Upload
lot
View
53
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Andreana Crance Kevin Rodas Rob Santora Jeremy Smith Matt Syska. Detailed Design Review P10712 Wegmans Cheesecake Process Improvement. Detailed Design Review Discussion Agenda. Bring Wegmans up to date with process improvement findings Review proposals for process improvement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
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)
Severity of Risk (1/3/9)
Overall Risk Contingency/ Prevention
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
PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)
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
PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)
16”x 26”x 1.5” Large Pan DesignFits both large and small cheesecakes.
33
PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)
12”x 26”x 1.5” Small Pan DesignFits small cheesecakes
34
PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)
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
PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)
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
PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)
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
PROPOSAL 4: DEPANNING CYCLE TIME (WITH IMPROVED OVEN CAPACITY)
Risk ID
Description of Risk Possible Causes Possible
ConsequencesProbability
of Risk (1/3/9)
Severity of Risk (1/3/9)
Overall Risk Contingency/ Prevention
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