Wegmans Batch Prep Project System Design Review February 12, 2010 Steve Crane Emil Kostraba Adam Merah Josh Monsees Stephanie Walter

Wegmans Batch Prep ProjectSystem Design Review

February 12, 2010

Steve CraneEmil KostrabaAdam MerahJosh Monsees

Stephanie Walter

Team Expectations

• Decisions and feedback on proposals• Ability to order needed materials• Confirm coherence between all involved

parties to create the best end product

Agenda• Project Goals• Present Proposals and Implementation plan• Discuss Assumptions and Risk Assessment• Project Timeline• Questions and Discussion

Project Goals

• Analyze and make necessary improvements to ergonomic issues to meet OSHA recommended levels

• Develop Rate of Expectancy (RE) in lbs/hour for each product to assist in scheduling needs

• Develop standard work procedures • Develop a layout to facilitate standard work

procedures

Proposal Topics

• Ergonomics and Safety• Standard Operating Procedures• Tools• Layout • Rate of Expectancy• Future Design Ideas for Wegmans to

Implement

ERGONOMICS AND SAFETY

National Institute Of Occupational Safety and Health

NIOSH CALCULATIONS AND LIFTING INDEX

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Cart Type Black Cart Black Cart Black Cart Lazy Susan Lazy Susan Lazy Susan Lazy Susan to Prep Table Lazy Susan

Type of Item Bucket Box - No handles Bucket Bucket Bag Liquid Bag Box - No handle

LC 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00 51.00

HM 0.45 0.56 0.45 0.45 0.63 0.63 0.50 0.56

VM 0.96 0.97 0.96 0.99 0.99 0.88 0.84 0.97

DM 0.88 4.42 0.88 4.42 0.90 1.05 0.88 4.42

AM 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86

FM (1) 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80

FM(2) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

CM 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90

Frequency 5 lifts/min for 1 hr

RWL 12.13 74.87 12.13 62.20 17.51 18.07 11.60 74.87

STLI 2.47 0.27 4.12 0.80 2.85 2.49 4.31 0.27

Some Risk No Risk High Risk No Risk Some Risk Some Risk High Risk No Risk

Frequency 0.2 lifts/min for 1 hr

RWL 15.16 93.59 15.16 77.75 21.89 22.58 14.51 93.59

STLI 1.98 0.21 3.30 0.64 2.28 1.99 3.45 0.21

Some Risk No Risk High Risk No Risk Some Risk Some Risk High Risk No Risk

Wegmans Ergonomic Analysis

Job Title Department

Effort Level1 = Light

2 = Moderate3 = Heavy

4 = Very Heavy

Time per Effort1 = less than 6 sec

2 = 6 - 20 sec3 = 20 - 30 sec

4 = greater than 30 sec

Efforts per Minute1 = less than 1/min

2 = 1-5/min3 = 5-15/min

4 = greater than 15/min

Primary Risk RatingDescription

Black Cart Bucket 1 Batch Prep 2 2 2 Moderate

Black Cart Box 2 Batch Prep 2 2 2 Moderate

Black Cart Bucket 3 Batch Prep 3 2 2 High

Lazy Susan Bucket 4 Batch Prep 3 2 1 High

Lazy Susan Bag 5 Batch Prep 3 2 1 High

Lazy Susan Liquid 6 Batch Prep 3 2 2 High

Lazy Susan Bag 7 Batch Prep 4 2 2 Very High

Lazy Susan Box 8 Batch Prep 2 2 2 Moderate

Wegmans Ergonomic Analysis

Task Duration1 = 1 hour/day2 = 2 hours/day3 = 8 hours/day

4 = greater than 8 hours/day

Number of Employees Performing the Job

1 = 1-3 employees2 = 3-10 employees3 = 10-25 employees

4= greater than 25 employees

Number of recordable strain/sprain injuries last 2 years

1 = 0 injuries2 = 1 injury

3 = 2 injuries4 = 3 or more injuries

Total Risk Rating

Target body part(s) Back

1 2 3 12 x

1 2 3 12 x

2 2 3 36 x

1 2 2 12 x

1 2 2 12 x

1 2 2 12 x

2 2 3 48 x

1 2 3 12 x

Ergonomic & Safety Proposal #1• Scissors Lift Cart• Feedback from floor

is that this style cart was tried and not user friendly

• Working with Aloi to develop a cart that will work for Batch Prep Room

Ergonomic & Safety Proposal #1 ROI

• Assumptions– 2 lifting injuries per year– Injuries were similar in motion to lifting from lazy

Susan to table so the same frequency is used– $2,700 cost per injury– Cost per cart $2,500

ROI in years for 1 cart 0.463

Ergonomic and Safety Proposal #1

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

Severity (1/3/9)

R16 To hard to maneuver Directional wheels in front or back 3 9

R17 To hard to foot pump To much weight on cart 3 1

Overall Risk Contingency

27 Employees will have to take the time to learn and there will be brakes

3 Educated the employees of the maximum weight

Ergonomic & Safety Proposal #2

• Cut Proof Gloves


• ROI for Gloves is difficult to calculate due to lack of information

• Have had employees injured in the past• Policy already exist in all stores• Average cost is about $21• 15 Gloves cost $315

Ergonomic and Safety Proposal #2


Severity (1/3/9)

R31Employees drop or lose grip of materials Gloves cause loss of dexterity in fingers 1 3


3Gloves need to be washed and dried frequently. Varity of gloves sizes need to be available to fit all employees.



Pneumatic Pump • Need– Increase work force safety– Decrease lost time

• Increased flow• Accurate and fast

measurements– Hazard

• Strenuous and unbalanced lifts

• Goals– Reduce employee hazards– Reduce prep. time

Ergonomic & Safety Proposal #3Pneumatic Pump

• Cost & R.O.I.– $1807.00– .67

• Need– Lack of a fast, compact, and

accurate measurement• Goals

– Reduce measurement time– Reduce waste

Mass Totalizer


9 Buy a more reliable sensor and observe or perform safety checks during cleaning9 Calibrate the sensor

27 Clean the tap regularly with the pumps through the cleaning port9 Mount multiple pumps on one Lazy Susan9 Standardize cleaning process


Severity (1/3/9)

R26 Debris falling into ingredient Mass Flow Sensor failure 1 9R27 Inaccurate measurements Viscosity of fluids are different 3 3R28 Uneasy to clean Sensor tap 3 9R29 Takes up floor space Loss of WIP space 3 3R30 Increasing cleaning requirements Due to sensor and another pump 3 3


Mass Totalizer• Cost & R.O.I.

– $1287.00– Within 2 yrs

• Components– Tap & Flow Sensor– Digital Flow Transmitter

Plan of Action• Orders

– Feb. 15th (2-3 Weeks)• Fabrication

– March 8th (2 Weeks)• Installation

– March 22th (3 Weeks)• Calibration

– April 19th (1 Week)• Observation & Feedback

– April 26rd (1 Week)• Adjustments & Alteration

– May 3th (2 Weeks)


Pump R.O.I.

Specifications

Weight: 6 lbs. 45 lbs. 50 lbs.Flow: 8 GPM 35 GPM 42 GPM

Certifications: FDA CompliantFDA Compliant

USDA Certified

FDA Compliant USDA Certified

Cost: $85.67 $785.00 $1,807.00R.O.I.: - 0.03 0.29 0.67

Mass Totalizer R.O.I.

Cost

Tap $295.00Flow Meter $462.00

Sensor $528.00

Total: $1,285.00Effective Daily Cost.: - $2.57

ROI Assumptions

Pump:

Cost per injury $2,700.00

# Injuries/Year 1

This lifting technique is similar to that of lifting materials from a cart to the work table. Therefore the same NIOSH Analysis was done as the scissor carts.

Mass Totalizer:

Effective Annual Cost for a 2 yr ROI: $642.5

50 wks in work yr

$12.50 avg. hourly wage


Pump RankingsRanking (Out of 5)

Weighting Manual Electric Pneumatic

Ergonomics 25% 1 5 5

Cleanliness/ability 25% 5 4 2

Power 5% 5 3 4

Flow Rate 12.50% 3 4 5

Utility 20% 5 3 4

Maintenance 12.50% 4 2 4

TOTAL 100% 3.625 3.75 3.875

STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

Standard Operating Procedures

• Ingredient Guide for Lifting– Guide will include weights in inventory

• Green - 0 to 21 lbs • Yellow - 22-32 lbs • Orange - 33-49 lbs • Red - 50+ lbs

– Employees will be aware of weight before they go gather the materials

Lifting Guide Risks


• ROI– Costs

• Labor to keep updated• Color Ink• Paper• Lamination


• 5s principles should be introduced and implemented

• Put the hose away after use to eliminate a trip hazard and the potential of carts being stuck when employees try to push them.

• Team Push/Pull used when moving fully loaded 3-tier carts and VMAG carts.

PUSHINGUsed Snook and Ciriello Tables

Male

Vertical Distance (in) from floor to handles 37 37 37 37 37 37

Weight (lbs) 100 100 75 75 50 50

Frequency (one push every...) 30 mins 5 mins 30 mins 5 mins 30 mins 5 mins

Percentage of Population 47 46 78 78 90 90

Female


Weight (lbs) 100 100 75 75 50 50



PULLINGUsed Snook and Ciriello Tables

Male


Weight (lbs) 100 100 75 75 50 50



Female


Weight (lbs) 100 100 75 75 50 50



TOOLS

Pourer Apparatus will Reduce Awkward Posture and Time

Tool Proposal

Tool SpecsMetric #

Metric Description Importance

Measurable Unit Marginal Value Target Value

Proposals Effected by Metric

1

Improve Ergonomics & Safety 9

NIOSH and Wegmans Ranking system

Reduce Recorded

injuires 50%

Reduce recorded

injuries to 0

All Ergonomic, Tools, Standard Operating Procedures

3

Rate of Expectancy Calculations 9 Labor hr/batch +/- 10-15 min +/- 5 mins Rate of Expectancy

4

Solutions Meet Wegmans Safety Standards 9 Y/N Y Y Ergonomic, Tools,

5

Improvements have full ROI 9 Years 2 1 Scissor Lift, Pourer, Pumps

6

New devices meet FDA/USDA approval 9 Y/N Y Y Tools, Pumps, Scissor Lift

Pivot Arm Tree Flat TopWeighting Ranking (Out of 5)

Size 10% 4 4 1Cleanliness/ability 30% 5 4 2Weight 15% 5 3 4Ergonomics 25.00% 3 3 3Utility 15% 3 3 3Mounting/ability 5.00% 5 4 5

Specs -

TOTAL 100% 4.1 3.45 2.75R.O.I. - 1.23 yrs 1.16 yrs 2.49 yrs

Pourer Rankings & R.O.I.

2 Gal. FlowCost: ≈$290Weight: 0 lb

3 Gal. flow Cost: ≈$275 Weight: 23 lb.

3 Gal. Flow Cost: ≈$589

Weight: 50 lb.

ROI: Based on 2000 containers a year

Ranking system was determined based on the areas of focus.

Each design was evaluated and totals calculated.

The highest ranked design was chosen.

Easy to use

No weight to move

Multiple batches at once

Mounts to back of table

Pivots on lower arm

Pivots under receiver

Holds two containers at once

Detailed Bill of Materials

Part Material Size PriceStainless sheet 24x24 $136.35

Arms Stainless Tube 2x2x36 $36.68

Lower Arm Stainless Tube 2x2x12

Upper Arm Stainless Tube 2x2x24

Upper Mount Stainless Tube (round) 12x2 $54.58

Lower Mount Stainless Tube (round) 36x1.5 $18.62

Separator Stainless Angle 12x1.25x1.25 $8.74

Pivot Pin Stainless Rod 2x3 $32.25

Total $287.22

Table Mounting Arm:Lower Arm Stainless Tube 2x2x12 $12.23Upper Mount Stainless Tube (round) 12x2 $54.58Lower Mount Stainless Tube (round) 36x1.5 $18.62

Upper Arm Stainless Tube 2x2x24 $24.45

Stainless sheet 24x24 $136.35Stainless Angle 12x1.25x1.25 $8.74

Pivot Pin Stainless Rod 2x3 $32.25

Pourer Part Number: 9748k56Part Number: 89825K363

Part Number: 89495K111Part Number: 7427K16Part Number: 8993K141Part Number: 88985K113

Pourer Arm (Upper):

Pourer:PourerSeperator

The arms were loaded into ANSYS

A 65 lb force was applied at the end of the arm

Stress analysis run with bottom beam anchored

Results:

.04 in deflection at arm end

Factor of Safety of 100

Tool Risks


Severity (1/3/9)

R23 Material lead time Materials out of stock, Delivery problems 3 9

R24Prototype failure

Tool Breaks, Bad design, Operator misuse 3 3

R25 Redesign needed Tool design improved upon 3 3


27 Order Materials as early as possible, Have multiple Vendors to work through, All deliveries go to Wegmans

9 Begin Fabrication Early, Rugged Testing, Use of a Prototype9 Begin Fabrication Early, Rugged Testing, Use of a Prototype

Tool Implementation

Implementation:•Prototype

•Allow for testing before introduction into the room•Simple Processes

•No sanitary welds•No outsourcing needed

•General Grade Steel•Cheaper and easier to work with•Easier to modify

•Finalize drawings and hand off to Wegmans for manufacturing

LAYOUT

Layout Specs

• Improve flow in and out of room• Do not drastically increase (< 15min) the time

required for the sanitation process• No capital expansion• Keep enough work stations for employees in

room on a typical day (existing equipment)

Congestion

Current Top Proposal

RankingsCurrent layout Option One Option Two Option Three Option Four

Selection CriteriaWeight

(%) RatingWeighted

Score RatingWeighted




Score

WIP Space Available 15 3 0.45 2 0.3 3 0.45 4 0.6 5 0.75

Personnel Movement Around Build Stand 20 3 0.6 1 0.2 2 0.4 3 0.6 4 0.8

Cart Movement Around Build Stand 15 4 0.6 2 0.3 1 0.15 2 0.3 3 0.45

Access Into Room 20 4 0.8 5 1 5 1 4 0.8 5 1

Safety 30 4 1.2 4 1.2 2 0.6 4 1.2 5 1.5

Total Score 3.65 3 2.6 3.5 4.5

Rank (1 Highest-5) 2 4 5 3 1

Continue? (Yes or No) NO NO NO NO YES

RisksDescription of Risk Possible Causes Probability

(1/3/9)Severity (1/3/9)

Employees resistant to layout change

Natural human response to change in work environment 9 3

Changes do not improve efficiency

Inability to accurately measure without testing 3 3

Changes add safety concerns

Creating work areas will reduce aisle space 3 9

Description of Risk Overall Risk Contingency

Employees resistant to layout change 27 Test with employees prior to permanent implementation and allow them to

input their wants/needs for the designChanges do not

improve efficiency 9 Receive feedback on designs from operations team to determine how successful changes will be

Changes add safety concerns 27 Create visual documentation of layouts before testing to insure adequate

space is available

Implementation• Step 1 – Feedback on layout proposals from

management• Step 2 – Update proposals to match customer specs• Step 3 – Test layout for one working day, receive

rating feedback from employees• Step 4 – Update proposal based on employee

reviews• Repeat from Step 3 until satisfactory layout is found

Storage Rack• Holds 5 gallon bins,

lids and common utensils

• Will reduce walking distance and non-value added time

• Can be refilled throughout the day by dishwashers

RATE OF EXPECTANCY

Rate of Expectancy Proposals

• Two proposals to calculate ROE– One

• Time/Batch = Constant + [K(Ingredients)] + [W(Weight)] – Two

• Batches will be grouped into three groups depending on the total number of ingredients. From there an ROE will be developed the each of the groups

Miscellaneous Tools

• Magnetic Strip on edge of table for knives

FUTURE WORK

Future Work• Live Inventory Management System

• Keeps current storage location for ingredients• Eliminates unnecessary walking due to searching• Help ensure FIFO of incoming materials• Kaizen to create a inventory tracking system

• Electronic Batch Card– Eliminate the paper batch card and the risk of it

being lost

Questions???

APPENDIX

Task 1 and 3

Task 4

Task 5

Task 7 Origin

Task 7 Destination

Awkward Posture

Documents

Wegmans Batch Prep Project System Design Review February 12, 2010 Steve Crane Emil Kostraba Adam Merah Josh Monsees Stephanie Walter