Matthew Gundrum Zach Alsheimer Garth Sinclair Casey Bauman

Problem StatementCustomer RequirementsEngineering RequirementsExperiments ConductedRecent ExperimentsFunctional DecompositionHeat Transfer PlanFurther SolutionsAdditional ImprovementsRisk AssessmentProject ScheduleConcerns

Simplify the removal process Make it ergonomically friendly for the employees. PROJECT GOALS The end result must not involve repeated heating/freezing of the cakes The end result must not affect the quality of the product. Keeping the appearance of these cakes the same. It must also keep up with current production rate. Solutions should not be capital intensive, as the budget is to be determined. PROJECT CONSTRAINTS

Importance Scale 9 Very Important 3 Somewhat Important 1 Minimal Importance

Take Aways: Cut holes to eliminate any vacuum Ruled out the possibility of a vacuum to focus on adhesion Vacuum Take Aways: Applied a concentrated force to the bottom of the pan Any overpowering force must be spread over a larger surface area Mallet Take Aways: Flipped cakes during reheat to encourage separation from the pan Gravity alone will not overpower the adhesion Gravity

Take Aways: Placed inserts in the bottom of the pans before the bake Simple insert was effective in decreasing deppaning time Insert Take Aways: Baked cakes in a pan with a 1 degree angle on the sides No noticeable difference, however, may need a larger sample size One degree pan

Procedure Pans were labeled and three pans were sent through the greaser two times Another set of three pans were sent through the greaser three times Checked to make sure crust was spun well Observations Smalls: Three times Avg. Time – 7.54 seconds Avg. Slams – 3 slams Smalls: Twice Avg. Time – 8.06 seconds Avg. Slams – 5 slams Added grease mainly accumulated on the bottom of the pan Seemed easier during depanning to the operator Conclusions Larges: similar number of bangs and insufficient time data Current Average for Small Cheesecake: 7.3 seconds Smalls: Slower than the average Increased grease useless if it is not evenly distributed and if it has solidified Worth revisiting after heat transfer testing is complete

Procedure Labeled 6 large pans (3 Foil, 3 Parchment) Placed 3 aluminum foil and 3 parchment paper inserts in pans before grease Checked to make sure crumb was spun well Sent through bake process Observations Foil: Avg. Time – 6.7 seconds Avg. Slams – 5 slams Parchment: Avg. Time seconds Avg. Slams – 4.5 slams Conclusions Current Average for Large Cheesecake: 8.6 seconds Foil was 1.9 seconds faster Parchment was 2.8 seconds faster

Procedure Four cakes were set aside for testing A small spatula was used to separate the side crust from the pan Observations Cheesecakes fell right from the pan Crust suffered serious cosmetic damage Conclusions Cheesecakes were damaged but overall, the removal process was quite easy

*Adhesion Force applies to the crust sticking to the bottom and sides of the cheesecake pan Overpower Slamming Pans on Table Minimize Heat in pizza oven to create internal lubricants Freezing Cycle Manipulation Circumvent Manipulate Tray Design (Inserts/ Spring form) Side Adhesion Use of tools Product development to retain aesthetics

Obtain temperatures when butter will solidify and melt (100 ° F & 50 ° F respectively) Run COMSOL software for two cases, freezing and reheating For reheat, find the temperature of the oven to reach the melting temperature in 1 minute Attempt depanning at the calculated temperature ±25° F For freezing, find the time needed to reach the solidifying temperature Attempt depanning at the calculated time ±60 minutes

 Cookie Cutter Ideas Two separate pieces One piece that can change size to fit pan  Mechanical assistance Dropping device Slamming device  Localized heating Blowtorch

Pizza Oven Table Wrap Line Transfer Operator Depan Operator

 Replace long table with shorter one  Line the Pizza Oven, Table and Wrap Line up with each other  Eliminates need for transfer operator Pizza Oven Table Wrap Line Depan Operator

IDRisk ItemEffectCauseLikelihoodSeverityImportanceAction to Minimize RiskOwner 1 Proposed changes negatively impact quality Wegmans would fall short of internal quality requirements, and more prep time at store bakery Unexpected process improvement effects and lack of planning by MSD team 236 Complete necessary research/calculations and run small trials Casey & Garth 2 Proposed changes have no effects or possibly negative effects on process ergonomics Ergonomics would remain a concern for Wegmans cheesecake depanning line Proposed improvements lead to unexpected ergonomic concerns (repetitive motion, increased noise) 122 Meet with Nancy to discuss current ergonomic concerns and improvement ideas that Wegmans has not previously addressed Garth & Zach 3 Proposed process improvements conflict with union regulations Possible sanctions from union Lack of understanding about union regulations and restrictions by MSD team 133 During weekly meetings, discuss possible improvement solutions with Wegmans management to ensure no issues with unions Matt & Zach / Wegmans 4 Changes made lead to increase in production time Smaller outputs lead to increase in necessary time running production line Process improvements involve either labor intensive tasks or greater waiting times for operators 224 Conduct time trials to set standards for current process as a benchmark Garth & Zach 5 Proposed improvements prove too capital intensive for Wegmans Wegmans would have to establish allowable budget for team Team cannot find a feasible 'no-cost' solution 122 Focus on 'no-cost' solutions, discuss possible alternatives with Wegmans if these are not effective Casey & Matt / Wegmans 6 Proposed changes lead to insufficient training of staff Lack of standard work and possible decrease in productivity and quality Proposed changes lead to higher degree of training, more tasks involved for certain operators 122 Once an improvement has been successfully identified, work with management to develop standard work for operators Garth & Zach / Wegmans 7 Process improvements cannot be sustained over long term Return to the current processInsufficient fatigue testing133 Ensure design specs exceed the necessary conditions Casey & Matt 8Time constraint Unable to finish improvement project Procrastination of team, fall behind designed schedule 133 Meet weekly with Wegmans for updates, meet continuously as team and compare current status to schedule Casey 9Satisfying each stakeholder Disconnect between management, workers, and MSD team What sounds good to management may make process more difficult for operators 122 Encourage all input and feedback from Wegmans perspective Zach

IDRisk ItemEffectCauseLikelihoodSeverityImportanceAction to Minimize RiskOwner 10 Communication issues with stake holders Difficulty obtaining necessary information, unclear project status Lost/Unsent s212 Have weekly meetings with customer to update on project progress and questions Zach 11* Team & operator safety on Wegmans shop floor Team member or Wegmans operator is injured while on site Team not properly following Wegmans safety policies 133 Always be aware of surroundings while on the shop floor, comply with Wegmans safety regulations Casey & Garth 12* Damage Wegmans assets while running testing trials Damaged machinery or pans that possibly limit line productivity Lack of planning prior to trial by MSD team or unexpected results from testing 224 Plan for as many of the expected outcomes as possible, even unwanted or unexpected and attempt to minimize chances for failure Matt 13* Proposed improvements don't meet food safety regulations Cheesecakes must be discarded as they are not adequate for consumption Improvements lead to cheesecakes core temperatures not being within specifications 133 Conduct necessary heat transfer calculations to ensure minimal impact to cheesecake core temperatures Casey & Matt 14* Testing interrupts Wegmans regular production Discontent between Wegmans staff (management and operators) and MSD team Testing takes longer than expected, operators must assist with testing 212 Team properly plans test procedures prior to running them at Wegmans Garth & Zach 15* Last minute changes to schedule affect testing plans Confusion between MSD team and Wegmans staff regarding trial Wegmans has to shift production plans due to any number of reasons 212 Team makes sure that there is open communication between each other as well as Wegmans before a trial Jose & Zach 16* Wegmans employees resist doing one of the trials Trial will have to be delayed or team member would have to be shifted Workers feel uncomfortable or at risk conducting trial 133 Talk to workers about why we are running the test that way and what we hope to gain from results Garth 17* Can't get agreement on sample size concerns for trials Disagreements between MSD team and Wegmans about how effective trial was Team conducts studies to get a basic understanding for future capability rather than run large trials right away 224 Go over test procedures with Wegmans prior to trial and discuss sample size adequacy Casey

MSD I Problem Definition (Weeks 1-3) Systems Design (Weeks 4-6) Subsystem Design (Weeks 7-10) Detailed Design (Weeks 10-13) Complete Design (Weeks 13-16) Gate Review (Week 17) MSD II (Spring Semester)

MSD II Subsystem Level Prep (Weeks 1-2) Subsystem Build and Test (Weeks 3-5) Subsystem and Systems Level Build, Test, & Integrate (Weeks 6-8) Systems Level Build, Test, & Integrate (Weeks 9-11) Verification and Validation (Weeks 12-15) Gate Review (Week 16) SUCCESS

 Weeks 1-4: Run Heat Transfer Experiments, Run Metal Insert Test, Run Localized Heating Experiment  Week 5: Begin considering more cost- intensive solutions (Cookie Cutter, mechanical assistance)

 Actual value for allowable budget  Coming in during break