Andreana Crance Kevin Rodas Rob Santora Jeremy Smith Matt Syska 1

Meeting AgendaTime Design Review Goals1:00-1:05 Review of Customer Needs1:05-1:10 Review of Engineering Specs1:10-1:15 Cheesecake Process Information1:15-1:30 Proposals #1, #2, #3, #41:30-2:45 MSD II Preliminary Project Plan2:45-2:50 Q & A2:50-3:00 2

 Bring Wegmans up to date with process improvement findings  Review proposals for process improvement  Set the stage for MSD II and implementing changes 3

Customer NeedDescriptionCommentRank CN1All solutions meet food safety needs. 1 Safety CN2 The dumping water task is efficient and safe for the employees. Will reduce cycle time and ergonomic issues associated with oven unload water spillage2 Throughput / Process Time CN3Reduce variability throughout entire cheesecake line. Improve worker efficiency for new workers. Reduce safety and ergonomic issues associated with current process.2 CN4Minimize excess time spent on marble cheesecake.Will reduce cycle time for marble cheesecakes.2 CN5Efficient bread basket loading. Standard process for employees to follow will increase productiveness.2 CN6 Reduce the distance to push/pull heavy material and carts.Reduce ergonomic concern for employee.2 CN7Labor at water pouring is minimized.Eliminate amount of labor needed at oven load.2 CN8 Eliminate 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 CN9Effective use of labor at batter dropper. Will eliminate double handling of cheesecakes after batter is poured.2 CN10 Organization at oven load due to baking sheets is efficient.Will eliminate clutter in area due to pans.2 4

Customer NeedDescriptionCommentRank CN11 Reduce scrap issues associated with unloading cheesecakes from pans. Will reduce concern for possible scrap. Will reduce ergonomic concern.3 Scrap CN12The cheesecakes have a standard weight pre bake.Will ensure a standard product.3 CN13Safety standards at loading process' are insufficient. Will improve the ergonomic safety conditions for the mixing process.4 Ergonomics CN14 Minimize 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 CN15 Minimize 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 CN17 Reduce variability in mixing to address ergonomic concerns. Will reduce and eliminate ergonomic concerns for employees.4 CN18Ensure safety conditions at oven load process. Will create a safer work environment at the oven load process.4 CN19Decrease amount of batter spilled at oven load. Will create a more standard final product as well as a safer work environment.4 CN20 The oven sensor recognizes present activity without employee interference. Eliminates the possibility of possible hazards for oven load employees.5 Misc 5

Metric No. MetricImportanceUnitsMarginal ValueTarget Value Proposal(s) to Obtain Spec 1Cheesecake per labor hour9# of Cheesecake45501, 2, 3, 4 2Risk of injuries3 (benchmarking unit using NIOSH, etc) 25% reduction of benchmarking unit 75% reduction of benchmarking unit 2, 3, 4 3People travel distance1 % travel distance reduction 10%25%1 4 Number of reworked products 3Percentage rework 25% reduction of current rework rate 50% reduction of current rework rate 2, 3, 4 5Throughput Rate9 # of Cheesecake/hour 475 Small Cakes/Hr or 420 Large Cakes/Hr 560 Small Cakes/Hr or 470 Large Cakes/Hr 3, 4 6 Process improvement has full ROI for customer 9Years1 Year0.5 Years1, 2, 3, 4 7 Solutions meet Wegmans specific health code standards 9Y/NYY1, 2, 3, 4 8 Cheesecake retains “homemade” feel 9Y/NYY1, 2, 3, 4 9Process changes can meet holiday demand 9Y/NYY1, 2, 3, 4 6

7

8

9

10

Suggestion: -Relocate marble cheesecake table Current Location: Blue Proposed Location: Red 11

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 12

 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 13

Risk IDDescription of RiskPossible CausesPossible 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 time 3927 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 9327 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 location 3927 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 133 Buy a table specifically for proposed area. 14

 To reduce ergonomic strain of water pouring process and ensure consistent volumetric pouring with controlled and timed flow. Pneumatic Power Pro’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 15

Cycle Time Comparison between Current and Proposed with AWP Unit * 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 16

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. 17

Delay Unit Water Line To TriggersFrom triggers To Nozzle Water Source Actuator/2-Way Flow Control Air Source Air Line Inside AWP-Unit 18

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 19

Schematic of Pneumatic and Hydraulic Lines 20

Bill Of Materials Product Number VendorProduct Desc.QuantityList Price Total Part PriceLead Tme 1Model 0S-6 Roessel (Fabco) Adjustable interval delay valve $0.005 Days 2MAV-3R Roessel (Clippard) 3-Way Air Valve2$8.97$ Days BLK Roessel (Clippard) Push Button2$0.96$1.925 Days PKG Roessel (Clippard) Air hose fitting ( /8, 10 per pkg) 1$ Days 5 MJV-2 Roessel (Clippard) 2-Way Valve (1/8 - 1/8) 1$ Days 6MPA-3P Roessel (Clippard) Air Pilot Actuator1$ Days 7JFC-4K Roessel (Clippard) Adjustable flow valve (1/4) 1$ Days PKG Roessel (Clippard) Air hose fitting (1/8 - 1/8, 10 per pkg) 1$ Days 9URH GNT-050 Roessel (Clippard) Air Hose (50 ft)1$ Days PKG Roessel (Clippard) Air Hose Coupling (10 per pkg) 1$ Days K12Mcmaster Push-on hose fitting (1/4 NPT (f) to 1/4 ID, 10 per pkg) 1$ Days K21Mcmaster Push-on hose fitting (1/8 NPT (m) to 1/4 ID) 2$14.14$ Days K52Mcmaster Quick Disconnect hose fitting (1/4 NPT (f) to 1/4 ID plug) 1$ Days K12Mcmaster Push-on hose fitting (3/8 NPT to 1/4 ID, 5 per pkg) 1$ Days K115McmasterRubber hose50$0.98$ Days K87Mcmaster Quick Disconnect hose fitting (1/4 socket to 1/4 ID) 1$ Days K26Mcmaster Grommets (1/2 ID, 50 per pkg 1$ Days K23McmasterMounting Box1$45.54$ Days 19 #10-24 X.25 Sheet metal screws 4 Total$

 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 22

 Total price for AWP-Unit: about $  Price for Rail and Carriage to mount: $ (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. 23

Risk IDDescription of RiskPossible 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 339 Have 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 199 Have 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 199 Thurough 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 199 Unit is optimized in lab to deliver correct amounts of water. Trial runs to determine minimum amount of water to be dispensed. P2R1Unit 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 199 Work together with Maintenance to have Unit installed in a convient place for operator (with operator help) and correctly integrated into buildings utilities. P2R2 Unit is awkward/difficult to use Handheld unit is uncomfortable and awkward to hold/use Ergo issues, unit not used 199 Test Plan for developing a comfortable and functional handle from durable and safe material. 24

 Depanning currently a bottleneck for small cheesecake.  Oven currently the bottleneck for large cheesecake.  Oven release rate: 4m 35s (4.58 min) 25

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. 26

27

Risk IDDescription of RiskPossible Causes Possible Consequences Probability of Risk (1/3/9) Severity of Risk (1/3/9) Overall RiskContingency/ Prevention R1 Bakery employees resist change Process is too complex. Employees do not like new process. Cannot implement solutions 9327 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 3927 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 9327 Work 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 3927 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 3927 Develop more strict quality checks to ensure high quality product. R15 New process optimized for a limited throughput New process not flexible enough Unable to meet increased customer demand 199 Ensure the process can handle fluctuation in demand R20 Process doesn't improve upon any metrics During design, engineering specs are not referenced Wegman's cancels project 133 Keep running log to ensure process is improving upon metrics. Develop alternate methods throughout project and choose ideas that are beneficial and realistic. 28

 Set up & run Kaizen event  Implement changes  Follow up on success  Measure new process  Continue to improve! 29

30

 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 31

16”x 26”x 1.5” Large Pan Design Fits both large and small cheesecakes. 32

12”x 26”x 1.5” Small Pan Design Fits small cheesecakes 33

Pricing 12”x 26” Small Cheesecake Pan $ ea. $ ea. $ ea. $ ea. 16”x 26” Large Cheesecake Pan $ ea. $ ea. $ ea. $ ea. *Quotes via Universal Precision Corp. with an approximate lead time of 6 weeks. 34

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). 35

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) 36

 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) 37

Risk ID Description of Risk Possible Causes Possible Consequences Probability of Risk (1/3/9) Severity of Risk (1/3/9) Overa ll Risk Contingency/ Prevention P4-R1 Pan design proposal gets turned down Not enough proof showing need This part of the design would be removed; Refocus on different area of project 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 199 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 199 Double check all work; keep in touch with sheet metal house to ensure they know exactly what is wanted. P4-R4 Storage for pans becomes unavailable Not enough room for storage of pans Nowhere to store the pans; Disposal of pans199 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 of199 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-R6 Depanning can't keep up with process More cheesecakes coming out of the oven at one time Damaged cakes; no gain in cake making efficiency3927 Make sure that everyone is on board in the process improvement plans for depanning. P4-R7Pans 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 used199 Make sure that the washer can handle pans of this specific size. 38

 Use 5S/Simplification techniques to organize the area(s):  Tape on floor  Dedicated storage  Standard work  Workers assigned to clean 39

40