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

2. Detailed Design Review Agenda  Meeting Purpose  Project overview, status, and intended direction  Materials to be Reviewed  Project description, Customer needs and specifications, Concept development, System level design, and Proposals  Meeting Date  February 20 th, 2009  Meeting Location  RIT Campus, Kate Gleason College of Engineering Building 09, Room 4435  Time: 2:45 – 3:15  Project Overview  Customer Needs and Project Specifications  Concept Development  Systems Level and Detailed Design  Risk Mitigation  MSDII Plan  Financial Justification

3. Customer Needs Cust. Need #ImportanceCustomer Need (Description)Comments / Status Eliminate Shrink/Waste: CN19a) Defects5-10% current defect rate CN2 3 b) Rack Handling Racks bump, rolls shift during handling CN3 1 c) Over/Under Production Stores report over/under production numbers CN49Standardization of Process Currently there is minimal standardization at the plant CN59Minimal CostDo not exceed $5,000 Safety: CN6 3 a) Maintain Current Standards Bakery currently meets standards but improving them is not a major focus CN7 1 b) Improving Current Standards CN8 3 Implementing Flow ImprovementsValue stream mapping CN9 3 Introduce Metrics None existing, baseline needs to be established CN10 3 Visual Aids Changeovers, hot pans, proof box time, etc. Cust. Need #: Enables cross-referencing with Specifications Importance: 9=Very Important, 3=Important, 1=Somewhat Important

4. Engineering Specifications Revision #6 Eng. Spec. #Importance Specification (Description) Unit of Measure Marginal Value Ideal Value Comments / Status ES19Defect rate reduction%20%60% ES29 Defect occurance area categorization #>= 2>= 5 K-roll, Proof Box, Oven, Conveyor, Bagging ES39Defects type categorization#>= 4>= 6 Rolls not grouped, fingerprints in dough, dry spots, etc. ES49 Standard work procedures can be learned in X minutes Minutes4515 Minimal time lost due to any necessary retraining ES53Process time variationMinute range10 to 200 to 10 ES63Visual aid interpretationSeconds<5<1 Time will reduce from exposure ES71No capital investmentUSD<= $5,000<= $1,000 Importance: 9=Very Important, 3=Important, 1=Somewhat Important

7. Cause and Effect People Information Environment * Material Handling * Data is Informalized or Lacking * Variance in temperature * Unified Goals * Little Formal Training * Variance in humidity - Thoroughness * Isolated Information * Noise Level * Daily Bias - Often doesn't leave the station - Will sometimes let product go through on bad run days ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->Defects * Lack of Fine Tuning * Inconsistent dough mixtures * Reactive vs. Proactive - Adjustability (analog vs. digital) * External contaminents * High Variation * Inconsistent - Standard Work * Outdated * Line Imbalance - Upgradable Processes Machines Material

8. Data Collection  Hamburger  Hotdog

9. Data Collection

11. Proposal 1: Time and Process Standardization  Phase 1  Run the K-rolls at a speed equal to, or less than, the speed of the oven at all times  Phase 2  Rack load/unload standardization  Proof time standardization  Batch size optimization  Phase 3 (Time Permitting)  Proof Box temperature and humidity data collection

12. Proposal 1: Phase 1  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  Proposal  Run the K-rolls at a speed equal to, or less than, the speed of the oven at all times

13. Proposal 1: Phase 1  Data Collection Results  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)

14. Proposal 1: Phase 1  K-roll rate should not exceed 144 rolls/min (8,640 rolls/hr) Rolls/hr

15. Proposal 1: Phase 1  Impact of Implementation  30% estimated reduction in defects  1 K-roll = 4.25%  2 K-roll = 8.25%  No queues before or after Proof Box  Recycled pans will have more time to cool  Additional Benefits  Standardized K-roll operation  Slower K-roll work pace will decrease elevated worker stress level

16. Proposal 1: Phase 2  Visible Problems  Queuing before and after Proof Box  Inconsistent Proof times  Inconsistent rack loading/unloading  No standardized procedures  Uncooked buns subjected to extended “out of proof” environment time

17. Proposal 1: Phase 2  Proposal  Standardized rack loading and unloading procedure  Unload one rack at a time at the oven  36 trays/per rack  Empty slots hold empty pans for rack cover  Track times of racks through the Proof Box  Re-number Proof Box doors  Proof Box door training

18. Proposal 1: Phase 2

19.  Impact of Implementation  10% reduction in defects  No queues during oven loading  Additional Benefits  Mindset of standardized work will be instilled for future improvements  Energy savings from optimized Proof door operation

20. Proposal 1: Phase 3  Proposal  Monitor proof box temperature and humidity  Impact  Pin point Proof Box inefficiencies  All workers will be able to see abnormalities and adjust accordingly  Data support for future implementation suggestions

21. Proposal 2: Defect Sorting Accuracy and Training Manual  Visual Problems  Lack of consistency in what is considered a defect  Some defects get through QC and sent to customers  Proposal  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

22. 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

24. Risk Mitigation Prop. #RiskSeverityProbabilityMitigation 1,2No employee buy-in97 Employee involvement, feedback, and performance management 1,2 No long-term consistency and commitment 95In house project responsibility 1,2Implementation delay93Adequate Planning 1,2Lack of data collection time35Accurate project planning 1,2No management buy-in Management involvement and feedback 1 Cause large-scale schedule modification 33Work with scheduling personnel 2Workers may not use visual aids97Performance management 2 Visuals may distract/slow-down workers 33 1Workers may not use timers35 Times must be recorded to ensure timer usage 1 Visuals may distract/slow-down workers 11 1 Disconnect between phases and resources 35 Keep full-time employees heavily involved with project Importance: 9=Very Important, 3=Important, 1=Somewhat Important

25. Financial Justification Demand Planning Forecast Regular Hamburg Rolls Regular Hotdog Rolls Lite Hotdog Roll Lite Hamburg Roll New Eng 6pk Rolls Total Sold2,249,9392,197,056503,881225,715372,746 Total Produced2,384,9352,328,879534,113239,257395,110 Defects at 6%134,996131,82330,23213,54222,364 $0.66 Cost of Production$89,098$87,003$19,954$8,938$14,761 Demand Planning Forecast Wheat Hotdog Roll Wheat Hamburg Roll Potato Hamburg roll Potato Hamburg Roll Plain Italiano Roll Total Sold255,315347,975278,166283,020327,514 Total Produced270,633368,853294,855300,001347,164 Defects at 6%15,31820,87816,68916,98119,650 $0.66 Cost of Production$10,110$13,780$11,015$11,208$12,970 Total defect value = $321,560 per year 40% defect reduction= $128,624 per year

26. Q U E S T I O N S