www.wegmans.com/webapp

Wegman’s Cheesecake

Depanning Improvement

Matthew Gundrum

Zach Alsheimer

Garth Sinclair

Casey Bauman

AgendaProblem Statement

Subject Matter Experts

Feasibility Analysis

Preliminary Tests

Observations

Project Schedule

New Ideas

Risk Assessment

Upcoming Tests

Concerns

Problem Statement (Recap)

• 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 CONSTRAINT

S

Ergonomic Expert (Nancy Laurie)

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

Product Line Expert (Artisan-John Antinore)

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

Benchmarking Expert (Dr. DeBartolo)

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

Heat Transfer Expert (Dr. Stevens)

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

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS (Heat Transfer through a Cheesecake)

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

ResultsProvide a model of temperature change inside cheesecakes Pinpoint when the internal temperature is ideal for lubricating

properties of butter and grease

COMSOL Multiphysics Modeling SoftwareInput material properties at different layers Performs numerical analysis using built in heat transfer

equations

Finite Element ApproximationBreaks into layers of equal height Approximation of each element using boundary conditions

and previous elements

FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS (Heat Transfer through a Cheesecake) cont’d

Baseline Data of Current Process

* Sample size: 48 * Sample size: 48

* Sample size: 22

Tests Performed

Vacuum Test

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.

Rubber Mallet Test

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

Gravity Test

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

Insert Test 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

Insert Test

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

Additional Improvement Ideas

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

RISK ASSESSMENTID Risk Item Effect Cause

Likelihood

SeverityImportanc

eAction to Minimize Risk Owner

1Proposed 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

2 3 6Complete 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)

1 2 2

Meet with Nancy to discuss current

ergonomic concerns and improvement ideas that

Wegmans has not previously addressed

Garth & Zach

3Proposed process

improvements conflict with union regulations

Possible sanctions from union

Lack of understanding about union regulations and restrictions by MSD

team

1 3 3

During weekly meetings, discuss possible

improvement solutions with Wegmans

management to ensure no issues with unions

MSD Team / Wegmans

4Changes 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

2 2 4Conduct time trials to set

standards for current process as a benchmark

Garth & Zach

5Proposed improvements

prove too capital intensive for Wegmans

Wegmans would have to establish allowable budget

for team

Team cannot find a feasible 'no-cost' solution

1 2 2

Focus on 'no-cost' solutions, discuss

possible alternatives with Wegmans if these are not

effective

MSD Team / Wegmans

6Proposed 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

1 2 2

Once an improvement has been successfully identified, work with

management to develop standard work for

operators

MSD Team / Wegmans

7Process improvements

cannot be sustained over long term

Return to the current process

Insufficient fatigue testing

1 3 3Ensure design specs exceed the necessary

conditionsCasey & Matt

RISK ASSESSMENTID Risk Item Effect Cause Likelihood Severity

Importance

Action to Minimize Risk

Owner

7Process improvements

cannot be sustained over long term

Return to the current process

Insufficient fatigue testing

1 3 3Ensure design specs exceed the necessary

conditionsCasey & Matt

8 Time constraintUnable to finish

improvement project

Procrastination of team, fall behind designed

schedule1 3 3

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

1 2 2Encourage all input and feedback from

Wegmans perspectiveMSD Team

10Communication issues

with stake holders

Difficulty obtaining necessary information, unclear project status

Lost/Unsent emails 2 1 2

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 policies1 3 3

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

2 2 4

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

1 3 3

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 testing2 1 2

Team properly plans test procedures prior to running them at

Wegmans

Garth & Zach

Upcoming Tests

• 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

Upcoming Tests

• 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

Upcoming Tests

• Solid Metal Inserts• Redo of foil and parchmentRedo

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

EXTENDED PLAN

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)

IMMEDIATE PLAN 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)

CONCERNS Timeline on zero cost ideas

Allowable budget if necessary

How changing variables effect test results

QUESTIONS?

www.wegmans.com/webapp