P09712 Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction

Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramP09712 Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction Test Plans & Test ResultsBy: Evan DeCotis, Levi Stuck, Joseph Fitzery, Ryan Dennison and Cinthia Sanchez Table of contents1. TEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT 31.1. Project Background and Purpose 3 1.2. Concept Development Summary and Process Areas Being Tested 3 1.2.1. Value Stream Map 3 1.2.2. Cause and Effect Diagram 3 1.2.3. Areas of Focus 4 1.2.4. Issues from Areas 4 1.2.5. Potential Projects 5 1.2.6. Procedures 6 1.2.6.1. K-Roll Standardization 6 1.2.6.2. Rack Loading/Rack Unloading 8 1.2.6.3. Non-Procedure Item 9 1.2.6.4. Quality Control Defect Sorting 9 1.3. Approval 10 1.4. Preliminary Testing 11 1.4.1. Hamburger Roll Data Collection Sheet 11 1.4.2. Hotdog Roll Data Collection Sheet 12 1.4.3. Pie Charts 12, 13 1.4.4. Joint Bar Charts 13 1.4.5. Hamburger Defect Percentage Bar Chart 14 1.4.6. Hotdog Defect Percentage Bar Chart 14 1.5. Definitions; Important Terminology; Key Words 5 1.6. References 52. MSD II WKS 2-3: FINAL TEST PLAN 62.1. Data Collection Plan; Sampling Plan 6 2.2. Measurement Capability, Equipment 6P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 1 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program2.3. Test Conditions, Setup Instructions 6 2.4. Sponsor/Customer, Site Related, Requests/Considerations 6 2.5. Test Procedure, Work Breakdown Structure, Schedule 7 2.6. Assumptions 73. MSD II – WKS 3-10 DESIGN TEST VERIFICATION 83.1. Test Results 8 3.2. Logistics and Documentation 8 3.3. Definition of a Successful Test, Pass/Fail Criteria 8 3.4. Contingencies/Mitigation for Preliminary or Insufficient Results 8 3.5. Analysis of Data – Design Summary 8 3.6. Conclusion or Design Summary 8 3.7. Function/Performance Reviews 8 3.8. References 9 3.9. Appendices 9P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 2 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program 1. 16 bold capslock, aaa 14, 1.1. 14 bold, aaa 12, 1.1.1. 14, aaa 11, 1.1.1.1. 12, aaa 10 Insert Ryans procedure  Update Table of contents  Get rid of widows and orphans  explain nomenclature: kroll, proofbox, defect types, shrink, what else? This Test Document lists the processes and categories by which you are going to verify your final design. Testing needed to prove your project meets specifications. These specifications may be categorized into features, functions and performance. You may need to modify key milestones to apply to the specific demands of your project. The plan should be understandable by an engineer not familiar with the project. Inclusive of both the systems specifications and specifications within and between the major sub-systems. Particular attention should be paid to the interfaces between the sub-systems since different team members may be testing each. The test needs should be easily comprehended and documented based on MSDI. The important components of the Test Plan and later Final Test Plan are: 1. What you’ll test (and what you won’t test) 2. How you’ll test: equipment and materials needed, test configurations and procedures, pass/fail criteria 3. Responsibilities and the approval process 4. Risks and contingencies These elements can be integrated or rearranged to match project characteristics. It may be more helpful to include traceability information (mapping of tests to specifications and, if appropriate, to requirements and functions). For each specification or feature there is a defined test method or procedure, and pass/fail criteria to demonstrate compliance with the specification or feature. Cut & Paste the team’s specifications then add Pass/ Fail Criteria. A more detailed content which can be organized including some or all of the following. This portion of the test plan will grow and change as your design grows and changes so revisit periodically. More detail may occur with the Final Test Plan section. 1. Tests (list or table): test # and name; test description. 2. Traceability or verification matrix (table): specification # and brief description; system component embodying the spec (optional). “how” the team will test and collect results. That is, list specific methodologies to verify systems specifications and any detailed sub-system specifications. This portion of the test plan may need to be revisited once testing begins as clarify of testing needs begins. List of tests to be performed (indicate test # and name, test description and so on). Specification # and brief description, system component, test #, test date field (start/stop dates may be needed), pass/fail or test result field (verification), remarks or actions needed if test failed and signoff. More advanced testing becomes more formal requiring good documentation. Define this plan within the team and then share with your Guide for potential feedback. Again, focus on how the team plans to test. Each area must be tested as a standalone unit by applying the possible input sequences and measuring the output response and confirm with the expected response. PLAN, EXECUTE, CHECK Populate the templates and test processes established in Final Test Plan. These elements can be integrated or rearranged to match project characteristics or personal/team preferences.P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 3 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramP09712 Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction Test Plans & Test Results 1. TEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1.1. Project Background and Purpose 1.1.1. Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction is sponsored by Wegmans. The project goals are to decrease the amount of wasted dough and baked rolls. Wegmans estimates between 5% and 10% are lost on a typical day of production on this line. We will be responsible for analyzing, suggesting, implementing, and recording the overall results of our actions. 1.1.2. The objective of the Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction project is to identify waste associated with defects and reduce it. Other objectives include implementing flow, transforming current operations to lean processes, developing metrics, and researching and updating outdated bottleneck equipment. 1.2. Concept Development Summary and Process Areas Being Tested 1.2.1. Value Stream Map showing line flow:1.2.2. Cause and Effect Diagram based on observations on the line focused on six major areas: people, information, environment, processes, machines and material:P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 4 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program1.2.3. Three Areas of Focus were chosen based on data collection figures and analysis of defect sources/analysis of project feasibility. Defect sources were assigned:1.2.4. Issues regarding three main areas of focus grouped by previous cause and effect categories:P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 5 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program1.2.5. Potential Projects brainstorm session and also originated from 1.2.4.: Implementation Idea List: * = formalize in plan, S = suggestion within plan, M = maybe (time permitted) K-Roll: * - lower speed (give speed for 1 running K-roll) * - lower speed (give speeds for 2 running K-rolls) S – better dough S – longer mix time S – check recipes S – even oil spray S – pans should be cool M – add “baller” (w/ top and sides) to old k-roll M – cover resting conveyor Proof Box: * - better air circulation * - standardize temp, time, humidity * - cover top rack / remove bottom tray * - monitor temp, humidity, time * - better door behavior * - better insulation: S – auto door close S – plastic strips behind doors S – elevate floor S – rack bumpers Defect Sorting/Bagging: * - training manual * - changeover signal * - better lighting * - defect categorization/standardization (visual aids) S – understaffed? S – full waste bin signal S – early defect detection (K-roll, oven loading) S – suggestion box P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 6 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program1.2.6. Three proposals were presented to costumer developing in three main procedures and one non-procedure extra development: 1.2.6.1. K-Roll Standardization: Queues were forming between K-Roll and Proof Box and between Proof Box and Oven. Calculations were made and it was discovered that there are three bottleneck sources for all 27 different products run on the line: Oven speed, Bagger speed (Sort and Package Area) and K-Roll Speed. Procedure will standardize speeds that both older and newer K-Roll machines need to be run to avoid queues and over proofing by setting up speed chart on K-Roll area, therefore reducing 30% of defects.P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 7 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 8 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramN Max Combined Max Combined Product Description K-Roll Speed o Product Description K-Roll Speed (cycles per minute) r (cycles per minute) m Plain Brown & Serve Dinner Rolls 105 a Wheat Hamburger Rolls 115 Sesame Brown & Serve Dinner Rolls 105 l Lite Hamburger Rolls 125 Premium Multigrain Dinner Rolls 155 Wheat Hot Dog Rolls 130 Plain Dinner Rolls 180 Lite Hot Dog Rolls 135 Sesame Dinner Rolls 180 O Potato Hamburger Rolls 155 Premium Potato Dinner Rolls 180 p Hamburger Rolls 155 Potato Hot Dog Rolls 175 Country Wheat Rolls 75 e Hot Dog Rolls 175 Country White Rolls 90 r Country Sesame Italian Rolls 90 a Wheat Italiano Submarine Rolls 75 Country Potato Rolls 95 Plain Italiano Submarine Rolls 85 t Sesame Italiano Submarine Rolls 85 Wheat New England 6pk Rolls 130 i New England 6pk Rolls 150 o Sesame Soft Sandwich Rolls 80 New England 12pk Rolls 165 Plain Soft Sandwich Rolls 80 New England 6pk AND 12pk Rolls 165 nMax Combined Max Combined Product Description K-Roll Speed M Product Description K-Roll Speed (cycles per minute) (cycles per minute) a x Plain Brown & Serve Dinner Rolls 115 Wheat Hamburger Rolls 115 Sesame Brown & Serve Dinner Rolls 115 Lite Hamburger Rolls 125 Premium Multigrain Dinner Rolls 180 O Wheat Hot Dog Rolls 130 Plain Dinner Rolls 180 p Lite Hot Dog Rolls 135 Sesame Dinner Rolls 180 Potato Hamburger Rolls 165 Premium Potato Dinner Rolls 180 e Hamburger Rolls 165 r Potato Hot Dog Rolls 180 Country Wheat Rolls 75 a Hot Dog Rolls 180 Country White Rolls 90 Country Sesame Italian Rolls 90 t Wheat Italiano Submarine Rolls 75 Country Potato Rolls 95 i Plain Italiano Submarine Rolls 105 o Sesame Italiano Submarine Rolls 105 Wheat New England 6pk Rolls 140 New England 6pk Rolls 165 n Sesame Soft Sandwich Rolls 95 New England 12pk Rolls 165 Plain Soft Sandwich Rolls 95 New England 6pk AND 12pk Rolls 165 1.2.6.2. Rack Loading/Rack Unloading: Order in which racks are loaded or unloaded is non-existent; this causes some pans to be queuing on the rack longer than others, creating defects. Order set takes into account food grade rules. Procedure will also set number of pans loaded on each rack relating it to multiples of number of pans that fit across ovenP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 9 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program on each loading. In addition, procedure will attempt to mechanize the number of racks loaded into each Proof Box door as a way of proofing time tracking mechanism. A 10% defect reduction is estimated.1.2.6.3. Non-Procedure Item: Observations and analysis show that pans undergoing extreme situations in the Proof Box usually result in dry spot defects. Previous observations showed entire pans were defective (dry) this is what triggered the procedure Covers will be attached to top of racks to minimize extreme conditions in top of rack due to Proof Box’s heat vent location. 1.2.6.4. Quality Control Defect Sorting: Observations and data collection lead to defect type categorization. There was a lack of consistency in defect classification and ambiguity regarding what a “good” product entails. Procedure will implement visuals on floor to avoid subjectivity and clarify what should be considered a defect and what should be considered a good product via pictures. A stand will be installed takingP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 10 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program into consideration Ergonomics, Human Factors and easiness of manufacturing.P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 11 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program1.3. Approval Approved by: Project Leads: Evan DeCotis ([email protected]) Levi Stuck ([email protected]) Engineering Team: Ryan Dennison ([email protected]) Joseph Fitzery ([email protected]) Cinthia Sanchez ([email protected]) Faculty Guide: Prof. John Kaemmerlen Teaching Assistant: Phil Bryan Primary Customer: Wegmans 1.4. Preliminary Testing When 1 K-Roll is running, defect rate of 3 to 6%, when 2 K-Rolls are running, defect rate of 8 to 12% 1.1.1. Hamburger Roll Data Collection SheetP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 12 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramHamburger Rolls Qty (1 Notes Total Total Throughput (1 Date Defect Type = 4 Defect % Sorting # of K - Duration Defect Type Qty (1 = % of Total Defects = 8 buns) Team Member buns) Line Roll Lines (mins) 4 buns) 12/18/2008 Not Recorded 58 450 6.05% A 1 25 Evan, Levi Broken 35 2.88% 12/18/2008 Not Recorded 80 680 5.56% B 1 25 Evan, Levi Disfigured 85 6.96% Dryspot 162 Dry 966 79.13% Over Floured 9 Misaligned - - 1/9/2009 Broken 5 182 1,002 8.33% B 2 30 Cinthia, Joe Oil Mark 10 0.83% Thumb Print 4 Over Floured 75 6.12% Disfigured 2 Thumb Print 7 0.56% Dryspot 171 Under Baked 43 3.53% Over Floured 14 Broken 11 Total Defects 1,221 1/9/2009 205 1,210 7.81% A 2 30 Levi, Ryan Disfigured 4 Total Rolls 7,631 Disfigured (Too Small) 3 Overall Defects 7.41% Under Baked 2 Over Floured 22 Last Addition 1/30/2009 Under Baked 19 Over Baked 13 Disfigured 9 1/22/2009 78 1,185 3.19% A 1 30 Joe, Levi Disfigured (Too Small) 7 Broken 3 Bubble 3 Oil Mark 2 Dry 105 Disfigured 30 Under Baked 17 1/26/2009 160 1,228 6.12% B 1 30 Evan, Ryan Over Floured 4 Broken 2 Thumb Print 2 Dry 166 Disfigured 9 1/30/2009 Over Floured 8 194 876 9.97% B 2 25 Evan, Levi Broken 7 Oil Mark 4 Dry 236 Over Floured 9 Disfigured 8 1/30/2009 264 1,000 11.66% A 2 25 Cinthia, Ryan Not Recorded 5 Oil Mark 3 Broken 3 1.1.2. Hotdog Roll Data Collection SheetP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 13 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramHotdog Rolls Qty (1 Notes Total Total Throughput (1 Date Defect Type = 4 Defect % Sorting # of K - Duration Team Defect Type Qty (1 = % of Total Defects = 8 buns) buns) Line Roll Lines (mins) Member 4 buns) Disfigured 38 Broken 34 14.81% Broken 15 Disfigured 83 36.51% Thumb Print 11 Dry 40 17.46% Dry 6 Misaligned 28 12.17% 1/9/2009 Indent 5 86 939 4.38% A 2 30 Cinthia Oil Mark 10 4.23% Misaligned 5 Over Floured 18 7.94% Oil Mark 3 Thumb Print 16 6.88% 4+4 2 Under Baked - - Dry Spot 1 Not Recorded 39 Total Defects 228 Over Baked 10 Total Rolls 2,959 Broken 8 Overall Defects 3.71% Disfigured 7 1/9/2009 81 630 6.04% B 2 30 Joe Over Floured 5 Last Addition 1/26/2009 4+4 4 Disfigured (End Nub) 4 Misaligned 4 Over Floured 10 Disfigured (2 in 1) 6 Broken 5 Oil Mark 5 Dry (wrinkles) 5 Dry (spots) 5 Disfigured (smashed) 5 1/26/2009 61 1,390 2.15% A 1 30 Cinthia, Joe Misaligned >1 4 Misaligned =1 4 Dry (scabs) 4 Disfigured (1 too big) 3 Thumb Print 2 Dry (crest) 2 Disfigured (1 too small) 1 1.1.3. Pie ChartsHamburger Rolls (7.5% Defect Rate)7 43 35 10 75 85BrokenDisfiguredDryOil MarkOver FlouredThumb PrintUnder Baked966P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 14 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramHotdog Rolls (3.7% Defect Rate)16 34 18Broken 10 DisfiguredDry28 Misaligned Oil MarkOver Floured 83 Thumb Print401.1.4. Joint Bar ChartHamburger Roll and Hotdog Roll Defects 150 140 130 120 110 100 ) Hamburger Rolls s n 90 u Hotdog Rolls b4 80= 70 1 ( y 60 t Q 50 40 83 30 20 34 40 10 28 35 85 966 0 10 10 75 18 7 16 43 0 0Defect TypeP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 15 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramHamburger Roll and Hotdog Roll Defects90% 79% 80%70%60% Hamburger Rolls l a Hotdog Rolls t o 50% T f o% 40% 37%30%17% 20% 15% 12% 10% 7% 6% 8% 7% 3% 4% 4% 0% 1% 1% 0% 0%Defect Type1.1.5. Hamburger Defect Percentage Bar ChartHamburger Roll Defects 350 325 300 275 250 ) s 225 Hamburger Rolls n u 200 b4 175 =1 (150 y tQ 125 100 75 50 10 25 7 35 85 966 0 75 43 0Defect Type1.1.6. Hotdog Defect Percentage Bar ChartP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 16 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramHotdog Roll Defects 90807060 ) s Hotdog Rolls n u b50 4=1 83 ( 40 y t Q 3020 40 34 28 10 18 16 10 0 0Defect Type1.1.7. Other DataData Units Type of Roll 6 groups of 4 rolls Hamburger Tray Capacity l 8 groups of 4 rolls Hotdog a r Rack Capacity 40 trays Both e n 7 racks/aisle - eG Proofbox Capacity 7 aisles - 2 doors/aisle -Current Ideal Units Type of Roll Notes Low number from older machine and high l l Speed 80-100 (max) - 4 rolls/min Both o number from newer machine R- 3.75-5.25 - sec/tray Hamburger Both machines dataK Loading time 4.71 - sec/tray Hotdog Older Machine Data Capacity Used 85-90 100 % Hamburger Hamburger data x Proof Time 56-75 50 min Both Hamburger data o BHumidity - 80-85 % Both According to bread artisan f o Roll Temperature 97 95 F° Both Hamburger data o r Queue Time 9-10 0 min Hamburger Hamburger data P Queue Qty. 3-6 0 racks Hamburger Hamburger data Loading Time 2.5-3.4 - sec/tray Hamburger Data is for Hamburger rolls. Low numbers for Loading Capacity 4-6 6 (max) trays Both one K-roll machine running n e v Gripping Finger Interval 13.2-14.75 15 sec Both Data is for Hamburger rollsO Baking Time 7.25-8 8 min Both Data is for Hamburger rolls 6546-8787 8640 4 Rolls/hr Hamburger Oven capacity x rolls/tray x gripping finger Ideal Rate 11520 4 Rolls/hr Hotdog intervals in an hour 1.1. Test Strategy 1.1.1. Costumer NeedsP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 17 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramRevision # 5 Cust. Importance Customer Need (Description) Comments / Status Need # Eliminate Shrink/Waste: CN1 9 a) Defects 5-10% current defect rate CN2 3 b) Rack Handling Racks bump, rolls shift during handling Stores report over/under production CN3 1 c) Over/Under Production numbers Currently there is minimal CN4 9 Standardization of Process standardization at the plant CN5 9 Minimal Cost Do not exceed $5,000 Safety: CN6 3 a) Maintain Current Standards Bakery currently meets standards but CN7 1 b) Improving Current Standards improving them is not a major focus CN8 3 Implementing Flow Improvements Value stream mapping None existing, baseline needs to be CN9 3 Introduce Metrics established Changeovers, hot pans, proof box time, CN10 3 Visual Aids etc. Cust. Need #: Enables cross-referencing with Specifications 9=Very Important, 3=Important, 1=Somewhat Important 1.1.2. Engineering SpecificationsRevision # 7 Eng. Unit of Marginal Ideal Source Importance Specification (Description) Comments / Status Spec. # Measure Value Value ES1 CN1, CN3 9 Defect Rate reduction % > 20% > 60% Defect Occurrence area K-roll, Proof Box, Oven, ES2 CN1, CN3 9 # of areas >= 2 >= 5 categorization Conveyor, Bagging # of defect Rolls not grouped, fingerprints ES3 CN1, CN3 9 Defect Type categorization >= 4 >= 6 types in dough, dry spots, etc.Standard work procedures Minimal time lost due to any ES4 CN4 9 Minutes < 45 < 15 can be learned in X minutes necessary retraining CN1, CN3, Minute Alternative measurement: ES5 3 Process time variation 10 to 20 0 to 10 CN4, CN8 range standard deviations ES6 CN9, CN10 3 Visual Aid interpretation Seconds < 5 < 1 ES7 CN5 1 No capital investment USD <= $5,000 <= $1,000 9=Very Important, 3=Important, 1=Somewhat Important Eng. Spec. #: Enables cross-referencing to other documents Source: Customer Need # Marginal Value: Minimum value expected Ideal Value: Best value possible within realistic expectations 1.1.3. Assumptions: 1.1.3.1. Test Plan was developed based on the assumption that all implemented procedures are being followed. 1.1.3.2. It is to be taken into account that there are two kinds of testing, verification of defect reduction from measures taken and behavioral tests to see if procedures are accepted and used by personnel and management.P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 18 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program1.1.3.3. Environmental conditions do not play as significant as a role as queues and overproofing. 1.1.4. Test Plan: All procedures were developed related to engineering specifications. The Marginal Value and Ideal Value will serve as our pass/fail criteria. Main focus is to meet Engineering Specifications rated as a 9. Our Minimum goal is to reduce defects by 20%. Test Plan will be targeted to each procedure. (1.2.6.1-1.2.6.4) 1.1.5. Test Equipment available N/A 1.1.6. Test Equipment needed but not available N/A 2. FINAL TEST PLAN 2.1. Data Collection Plan; Behavioral Test Plan 2.1.1. Data Collection Structure Procedure testing will be done in the form of Defect Data Collection at the End of the line and in the form of performance management. Audits/Checklists will be implemented for testing behavioral response to procedures. Objective is improvement in a small amount of time. All data collection will be compared to preliminary data test results (1.4) to confirm 20% defect reduction. 2.1.2. Phases of Testing Phases are set by Procedure (1.2.6.1-1.2.6.4) 2.1.2.1. Testing of K-Roll Standardization Procedure K-Roll machine speeds will be set so they don’t exceed charts (1.2.6). Data collection will be performed at the end of the line in 30 minute sessions in four different days. Test for setting equal speeds and for having the newer K-Roll machine run faster than the older K-Roll machine. It is assumed that the older K-Roll machine creates more defects than the newer K- Roll machine, so that is the reason for putting the largest load on the newer machine. Data from equal speed setup will also help verify this assumption. K-Roll machine speed setting capability (minimum, maximum and increments within that range) is being investigated at this moment. Initial Checks:  Bagger should read 0 packages, beginning of the run  Make sure oven is set for 8 minutes baking time After K-Roll starts to run:  Make sure 6 pans for ham and 5 for hots are put in the oven. No lessP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 19 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program Mark the switch in K-Roll production speeds on racks/trays/rolls so we can find them again While waiting for the product to flow through line, observations must be recorded regarding the effect these newly set k-roll speeds have on:  Queues between K-Roll and Proof Box  Queues between Proof Box and Oven  Bagger speed  Oven Loading pace effect Hamburger Rolls K-Roll Test Notes Total Throughput (1 K-Roll 1 K-Roll 2 Date Defect Type Qty (1 = 4 buns) Defect % Sorting Sum of Duration Defects = 8 buns) speed speed Team Member Line speeds (mins) (New) (Old) Broken tot def/(td+(thrupt*2)) Should be Disfigured 155 cycles per min Dry Equal Speeds Misaligned 0 0 4/3/2009 Oil Mark Over Floured Thumb Print Under BakedHotdog Rolls K-Roll Test Notes Total Throughput (1 K-Roll 1 K-Roll 2 Date Defect Type Qty (1 = 4 buns) Defect % Sorting Sum of Duration Defects = 8 buns) speed speed Team Member Line speeds (mins) (New) (Old) Broken tot def/(td+(thrupt*2)) Should be Disfigured 175 cycles per min Dry Equal Speeds Misaligned 0 0 4/3/2009 Oil Mark Over Floured Thumb Print Under Baked Also implement checklist and tailor it to the most advantageous way. Preliminary checklists: K- Roll Procedure Verification Check ListVerification Yes No Comments Standard work is posted Production schedule is posted Product Max K-Roll speeds are posted K-Roll's are running equal to or less than posted max values There are no queues before the proof box There are no queues before the oven All problems have been recorded in the log bookP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 20 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramYear: 2009 K- Roll Procedure Verification Check List To Verify:Day of K-Roll's are running There are NO There are NO All problems have Standard work is Production Product max K-Roll equal to or less than queues before the queues before the been recorded in the Date Verification posted schedule is posted speeds are posted Week posted max values proof box oven the log book YES Wednesday 1-Apr NO COMMENTS YES Thursday 2-Apr NO COMMENTS If "No" column has a check there will be a coresponding comment Log book will be used to anlysis and resolve and issues/feeback provided by employees. Needs to be formalized. 2.1.2.2. Testing of Rack Loading/Rack Unloading Procedure Observations will be made to see it procedure is been followed by line workers and its being supervised by management team. Also observations need to be made to try to incorporate current order chosen by each worker. 2.1.2.3. Testing of Non-Procedure Item Preliminary testing is not available for this item. Observe if entire pans are defective in the QC sorting area. 2.1.2.4. Testing of Quality Control Defect Sorting Procedure Picture checklist used in process of taking photographs to compile visual aid.Defect Picture CheckListDisfigured Dry Misaligned Under Oil Over Thumb Type Broken Baked Wrong Overpan/ Indent Leopard Dry Scabs (Sesame Mark Floured Print Bubble Smashed End Nub Wrinkles Crest 1 All 4 4+4 Size Misspan Across Spots Look Like)Plain Brown & Serve Dinner Rolls Sesame Brown & Serve Dinner Rolls Plain Dinner Rolls Observations will be made to see it procedure is been followed by line workers and its being supervised by management team. Look for feedback regarding:  Stand Design: Stand Height, easiness to flip laminated pages, easiness to remove. Visual does not interfere with line worker movements and view of conveyor area vicinity.  Visual Dimensions: Shape rectangular vs. square, height of visual easy to depict without changing eyesight line.  Defect category and roll type grouping: Feedback collected regarding if photographs cover every possible most common defect per roll type (defects depicted should have an occurrence of 10% or more). Also verify that in cases when the images were grouped to a similar category, defects are actually similar, or if roll type needs its own visual.  Visually optimal: Verify layout colors, photograph sizes and photographs subtitles are optimal. 2.1.2.5. IntegrationP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 21 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramSince all tests are verified in the QC Sorting line. It will be difficult to quantify which procedure reduced which amount of defects. K-Roll speed settings can be tested immediately. Covering racks will need some time since covers need to be permanently physically attached to racks. Goal is in terms of overall defect reduction, but there is the possibility that, if time permitting, data can be collected again and results can be compared to see what fraction was the rack top covering action. 2.1.2.6. Reliability (wks 15-20) If there is a specification, such as a drop test, out of range voltage or some other form of potentially destructive testing, discuss this with your Guide and Sponsor. As an example, this specification maybe waived depending upon the specific customer needs. • Reliability is the most important characteristic • You can improve reliability by design. • However you may need special test procedure to characterize reliability. • Reliability test procedures are expensive. • Basically reliability test are conducted at elevated stress (electrical, tolerances, temperature, etc.) levels. Sometimes they are invasive and destructive. 2.1.2.7. Customer Acceptance (wks 20-21) Finally you have to demonstrate the functionality and performance of the System to the customer. You have to develop a Test Plan to demonstrate the critical functional in a step-by- step fashion to prove that it satisfies customer (functional) specifications. 2.1.3. Sampling Techniques, Sample Size In preliminary testing, the following things were observed: One QC Sorting line VS. 2 QC Sorting lines (directly related to if one or both K-Roll machines are running). Thirty minutes of data collection seem to be a good sample size for testing. All defect categories come from that thirty minute duration. The Final test plan is to match preliminary testing settings as close as possible. Therefore, there is no need to further analyze testing conditions. 2.1.4. Reporting Problems; Corrective Action The following risks were developed when developing proposals (preliminary procedures):P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 22 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramProp. # Risk Severity Probability Mitigation Employee involvement, feedback, 1,2,3 No employee buy-in 9 7 and performance management No long-term consistency and In house project responsibility, 1,2,3 9 5 commitment performance management 1,2,3 Implementation delay 9 3 Adequate Planning 1,2,3 Lack of data collection time 3 5 Accurate project planning Management involvement and 1,2,3 No management buy-in feedback Cause large-scale schedule 1, 2 3 3 Work with scheduling personnel modification Workers may not use visual 3 9 7 Performance management aids Visuals may distract/slow- 3 3 3 down workers Visuals may distract/slow- 1,2 1 1 down workers Disconnect between phases keep full-time employees heavily 1,2 3 5 and resources involved with project Importance: 9=Very Important, 3=Important, 1=Somewhat Important2.1.4.1. Testing of K-Roll Standardization Procedure Changing speeds may not reduce queues and it does not reduce defects. If this happens, further investigation needs to happen. Possible no employee buy-in. Use performance management, follow hierarchy:2.1.4.2. Testing of Rack Loading/Rack Unloading Procedure Possible no employee buy-in. Use performance management skills and make sure line workers are informed why the sudden standardize order, and try to keep in mind their point of view. 2.1.4.3. Testing of Non-Procedure Item If after implementation there are still entire pans with dry defects, investigate other possible sources besides extreme proof box top area conditions that may cause dry defects in entire pans.P09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 23 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD ProgramThere can also be implementation delay since some machining needs to done. If that happens, and MSDII ends before implemented, clear instructions will be set to observe this upgrade. 2.1.4.4. Testing of Quality Control Defect Sorting Procedure Workers may not use visuals. Design of stand, location, shape and layout of visual aid is not the best. Modify design to better fit ergonomics and human factors concerns. There can also be implementation delay since some machining needs to done. If that happens, and MSDII ends before implemented, clear instructions will be set to observe this upgrade. 2.2. Test Conditions, Setup Instructions 2.2.1. N/A 2.3. Sponsor/Customer, Site Related, Requests/Considerations 2.3.1. N/A 2.4. Work Breakdown Structure Levi Stuck is focused on Performance Management development to apply across line. 2.4.1. K-Roll Standardization Procedure Evan DeCotis is the most familiar with speed data. Levi Stuck and Cinthia Sanchez follow and also will be in charge of observations. Available team members will be needed for data collection. 2.4.2. Testing of Rack Loading/Rack Unloading Procedure Mainly Ryan Dennison. 2.4.3. Testing of Non-Procedure Item Mainly Ryan Dennison. 2.4.4. Testing of Quality Control Defect Sorting Procedure Mainly Joseph Fitzery. Followed by Cinthia Sanchez when regarding the visual stand. 2.5. Definitions; Important Terminology; Key Words 2.5.1. Add here or remove as applicable. 3. DESIGN TEST VERIFICATION Verify is test plan was adequate for needs and also verify test plan execution 3.1. Test Results 3.1.1. Testing of K-Roll Standardization ProcedureP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 24 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program3.1.2. Testing of Rack Loading/Rack Unloading Procedure 3.1.3. Testing of Non-Procedure Item 3.1.4. Testing of Quality Control Defect Sorting Procedure 3.1.5. Integration 3.1.6. Reliability (wks 15-20) 3.1.7. Customer Acceptance (wks 20-21) 3.2. Logistics and Documentation Tests will be performed on roll line and logged into already existing spreadsheets on Edge. https://edge.rit.edu/content/P09712/public/Data%20Collection%20Documents or a specific tab will be created for it. 3.3. Definition of a Successful Test, Pass/Fail Criteria 3.4. Contingencies/Mitigation for Preliminary or Insufficient Results 3.5. Analysis of Data – Design Summary 3.6. Conclusion or Design Summary Explain why tests worked as planned/did not work as planned. Refer to pass/fail numbers if needed 3.7. Function/Performance Reviews Note: Some teams organize reviews on a weekly bases starting in week 4 or 5 and other may wish to wait until week 10 or 11. Discuss with your Guide. 3.7.1. Debriefing your Guide and Faculty Consultants Share test results, conclusions, any follow-on recommendations, design summary. 3.7.2. Lab Demo with your Guide and Faculty Consultants Perform each of the specifications and features. 3.7.3. Meeting with Sponsor See Customer Acceptance above. Field Demonstration. Deliver the project. Demonstrate to the Sponsor. Customer needs met / not met. 3.8. References 3.8.1. N/A 3.9. AppendicesP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 25 Revision # 0 04/08/09 RIT KGCOE MSD Program3.9.1. N/AP09712: Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction 26

P09712 Commercial Roll Line Shrink Reduction

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support