P09712 Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction Evan DeCotis Levi Stuck Ryan Dennison Joseph Fitzery Cinthia Sanchez

Project Review Agenda  Project Overview  Customer Needs and Project Specifications  System Design  Concept Summary  Design Summary  System Testing Results  Objective Project Evaluation  Sustaining Project Gains

High Priority Customer Needs

Engineering Specifications

Systems Design DEFECTS PEOPLE Daily Bias (Inconsistency) Lack of Thoroughness Lack of United Goals Material Handling INFORMATION Isolated Information Often does not Leave the Station Lack of Formal Training Lack of Formalized Data ENVIRONMENT Noise Level Variance in Humidity Variance in Temperature PROCESSES Line Imbalance Standard Work High Variation Reactive Vs. Proactive MACHINESMATERIAL Outdated Adjustability (Analog vs. Digital) Inconsistent Lack of Fine Tuning External Contaminants Inconsistent Dough Mixtures Upgradable

Design Concept Line Balancing 1 2 QC Consistency 3 Standardization and Rack Design

Line Balancing  Implementation  Max K-Roll Speeds  Standardized procedure  Performance Management Guidelines  Visible Problems  Queuing before and after Proof Box  Inconsistent bake times and proof times  Ideal Proof Box Time – 50 minutes  One K-roll Running – 55 min proof with 3% - 5% defective  Two K-rolls Running – 75 min proof with 10% - 12% defective

Line Balancing # Rolls per Hr Roll Production vs. Bottleneck Capacity K-Roll 1 K-Roll 2 K-Roll OutputOven Capacity

Bottleneck Variables  K-Roll Speeds  New: 80 or 100 cycles per minute  Old: 60 to 80 cycles per minute, variable but set manually  K-Roll Dough Balls per Cycle  Normally 4, Submarine Rolls use 3  Packages per Pan  Ranges from 2 to 8  Bake Time  7 to 22 minutes  Pans per Oven Row  4, 5, or 6 pans across  Bagger Line Speed  50 to 60 bags per minute, two baggers

Line Balancing

QC Consistency  Implementation  Standardized Procedure  Visual aids for each product family  Visual aid stand mounted on each QC line  Performance Management Guidelines  Visible Problems  Lack of consistency in defect classification  Some defects get through QC and sent to customers  Some good products are rejected as defects

QC Consistency  Visual Aid example

QC Consistency  Visual aid stand design constraints  Food grade  Simplistic  Location  Easy removal (1 operator, quickly)  Durability  Safe  10 different options  Hinge  Drop down

QC Consistency  Hinge Design

QC Consistency  Drop Down Design

Standardization and Rack Design  Implementation  Standardized rack loading and unloading procedure  Rack cover design proposal  Visible Problems  Inconsistent rack loading/unloading  Uncooked buns left outside of proof box for long periods of time  No current standardized procedures  Top tray more subject to direct air flow

Standardization and Rack Design  Process standardization  Reduced non-controlled environment time

Standardization and Rack Design  Rack cover design constraints  Food grade  Simplistic  Removable  Uniform  4 different design options  Top Cover design  Sleeve design

Standardization and Rack Design  Top Cover Design

Standardization and Rack Design  Sleeve Design

Results

 42.13% defect reduction  Dry spots still high percentage defect  Suggest further proof box analysis

Results

 32.16% defect reduction  Reduction a result of slower material handling (Trickle down affect)

Objective Project Evaluation

Sustaining Project Gains  Administrative project monitoring and support  Positive reinforcement *Instills operator understanding of project and procedure importance*

Questions or comments?