Matthew Gundrum Zach Alsheimer Garth Sinclair Casey Bauman

Problem StatementSubject Matter ExpertsFeasibility AnalysisPreliminary TestsObservationsProject ScheduleNew IdeasRisk AssessmentUpcoming TestsConcerns

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

 Two types of ergonomic assessment tools (Qualitative and Quantitative)  Benchmark any possible solutions with current standard  Videotape current process to analyze each aspect of the process  Interview operators for opinions and feedback

 Origins of pizza oven: warms grease and the butter in the crust  Ideal solution: Bake-able insert but pan sizes make this difficult  Ideas Already Tried: Cool-down conveyor, putting in cooler before depanning  Temperature manipulation worth looking into  Aesthetic requirements specifications

 Ice Cream Cake Benchmark  Placed in warm water bath and spun for ~3 seconds  Cheesecake could the be depanned easily  Water did have to be changed throughout process  Far smaller sample size and springform pans were used

 Initial model for heat transfer calculations  Suggested possible validation of theoretical model  New idea of a radiant barrier  Recommended localized heating to validate the cause as adhesion from crust

Matlab Requires too many assumptions making the approximations less accurate Coding is complicated and requires all functions and variables be explicitly declared making code difficult to read and debug Results Provide a model of temperature change inside cheesecakes Pinpoint when the internal temperature is ideal for lubricating properties of butter and grease COMSOL Multiphysics Modeling Software Input material properties at different layersPerforms numerical analysis using built in heat transfer equations Finite Element Approximation Breaks into layers of equal height Approximation of each element using boundary conditions and previous elements

* Sample size: 48 * Sample size: 22

Procedure Run the cheesecakes through the existing pizza oven Cut a hole in the cheesecake such that the bottom of the pan is visible Hold the pan upside down to observe the effects Repeat for all 3 cheesecakes For final cheesecake, cut three holes in multiple locations to account for a variance Observations For 1 Large and 1 Small Cheesecake: Cut one hole approx. 0.5in in radius Held cheesecake upsidedown No observable changes occurred once holes were cut. The cheesecakes did not come out of pan any easier than before. 1 Large Cheesecake: Cut three holes across diameter of the cheesecake No observable changes occurred once holes were cut. The cheesecakes did not come out of pan any easier than before. Conclusions We are going to move forward assuming there is no vacuum in effect and the reason the cheesecake sticks to the pan is an adhesion resulting from the pan materials and cheesecake ingredients.

Procedure Ran 2 small cheesecakes through pizza oven Placed upside down on depanning surface Hit bottom of pan at various forces and locations Conclusions Unable to depann either cheesecake Caused damage to pans Force did not distribute force across the entire bottom of the pan evenly

Procedure Pumpkin cheesecakes 4 small sent through pizza oven upside down 2 large sent through pizza oven upside down on baking sheet Depanned normally Observations The 4 smalls were depanned using 3 to 6 bangs and in 6.8, 7.09, 7.13, and 7.25 seconds The 2 larges took 9.9 and 9.12 seconds to depann Conclusions Smalls showed no improvement Larges almost 2 seconds slower to depann than normal Possibly due to worse conditions for heat transfer created by the baking sheet

 Tested putting aluminum foil & parchment paper cutouts on bottom of pan Ran test putting inserts in before & after grease Some passed and some failed based on operator opinion

Procedure Measure diameter of cakes 3 times Measure heights of cakes 3 times Mass cake 3 times Take averages of all measurements Repeat for 3 cakes Observations For Large Cheesecakes Average diameter is 7.31in Average height is 1.79in Average mass is 3.24 lbs For Small Cheesecakes Average diameter is 4.81in Average height is 1.98in Average mass is 1.34 lbs Conclusions The volume of a large cheesecake is 75.12in^3 The volume of a small cheesecake is 35.97in^3 The density of large cheesecakes is.043 lb/in^3 The density of small cheesecakes is.037 lb/in^3

 Reduce motion waste in pizza oven loading  Reduce bending for operators when placing empty pans on cart  Align pizza oven with packing line to eliminate the “transfer person” position

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 MSD Team 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 MSD Team / 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 MSD Team / 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 MSD Team / 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

IDRisk ItemEffectCauseLikelihoodSeverityImportanceAction to Minimize RiskOwner 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 MSD Team 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 assests 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 MSD Team 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

Manipulate time and temperature in the freezer Prevent loss of lubricating properties Heat Transfer (Freezing Cycle) Manipulate time and temperature in the pizza oven Gain Back lubricating properties Heat Transfer (Reheat Cycle) Place a radiant barrier over the cheesecakes Further manipulate the time and temperature in the pizza oven Radiant Barrier

Run pans through grease multiple times (as Eric suggested) Check to see if grease levels can be increased Grease Placing pans in warm water in place of the pizza oven Placing pans in warm water in conjunction with the pizza oven Waterbath Form of tool-assisted depanning Provide employees with spatulas in lieu of slamming pans Spatula Around Outside

Solid Metal Inserts Redo of foil and parchment Redo Inserts Try modes of waterproofing Find points on production line where the clasp may be in the way Springform Pan Apply a small controlled heat source to the bottom of the pans Localized Heating

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)

 Weeks 13 & 14: Finish and validate Heat Treat Calculations, finalize test procedure for temperature and time manipulations. Perform grease and spatula tests.  Week 15: Perform time and temperature manipulation experiments  Week 16: Complete Design Review (Tuesday 12/9)

 Timeline on zero cost ideas  Allowable budget if necessary  How changing variables effect test results