1. P09712 Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction Evan DeCotis Levi Stuck Ryan Dennison Joseph FitzeryCinthia Sanchez

2. Detailed Design Review Agenda  Meeting Purpose  Discuss systems level/detailed designs and address any issues that feel soft or unsure in our shrink reduction project so we can begin implementation with confidence.  Materials to be Reviewed  Project plan, Data Collection, Concept Development, Project Proposals #1, #2, and #3, Suggestion #1, and Risk Mitigation  Meeting Date  February 13 th, 2009  Meeting Location  RIT Campus, Kate Gleason College of Engineering Building 09, Room 4435  Time: 12pm to 2pm  Project Overview  Customer Needs and Project Specifications  Concept Development  Systems Level and Detailed Design  MSDII Plan  Risk Mitigation

3. Our Goalsforthis Design Review are to…  Bring all stakeholders up to date with our findings  Suggest four implementation plans to increase the overall effectiveness of the commercial roll line  Set the stage for next quarter

4. Background Information  Project will resolve issues in producing hotdog and hamburger rolls  Brooks Ave bakery supports all Wegmans stores  Maximum throughput of around 4,500 packages per hour  5% to 10% defect ratio

5. Customer Needs

6. Engineering Specifications

8. Cause and Effect

9. Data Collection  Hamburger  Hotdog

10. Data Collection

11. Problems Related to Defects

12. List of Potential Projects

14. Proposal 1: K-roll Speed and Oven Capacity  Run the K-rolls at a speed equal to, or less than, the speed of the oven at all times.  K-roll rate cannot exceed 144 rolls/min  Visible Problems  Data show that line imbalance increases defect percentage  Oven is working at maximum capacity  Queuing before and after Proof Box  Inconsistent bake times and proof times

15. Proposal 1: K-roll Speed and Oven Capacity  K-roll has the capacity to output over 10,800 rolls/hour  Oven has a maximum capacity of 8,640 rolls/hour  Rolls are queued outside of the Proof Box, before and after proofing  Ideal Proof Box Time – 50 minutes  One K-roll – 55 minutes (10% over-proof)  Two K-rolls – 75 minutes (50% over-proof)  Dry rolls account for a majority of hamburger defects

16. Proposal 1: K-roll Speed and Oven Capacity  During peak production days, K-rolls should not be allowed to run over 8,640 rolls per hour.  Little to no expense to change the rate of production  Estimated 30% defect reduction possible

17. Proposal 2: Defect Sorting Accuracy and Training Manual  Improve defect sorting accuracy by creating visual aids  Create a training manual for all employees to refer to as necessary  Will be used as a guide for new employees stationed at the QC station  Visual Problems  Lack of consistency in what is considered a defect  Some defects get through QC and sent to customers

18. Proposal 2: Defect Sorting Accuracy and Training Manual  Large pictures will allow for easy discrimination between good rolls and bad rolls  Flip book will be placed on a stand right next to the QC station  Very visual

19. Proposal 3: Proof Box Standardization  Standardize the way trays are loaded and unloaded from racks.  Decrease the amount of time the Proof Box doors are left open.  Add a cover on the tops of each rack  Introduce small-scale visual aids  Visible Problems  Rack loading/unloading variability  No standard procedure or formal flow process to follow  Inconsistent proof times, extra racks outside of Proof Box  Each Oven operator has their own rack

20. Proposal 3: Proof Box Standardization  Load racks from bottom-up  Unload from top-down  Only one rack in front of Oven  Mark each tray with an “Enter” time before Proof Box  Put new numbers on each Proof Box door  Cover the top rack to reduce dry air blowing directly down

21. Proposal 3: Proof Box Standardization  Estimated 15% defect reduction  Proof Box doors  Leaving doors open for long periods of time increases chances for dry spots on rolls  Leaving the doors open will also decrease the effectiveness of the Proof Box to maintain proper heat and humidity levels  Top Rack Cover  Empty tray  Rack cover attachment  Plastic/paper cover  Time Stamp  Dry erase board/marker on rack  Colored Stickers/Magnets  A fixed timer on each rack  Visual Aids  Sticker/Magnets on doors  Signs reminding to close doors

22. Suggestion 1: Proof Temperature and Humidity Standardization Phase One:  Monitor and adjust the Proof Box to maintain a constant temperature and humidity level.  Recommended temperature - 100°F to 105°F  Recommended humidity - 80% to 85% Phase Two:  Implement a better way to insulate the Proof Box  Perform minor improvements on Proof Box  Improve air circulation

23. Suggestion 1: Proof Temperature and Humidity Standardization Phase One:  Monitor temperature and humidity with a wireless thermo-hygrometer  Display can be placed 100 feet from three different sensors  Will be able to pin-point Proof Box inefficiencies by location and type  All workers will be able to see an abnormality on the display of the thermo-hygrometer

24. Suggestion 1: Proof Temperature and Humidity Standardization Phase Two:  Based on Phase One data, perform improvements on Proof Box  Pneumatic door closer  PVC Screen to cover door opening  Improve weather stripping on bottom of doors

26. Risk Mitigation Prop. # Risk SeverityProbability Mitigation 1,2,3 No employee buy-in 97 Employee involvement and feedback 1,2,3 No long-term consistency and commitment 95 In house project responsibility 1,2,3 Implementation delay 93 Adequate Planning 1,2,3 Lack of data collection time 35 1 Cause large-scale schedule modification 33 Work with scheduling personnel 2 Workers may not use visual aids 97 Encourage usage 2 Visuals may distract/slow-down workers 33 3 Workers may not use timers 35 Times must be recorded to ensure timer usage 3 Visuals may distract/slow-down workers 11 S1 Disconnect between phase I and II resources 35 Keep full-time employees heavily involved with project S1 Proof box door modifications may not be feasible 17 S1 Addition of fan in proof may cause disruption to proofing 91Conduct experiments with fans in proof

27. Q U E S T I O N S