location: Blue Proposed Location: Red

12

Implied Results: Reduced travel time: ~60’ shorter distance round

trip, 50% reduction

- Time saved when moving trays of batter, when operators travel from mixing area to assist in marble

Operators can see whole process:- Queue build up at marble is visible, operators can adjust to

reduce queue- More of a U-Shaped design than current

Reduced strain on operators

PROPOSAL 1: MARBLE CHEESECAKE PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS

13

Move the table for 1 shift Complete time studies Gather employee opinion

If test successful: Analyze new process (time studies) Gather employee opinion for additional improvement Create standard work

If test unsuccessful: Gather employee opinion

Why unsuccessful? Can we design out the problems in a different way?

Redesign concept

PROPOSAL 1: TEST PLAN

14

PROPOSAL 1: RISKS

Risk ID Description of Risk Possible Causes Possible Consequences Probability of Risk (1/3/9)

Severity of Risk (1/3/9)

Overall Risk Contingency/ Prevention

R5 Not enough floor space for design

Additional equipment used

Increased injury rate and increased cycle

time3 9 27

Develop alternate methods of reducing cycle time, reduce

amount of equipment on floor

R6 Employees gradually revert to old ways

Continuous improvement procedures are not

implemented correctly

Improvements from new process are not

realized9 3 27

Work with management to develop a plan to make sure new process is followed. Create audit/metric plan.

P1-R1 Physical strain caused by moving table during testing

Table is heavy and must be moved

Injuries occur. Employees still do marble at current

location3 9 27

Ensure table is moved safely, put wheels on table, buy a table specifically for proposed area.

P1-R2 Moving table causes conflict with other processes

Employees do not move table back after use

Other processes are slowed 1 3 3 Buy a table specifically for

proposed area.

15

PROPOSAL 2: ASSISTED WATER POURING UNIT

To reduce ergonomic strain of water pouring process and ensure consistent volumetric pouring with controlled and timed flow.

Pneumatic PowerPro’s:

• Air leaks are not dangerous and will not contaminate food

• Easier to run air hose than electric line

• Air disconnects are easy to use

Con’s:• Need to run air line to unit• More parts to maintain, replace• Only one Time State for given

setup, must be changed manually

Electric Power Pro’s:

• Digital timer easy to program• Possibility of programming

different Time States for Large or Small cake pans

• Fewer parts to maintain Con’s:

• Water and electricity don’t mix• Need to run power line to/from

unit• or Use batteries• Have to store batteries• Make replacement of batteries

easy

16

PROPOSAL 2: ASSISTED WATER POURING UNITCycle Time Comparison between Current and Proposed with

AWP Unit

Current Process w/AWPU0

50

100

150

200

250

57 57

9357

CT (Water)CT (Pans)CT (Mach)Ti

me

(s)

* Time to pour with AWP Unit is estimated as

approximately the same time it takes to load the pans onto the oven belt

Time saved=~36 sec. per row

2.08 min. left to work

2.68 min. left to work

~ 35 rows/shift * 36 sec/row savings = 1260 sec = 21 min. saved at loading process

17

PROPOSAL 2: ASSISTED WATER POURING UNIT

• Mounted to side of oven for ease of use and accessibility.• Trigger release to allow water flow to pans.• Water and power source from adjacent wall is able to disconnect from unit.• Unit is removable from mount to allow cleaning, maintenance and storage when not in

use.• Will eliminate ergonomic issues of bending into water bucket and time to refill and wheel

over bucket.

18

PROPOSAL 2: ASSISTED WATER POURING UNITDelay Unit Water

Line

To Triggers

From triggers

To Nozzle

Water Source

Actuator/2-Way

Flow Control

Air Source

Air Line

Inside AWP-Unit

19

PROPOSAL 2: HANDHELD UNIT

Design will be dependant on Ease Of Use and Ergo concerns

Will be developed during MSD 2

Shown is the basic concept as seen by the team

20

PROPOSAL 2: ASSISTED WATER POURING UNITSchematic of Pneumatic and Hydraulic Lines

21

PROPOSAL 2: BILL OF MATERIALBill Of Materials

Product Number Vendor Product Desc. Quantity List PriceTotal Part

Price Lead Tme

1 Model 0S-6 Roessel (Fabco)

Adjustable interval delay valve 1 100.00 $0.00 5 Days

2 MAV-3R Roessel (Clippard) 3-Way Air Valve 2 $8.97 $17.94 5 Days

3 11916-1-BLK Roessel (Clippard) Push Button 2 $0.96 $1.92 5 Days

4 11792-4-PKG Roessel (Clippard)

Air hose fitting (10-32 - 1/8, 10 per pkg) 1 $6.90 $6.90 5 Days

5 MJV-2Roessel

(Clippard)2-Way Valve (1/8 -

1/8) 1 $11.89 $11.89 5 Days

6 MPA-3P Roessel (Clippard) Air Pilot Actuator 1 $6.37 $6.37 5 Days

7 JFC-4K Roessel (Clippard)

Adjustable flow valve (1/4) 1 $17.46 $17.46 5 Days

8 11924-1-PKG Roessel (Clippard)

Air hose fitting (1/8 - 1/8, 10 per pkg) 1 $5.20 $5.20 5 Days

9 URH1-0804-GNT-050 Roessel (Clippard) Air Hose (50 ft) 1 $20.06 $20.06 5 Days

10 11999-PKG Roessel (Clippard)

Air Hose Coupling (10 per pkg) 1 $4.30 $4.30 5 Days

11 5228K12 McmasterPush-on hose fitting

(1/4 NPT (f) to 1/4 ID, 10 per pkg)

1 $7.45 $7.45 2 Days

12 53515K21 McmasterPush-on hose fitting (1/8 NPT (m) to 1/4

ID)2 $14.14 $28.28 2 Days

13 6718K52 McmasterQuick Disconnect

hose fitting (1/4 NPT (f) to 1/4 ID plug)

1 $4.63 $4.63 2 Days

14 91465K12 McmasterPush-on hose fitting (3/8 NPT to 1/4 ID, 5

per pkg)1 $7.12 $7.12 2 Days

15 5288K115 Mcmaster Rubber hose 50 $0.98 $49.00 2 Days

16 6718K87 McmasterQuick Disconnect hose fitting (1/4 socket to 1/4 ID)

1 $21.87 $21.87 2 Days

17 9307K26 Mcmaster Grommets (1/2 ID, 50 per pkg 1 $8.68 $8.68 2 Days

18 7561K23 Mcmaster Mounting Box 1 $45.54 $40.43 2 Days

19 #10-24 X .25 Sheet metal screws 4

Total $359.50

Approximate Total:

$360.00

22

PROPOSAL 2 TEST/IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

Calibrate and optimize in lab Implement into Wegmans facility under

supervision MSD students will be present during test

use at Wegmans Recalibrate/iterate if necessary

23

PROPOSAL 2: COST

Total price for AWP-Unit: about $360.00

Price for Rail and Carriage to mount: $468.52 (quoted from igus)

To avoid extra spending, the Unit will be statically mounted to the Side of the Tunnel Oven with a hose long enough to reach the far end ~15’.

To avoid problems with unruly hoses, a cable retractor may be used. For a hose roughly 15’ long, cable retractors to reach $300-$400. To reach mid-hose (8’ retractors) the price is $81.

24

Risk ID Description of Risk Possible Causes Possible Consequences

Probability of Risk (1/3/9)



R12 Ordered parts do not arrive on time

Wrong parts are ordered, lead time on parts is long

Completion of project on jeopardy

3 3 9Have orders expedited or order custom parts earlier. Call vendor to ensure correct parts are ordered.

R13 Catastrophic failure of design near end term

Inadequate testing analysis

Completion of project on jeopardy

1 9 9Have well documented designs so parts can be redesigned/made. Have an alternate plan.

(P2)R17 Contaminate food (water)

Incorrect material specifications, leakages

Increased scrap rate/ possible health concerns for consumers

1 9 9Thurough testing in lab to troubleshoot and solve possible issues

R18 Cheesecakes dry out during baking

Insufficient analysis/testing of proper moisture needed during baking process, not enough water in trays

Increased scrap rate/ decreased sales

1 9 9Unit is optimized in lab to deliver correct amounts of water. Trial runs to determine minimum amount of water to be dispensed.

P2R1 Unit is not used by staff

Placed in an inconvenient location, does not receive adequate supply of water or air

Unit is not used, no metrics have been improved, money is wasted

1 9 9

Work together with Maintenance to have Unit installed in a convient place for operator (with operator help) and correctly integrated into buildings utilities.

P2R2Unit is awkward/difficult to use

Handheld unit is uncomfortable and awkward to hold/use

Ergo issues, unit not used 1 9 9

Test Plan for developing a comfortable and functional handle from durable and safe material.

25

PROPOSAL 3: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH CURRENT OVEN CAPACITY)

Depanning currently a bottleneck for small cheesecake.

Oven currently the bottleneck for large cheesecake. Oven release rate: 4m 35s (4.58 min)

26

PROPOSAL 3: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH CURRENT OVEN CAPACITY)

Small Cheesecake 2.5 operators depan 64

cheesecake in 8.6 min. (2 depanning, 0.5 helping with bread baskets) -> 8.06 seconds per cheesecake.

Large Cheesecake 3 operators depan 32

cheesecake in 3.6 min (2 depanning, 1 helping with bread baskets) -> 6.75 seconds per cheesecake.

Depanning currently the bottleneck with small cheesecake. Oven currently the bottleneck with large cheesecake. Oven release rate: 4m 35s (4.58 min) -> 1 Small Cheesecake every 4.30 seconds (64 per row), 1 Large

Cheesecake every 8.60 seconds (32 per row).

On a Typical Run (710 Small, 750 Large) Small cheesecake are run first, inventory builds up. Once large

cheesecakes begin to come out of the oven, operators catch up from large cheesecake 20 minute “freeze” time and the large cheesecake shorter takt time.

Do not catch up completely. -> Still ~30 minutes of depanning to be completed once all cheesecakes have left oven.

27

SUGGESTION 1: DEPANNING KAIZEN EVENT

28

PROPOSAL 3: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH CURRENT OVEN CAPACITY) - RISKS

Risk ID Description of Risk Possible Causes Possible

ConsequencesProbability of Risk (1/3/9)

Severity of Risk (1/3/9) Overall Risk Contingency/ Prevention

R1 Bakery employees resist change

Process is too complex. Employees do not like new process.

Cannot implement solutions 9 3 27

Make employees part of the process change to increase chances of success, gather input and concerns. Work w/ supervisors to involve employees in change process.

R5 Not enough floor space for design

Additional equipment used

Increased injury rate and increased cycle time

3 9 27 Develop alternate methods of reducing cycle time, reduce amount of equipment on floor

R6 Employees gradually revert to old ways

Continuous improvement procedures are not implemented correctly

Improvements from new process are not realized

9 3 27Work with management to develop a plan to make sure new process is followed. Create audit/metric plan.

R7 Throughput reduced after plan implemented

Improper analysis of new process

Production schedule not met 3 9 27

Perform calculations/simulation throughout project to ensure throughput is not decreased. If one step of process reduces throughput, find other places in process to increase throughput.

R8 Quality of cheesecake reduced

Bad implementation of process changes.

Increased scrap rate/ decreased sales 3 9 27 Develop more strict quality checks to ensure

high quality product.

R15New process optimized for a limited throughput

New process not flexible enough

Unable to meet increased customer demand

1 9 9 Ensure the process can handle fluctuation in demand

R20Process doesn't improve upon any metrics

During design, engineering specs are not referenced

Wegman's cancels project 1 3 3

Keep running log to ensure process is improving upon metrics. Develop alternate methods throughout project and choose ideas that are beneficial and realistic.

29

PROPOSAL 3 & SUGGESTION 1 TEST PLAN:

Set up & run Kaizen event Implement changes Follow up on success Measure new process Continue to improve!

30

PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)

31


Current rate: Small: 14.0 Cheesecakes/ min Large: 7.0 Cheesecakes/ min

Small tray plan: Small: 21.0 Cheesecakes/ min (50% increase)

Large: 7.0 Cheesecakes/ min(0% increase)

Large tray plan: Small: 15.7 Cheesecakes/ min (12.5% increase)

Large: 7.9 Cheesecakes/ min(12.5% increase)

Average Tunnel Oven Capacity

32


16”x 26”x 1.5” Large Pan DesignFits both large and small cheesecakes.

33


12”x 26”x 1.5” Small Pan DesignFits small cheesecakes

34


Pricing

12”x 26” Small Cheesecake Pan • 1 @ $ 453.23 ea.• 12 @ $ 79.98 ea.• 100 @ $ 46.79 ea.• 300 @ $ 41.70 ea.

16”x 26” Large Cheesecake Pan • 1 @ $ 455.23 ea.• 12 @ $ 81.98 ea.• 100 @ $ 48.78 ea.• 300 @ $ 43.70 ea.

*Quotes via Universal Precision Corp. with an approximate lead time of 6 weeks.

35


How can we make the new pan idea work?

Increase the throughput rate of depanning using a kaizen event and possibly adding second depanning station (2 more employees for approximately 45 minutes).

36


Current Depanning Method

• Small cheesecakes sit waiting for depan for up to 45 minutes

• Causes sticking to pan

• Total depan time is approximately 3.5 hours

With Second Depan Station

• Small cheesecakes never sit waiting (current pans)

• Small cheesecake pans sit waiting for maximum of 13 minutes (12”x 26” pans)

• Sticking reduction• Waste reduction• Total depan time is

approximately 2 hours • Allows for mew tray idea (Frees

up oven faster)

37

PROPOSAL 4 TEST/IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:

Implement changes to depanning to ensure it will meet demands of new pans (throughput)

Blanket order to ensure that design meets proper specifications (fit, volume, etc)

38


Risk ID

Description of Risk Possible Causes Possible

ConsequencesProbability

of Risk (1/3/9)



P4-R1Pan design proposal gets turned down

Not enough proof showing need

This part of the design would be removed; Refocus on different area of project.

9 3 27 Find enough data to prove the need.

P4-R2 Sheet metal house has Delays Very busy company

Pans may not come in on time in order to do proper testing

1 9 9 Keep in touch with hired company and get constant status updates.

P4-R3 Pans come in wrong

Mistake by sheet metal house; calculation error

Lost time waiting for new pans; lost time for testing

1 9 9Double check all work; keep in touch with sheet metal house to ensure they know exactly what is wanted.

P4-R4Storage for pans becomes unavailable

Not enough room for storage of pans

Nowhere to store the pans; Disposal of pans 1 9 9

Ensure that there is enough space for these pans to be stored in; Ensure that there will be a dedicated place for these pans.

P4-R5 Pans don't fit on racks

Improper calculations; Pans not built to spec

pans don't get used; pans are disposed of 1 9 9

Check and all dimensions on pans and racks before submitting the order; Do a blanket order so you can test a few pans, and make changes to the rest before they are made.

P4-R6Depanning can't keep up with process

More cheesecakes coming out of the oven at one time

Damaged cakes; no gain in cake making efficiency 3 9 27

Make sure that everyone is on board in the process improvement plans for depanning.

P4-R7 Pans have problems with washing machine

Washing machine doesn't support this size pan; lack of investigation on the issue

Pans aren’t properly washed; pans don't get used 1 9 9

Make sure that the washer can handle pans of this specific size.

39

SUGGESTION 2: 5S/SIMPLIFICATION PROCESS

Use 5S/Simplification techniques to organize the area(s): Tape on floor Dedicated storage Standard work Workers assigned to clean

40

MSD II PRELIMINARY PROJECT PLAN

detailed design review p10712 wegmans cheesecake process improvement

Documents

oven load process

standard process

loading process

current process

mixing process

process improvement

cheesecake tunnel oven

ergonomic issues