Download to read offline
MGMT 6103 - Control Phase- CMCC
- 1. Cookie MonStar CookieCompany: Lean Six Sigma Process Improvement Alex Rodriguez Brandon McKinnie Ezekiel Jones Johnny Eaves Leonard Burch Malyka Austin
- 2.
- 3. Define Phase—Executive Summary Cookie MonStar Cookie Company recently invested in a second facility that has state of the art equipment and value-added technological advancements. Since beginning production, operations has noticed a reduction in customer complaints with the newer facility; however, the older facility has seen an increase in customer complaints and decrease in profits. The older facility produces fewer units than the new facility but incurs higher labor cost. CMC will invest in equipment upgrades for the older facility and mandate Quality Control training programs for all employees. The new changes will ensure the older facility maintains the same production of output seen capable at the newer facility, while developing a more effective work force. After changes have been implemented, operations feels that we can reduce customer complaints in the old facility by 50% and increase profits by 15%. Cookie MonStar is dedicated to improving the company’s brand image while improving product quality, business integrity and credibility from every customer.
- 4. 4 Cookie MonStar CookieCompany Charter Problem: CMCC will invest in equipment upgrades for the older facility and mandate Quality Control training programs for all employees. The new changes will ensure the older facility maintains the same product output seen capable at the newer facility, all while developing a more effective work force. Scope: Implementation of Quality Control training and investing in equipment upgrades for the older facility will greatly reduce customer complaints and increase lagging sales revenue. The newer facility is out of scope. Goal: The CMCC will reduce complaints at the old facility by 50%, resulting in a revenue increase of $26,000 by the end of December, 2015. Problem/Goal Statement Tollgate Review Schedule Business Impact CMCC Team Members Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete Define: 6/11/2015 6/15/2015 6/16/2015 Measure: 6/18/2015 Analyze: Improve: Control: Business Case: Cookie MonStar Cookie Company needs to focus more of its attention on quality control. With this as a primary focus, this will alleviate a great deal of customer complaints. Training our employees on our high expectations promotes a natural check and balance equation among departments. We aim to provide quality products to our customers. Focusing on quality will catapult the company’s brand into excellence. Investing in new equipment and specialized standard training will rectify our issues within the older facility. Financial Impact: Upgrading equipment will reap a substantial impact on our finances; however, improvement is necessary. We do not want to wait too late to try and salvage our credibility. One of our goals is to increase sales by 15% (an additional $26,000 annually) which will alleviate some of the financial strains of purchasing/ leasing new equipment. Operational Impact: With the usage of new equipment and the training of employees on the importance of quality control at the old facility, we will make a substantial impact on our operational capabilities. The overall goal is to decrease customer complaints by 50%. TeamMembers Position DefinePhaseDeliverables MalykaAustin ProjectCoordinator DevelopCharter&CompilePowerPoint JohnnyEaves Sr.ProjectSpecialist SIPOC/HighLevelProcessMap BrandonMcKinnie Sr.ProjectSpecialist StakeholderCommunicationPlan LeonardBurch ProjectManager GanttChart EzekielJones Project Coordinator VOC AlexRodriguez ProjectCoordinator CTQTree
- 5. Sales and ComplaintData RowLabels Sumof Complaints Sumof Sales Sumof Profit/Unit Sumof Cost Sumof Cost/Unit Sumof Productivity(Unit/LaborHr) Sumof LaborHours Sumof UnitsProduced Sumof Margin NewFacility 5540 $7,846,798.00 356.2110204 2617667.562 178.34 25806.99383 39261.88854 3846867.68 174.5631 OldFacility 11672 $7,800,393.00 342.2709524 2808805.129 192.86 23958.36373 42162.16988 3819987.22 167.5362 GrandTotal 17212 $15,647,191.00 698.4819728 5426472.69 371.2 49765.35756 81424.05843 7666854.9 342.0993 $26,000 $27,000 $28,000 $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $32,000 01-Oct-14 15-Oct-14 29-Oct-14 12-Nov-14 26-Nov-14 10-Dec-14 24-Dec-14 07-Jan-15 21-Jan-15 04-Feb-15 18-Feb-15 04-Mar-15 18-Mar-15 Sales Date Old Facility New Facility 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 01-Oct-14 15-Oct-14 29-Oct-14 12-Nov-14 26-Nov-14 10-Dec-14 24-Dec-14 07-Jan-15 21-Jan-15 04-Feb-15 18-Feb-15 04-Mar-15 18-Mar-15 NumberofComplaints Date Old Facility New Facility
- 6. Suppliers Inputs ProcessOutputs Customer Viking Henry Farms Cargill Foods Maintenance Duke Power Alibaba Foods Finance Oven Eggs, Butter, Milk Sugar, Flavoring, Flour Preventive maintenance Gas Chips, Nuts Labor Select ingredients Mix ingredients Bake ingredients Remove cookies from oven Package cookies Ship cookies Dough Cookies Quality Control Warehouse Retailer Quality Control Warehouse Retailer Ingredient quality Ingredient quantity Heating element Thermostat Conveyor system Taste, Texture, Color Quality Information from plant Dock to stock Employee training Equipment uptime Information systems Picks per hour Carrier cut time Speed Information from WH Tag cookies with price Dock to store shelves Information systems Employee training and efficiency Labor efficiency Cost Customer Input Metrics Process Metrics Output Metrics SIPOC
- 7. VOC Ranking Matrix CustomerRequirements / Prioritization Tool Date: 15-Jun-15 Customers▼ QualityControl Warehouse Retailer Ranki ng ► 10 10 7 Customer Requirements ▼ Rank % Rank Quality 10 4 4 168 14.7% Taste 10 1 4 138 12.1% On-Time Delivery 1 7 10 150 13.2% Packaging 10 4 4 168 14.7% Order Replenishment 1 10 10 180 15.8% Accessibility 1 1 10 90 7.9% Size 7 4 4 138 12.1% Quantity 4 4 4 108 9.5%
- 8. Stakeholder Communication Plan Reasonsto use Stakeholder Communication Plan: 1. Old plant product complaint 47% higher than new plant. 2. Old plant uses 2900.27 more labor hours than new plant to produce 27,880 less units than new plant. 3. Need to indentify stake holders to pin point root cause of problem in old plant.
- 10. Gantt Chart 6/1/2015 6/11/20156/21/2015 7/1/2015 7/11/2015 7/21/2015 7/31/2015 Begin Define Phase SIPOC/ High Level Process Map Stakeholder Communication Plan Draft Report Due Final Report Due Detailed Process Map Fishbone Diagram Control Charts Udated Project Status Report NVA for Analyze Phase Cause and Effect Matrix FMEA Updated Project Status Report Pugh Matrix Grahpical Analysis/ Improvements Final Report Due Begin Control Phase Implementation Plan Template Final Report Due Presentation Cookie Monstars Campaign Project Timeline Days Complete Days Behind Days Ahead Days Future Today
- 11.
- 12. 12 Cookie MonStar CookieCompany Charter • The Detailed Process Map was created to assist team in understanding the overall process steps in detail, also the inputs and outputs required. • Baking Temperature & Time data shows within USL/ LSL at the old facility; therefore not cause of cookie hardness. • Cookie Weight data shows within USL/LSL at the old facility; therefore not contributing to cookie hardness. • Taste parameters fall below LSL at the old facility. • Implementation of quality control checks contribute to the reduction of complaints. Key Findings in Measure Phase Tollgate Review Schedule Graph CMCC Team Members Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete Define: 6/11/2015 6/15/2015 6/16/2015 Measure: 6/18/2015 - 6/26/2015 Analyze: 6/28/2015 Improve: Control: Team Members Position Measure Phase Deliverables Johnny Eaves Sr. Project Specialist Detailed Process Map Ezekiel Jones Project Coordinator X/Y Matrix Alex Rodriguez Project Coordinator Data Collection Table Brandon McKinnie Sr. Project Specialist Control Chart Malyka Austin Project Coordinator Updated Charter, PP Compilation Leonard Burch Project Manager Non Value Add Analysis, Project Plan/ Schedule
- 13.
- 14. Cookie MonStars Non-ValueAdded Analysis Value Stream Map
- 16. Data Collection PlanTable
- 17. • 11/26/2014 TasteParameters Fall Below LSL • Hardness Parameters Moved Outside USL/LSL 10/22/2014 • Approximately 30 Days Between Hardness Parameter Fluctuation and Taste Parameters Below LSL • Hardness Parameters Outside USL/LSL Cause Taste to Fall Below LSL • Hardness Parameters Outside USL/LSL and Taste Parameters Below LSL Increase Customer Complaints UCL LCL USL LSL UCL LCL CONTROL CHART MEASURING COOKIE TASTE OLD FACILITY
- 18. • Baking TemperaturesWithin USL/LSL • Baking Temperatures Not Cause of Cookie Hardness UCL LCL USL LSL UCL CONTROL CHART MEASURING BAKING TEMP. OLD FACILITY
- 19. • Baking TimesWithin USL/LSL • Baking Times Not Cause of Cookie Hardness UCL LCL USL LSL UCL LCL CONTROL CHART MEASURING BAKE TIME OLD FACILITY
- 20. • Weight WithinUSL/LSL • Cookie Weight Not Cause of Cookie Hardness UCL LCL USL LSL UCL LCL CONTROL CHART MEASURING COOKIE WEIGHT OLD FACILITY
- 21. • 10/22/2014 ParametersMove Outside of USL/LSL • Hardness Parameters Outside USL- LSL Increase Customer Complaints USL LSL CONTROL CHART MEASURING COOKIE HARDNESS OLD FACILITY
- 22.
- 23. TeamMembers Position MeasurePhaseDeliverables JohnnyEavesSr.ProjectSpecialist Charter EzekielJones Project Coordinator FMEA AlexRodriguez ProjectCoordinator FishboneDiagram BrandonMcKinnie Sr.ProjectSpecialist FTEST MalykaAustin ProjectCoordinator BoxPlotofStatisticalTool(F-Test) LeonardBurch ProjectManager FMEA CMCC Team Members Cookie MonStar Cookie Company Charter Tollgate Review Schedule STATISTICAL DATAKey Findings in Analyze Phase Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete Define: 6/11/2015 6/15/2015 6/16/2015 Measure: 6/18/2015 6/26/2015 Analyze: 6/30/2015 7/11/2015 Improve: Control: Original (No Change) Test Data (with Improvement Idea) Mean 51.07380952 50.186 Variance 45.38977802 7.927625263 Observations 20 20 df 19 19 F 5.725520129 P(F<=f) one-tail 0.000191364 F Critical one-tail 2.168251601 Cookie Hardness Before and After Improvement Implementation F-Test Two-Sample for Variances • Determine and eliminate potential root causes of variation • Quantify the impact of the root cause • 82.5% Higher variance in cookie hardness baked with new vendor’s flour
- 24. FMEA Process Step FailureMode Failure Effects Causes Controls usemax SEV Action Resp Timing May be process step, generalactivity, functional area, or other rational grouping What is the potentialfailure or undesirable outcome for this area? If the failure mode occurs, what willthe effect be? S E V What is/are the cause/s of the failure? O C C What controls are in place to prevent the cause fromoccuring or to detect that the cause has occurred? D E T R P N What specific actions are required to improve the RPNnumber Who willbe accountable for implementing the change When is completion of the action required or planned Test Ingredients for Quality The ingredients doesn’t meet standards. The cookies will not pass quality control. The cookies will be of dissatisfaction to the consumer 9 Low-quality suppliers 9 Supplier scorecards and overall supplier management 3 243 Implement quality metrics for the suppliers that will increase quality standards The quality control department and plant management 3 months 5 4 1 20 Load the ingredients into the mixer and mix Ingredients aren't mixed properly Cookie taste is subpar. 10 Improperly trained employees 8 Additional training time 5 400 Employee training hours is increased by 3 hours per employee Plant management and human resources. 4 months 6 5 2 60 Load dough into hopper Improperly loading dough into the hopper Cookie size variance 8 Improperly trained employees 8 Additional training time 4 256 Employee training hours is increased by 3 hours per employee Plant management and human resources. 4 months 5 5 2 50 Set oven temperature and conveyor speed Wrong temperature is set Cookie hardness levels will either be too hard or soft. 10 Incorrect temperature standards. 7 Proper temperature used consistently for each cookie batch and cookie sample tasting. 1 70 Temperature trial runs to ensure proper emperature for cookie baking Plant management and quality conrol 3 months 5 2 1 10 Start the Production Line Production line fails to start or isn’t started promptly Production Flow Stalls and Ingredients Age 10 Human and Machine Error 3 Human Production Line Trigger and Computer Time Sensors 2 60 Production line test are run every morning during normal operations Process Manager and Line Manager Daily 8 2 1 16 Transport Cookies to Cooling Chambers Cookies are not transoported by specified time Cookie composition is changed ( harder or softer) 8 Human Error 3 Cookies have to reach cooling chambers by a certain time within a certain temperature range 1 24 Clear path for cookies to reach cooling chambers, also having themometers in each batch Quality control manager 1 month 4 1 1 4 Test Cookies for Taste, Texture and Hardness Cookies will not meet composition standards Cookies will not pass quality control and will not sell well 9 Cookie production process isn't functioning correctly 4 Cookie hardness scale and Quality control testing 3 108 Quality at the source will be implemented Quality control management 3 months 5 2 2 20 Cookie Packaging Packaging quality is insufficient Cookie packages break and cookies go bad 10 Packaging glue and material 5 Packaging stress testing is performed 4 200 Order and maintian better quality, price efficient glue and materials Qualitity control over packaging 2 months 6 3 2 36 P S E V P O C C P D E T P R P N
- 25.
- 26. Statistical Tool: Two-Samplefor Variances F-Test • Tested 20 samples baked with old vendor’s flour • Tested 20 samples baked with new vendor’s flour • 82.5% Higher variance in cookie hardness baked with new vendor’s flour • Conclusion new vendor’s flour cause of increased variance in cookie hardness Original (No Change) Test Data (with Improvement Idea) Mean 51.07380952 50.186 Variance 45.38977802 7.927625263 Observations 20 20 df 19 19 F 5.725520129 P(F<=f) one-tail 0.000191364 F Critical one-tail 2.168251601 Cookie Hardness Before and After Improvement Implementation F-Test Two-Sample for Variances Current Process Test Data (with Improvement Idea) 57.71 51.92 39.90 48.00 50.00 50.96 40.10 53.00 39.90 48.00 42.57 54.80 50.00 46.32 57.43 53.68 55.05 48.16 55.05 53.52 47.52 50.92 52.43 45.40 50.00 48.24 59.71 48.24 47.62 47.36 62.14 47.48 47.57 50.88 57.14 50.88 54.86 54.20 54.76 51.76 Cookies 1 (Hardness Target 50 +/- 5)
- 27. Box Plot forVariance Test (New Flour Vendor) Statistic Current Process Test Process (Old Vendor) q1 47.56 48 Min 39.90 45.4 median 51.21 50.88 max 62.14 54.8 q3 55.57 52.19
- 29.
- 30. CMCC Team Members CookieMonStar Cookie Company Charter Tollgate Review Schedule STATISTICAL DATAKey Findings in Improvement Phase Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete Define: 6/11/2015 6/15/2015 6/16/2015 Measure: 6/18/2015 6/26/2015 Analyze: 6/30/2015 7/11/2015 Improve: 7/11/2015 7/18/2015 Control: • Identified that the NEW vendor’s flour was not sifted to cookie recipe specifications. • Made decision to go with the older flour vendor. • Financially, this vendor is more expensive but they produce a quality product. • Made equipment improvements in the older facility. • Taste & hardness parameters returned to satisfactory levels. Team Members Position Improvement Phase Deliverables Alex Rodriguez Project Coordinator Pilot Improved Process Brandon McKinnie Sr. Project Specialist Graphical Analysis (Hardness/ Taste) Ezekiel Jones Project Coordinator Quick Wins Johnny Eaves Sr. Project Specialist Future State Process Map Leonard Burch Project Manager Pugh Matrix Malyka Austin Project Coordinator Charter & Project Benefit Worksheet
- 31. Pugh Matrix Criteria Continueusingnew flowervendorasis Returntooldflowervendor Useoldvendoruntilnew vendorfixesissues Negotiatenew priceanduseonlyoldvendor Concept6 ImportanceRating Cookie Quality- + + + 6 Cookie Taste - + + + 6 Sales Improvement - + + + 6 Better + Sustainabilty S + - + 6 Same S Flower Quality S + + + 6 Worse - Cookie Hardness S + + + 3 Accessibility S S S + 3 Cookie Size S S S + 3 NOTE: Ease of Implemetation S - - - 3 If you do not use the above legend symbols, Order Replenishment - + + + 3 the formulas will not work. Switching Cost S - - - 3 Quality Controlable S + + + 3 Quantity S + + + 1 Cost to Implement S - - - 1 On Time Delivery S + S + 1 Sum of Positives 0 10 8 12 0 Sum of Negatives 4 3 4 3 0 Sum of Sames 11 2 3 0 0 Weighted sum of Positives 0 41 34 47 0 Weighted sum of Negatives -21 -7 -13 -7 0 Total Weighted Score -21 34 21 40 0 Concept Legend
- 32. Stakeholder Analysis Group Key Representativ e AccountableResponsible Consulted Informed Outcome Accountabl e Outcome Impacted Output End User Internal/Ext ernal Priority (High/ Med/ Low) Direct/Indirec t Involvement VP Sales Gary Lewis h h h Internal High Direct Old Plant Director Of Operations Mike Martin h h h h h h Internal High Direct Old Plant Line Manager Shift Manager Larry Jones h h h h h h Internal Med Direct Old Plant Production Line Employees Kevin davis h h h h h Internal Low Direct
- 33. Stakeholder Analysis (Cont…) Relationship with / Interestin project Goals / Success Criteria Impact on Project What does the project need from this group? Impact of Project Potential Issues or Concerns Needs Management Strategy / Method of Communication Project Sponsor To provide funding and oversight. Project overseer Ultimate approval ROI, Credibility, Increased revenue Financial loss Financial estimates Weekly progress meeting (Conference calls) Project Manager Overall direction and leadership. Ensure proper project implementations Daily project direction Leadership and the necessary resources and information needed Customer satisfaction,Customer demand, Increased production, Operational effectiveness Timely implementation and customer response Face to Face meetings concerning project progress . Understanding of the provided solution and approval decision rights. Consistent dialogue with the project supervisor and the master black belt Conference calls and daily face to face meetings Project Supervisor Faciliate the process improvements and managing of new process Daily project management Management and detail Quality and process efficiency New process handling and time Site meetings/visits with master black belt. Daily communication with project manager Daily Face to face meetings and training sessions Project Specialist Successfully carry out the implementations and improvement initiatives Carry out the new improvements Personal insight and empowerment Performance and productivity Familiarity and execution Training
- 34. Pilot Improved Process Go back to the new flour vendor and ask for a flour that better suits our needs. Meantime buy flour from old vendor until new vendor provides flour to our specifications. Measure the hardness, taste of the cookies, and customer complaints. If measures are bad, return to analyzing data to determine another cause. If measures improve, problem correctly identified and project a success.
- 35. Cost Benefit Analysis Project: Allvalues based on 12 months of savings starting 6/23/2015 Check One Initital Estimate Benefits Final Project Closure Values X Cost of Services Project Costs Material reduction Equipment 89,000 Direct Labor reduction Reorganization Variable Overhead reduction Project Team 10,000 Total Project Costs 89,000 Fixed Overhead Net Annualized Savings 57,500 Lease reductions/eliminations Indirect Labor reduction Soft Savings (description and quantification): Maintenance cost reductions 140,000 Cost of Poor Quality Scrap reduction Rework reduction 6,500 Warranty cost reduction Cost Avoidance One time Savings (Cash Flow) Benefits Raw material Inventory reduction 29,000 Profit on extra services due to capacity increase WIP Inventory reduction Finished Goods Inventory reduction Accounts Receivable reduction Sale of Unneeded Assets Total Annualized Benefits 146,500 Total One Time Savings 29,000 Black/Green Belt approval (Signature and date) Finance Representative approval (Signature and date) Project Benefits Leonard Burch 6/23/2015 Malyka Austin 6/23/2015 Cookie MonStars Cookie Company Improved customer service by 50% and increase in sales by 10%!
- 36. Load the ingredients intothe mixer and mix 6 Turn dough out of mixer into transport tub 7 Transport dough to hopper at production line 8 Load dough into hopper 9 Set oven temperature and conveyor speed 10 Is temperature correct 11 Press start on production line 12 Nozzles press out precise amount of dough onto conveyor 13 NO YES Conveyor runs through 300 foot oven 14 Cookies exit the oven and are transported to cooling chambers 15 Samples of each batch of cookies sent to quality control 16 Cookies are tested for taste, texture, and hardness 17 Do cookies meet specifications? 18 Entire batch is trash NO Cookies are sent to be packaged 19 YES Cookies are transported by truck to the warehouse 20 Are there orders from retailers? 21 Store cookies in the racks 22 Ship the cookies to the retailer 23 NO YES Receive ingredients from vendor 2 Test 10% of each ingredient for proper specifications 3 Send ingredients to store room 5 PASS FAIL RTV for credit and ingredients within specifications 4 Vendor ships ingredients per order 1 Factory receives order 1 Send request to store room for ingredients 2 Test ingredients for quality 3 Transport ingredients to mixer 4 FAIL PASS Do we have correct ingredients and quantity? 5 NO YES Future State Process Map
- 37. CONTROL CHART MEASURINGCOOKIE HARDNESS OLD FACILITY BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENTS USL LSL UCL LCL USL LSL UCL LCL • April 2015 reverted to using old vendor’s flour • Hardness parameter returned to satisfactory levels USL LSL UCL UCL USL LSL UCL UCL
- 38. CONTROL CHART MEASURINGCOOKIE TASTE OLD FACILITY BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENTS USL LSL UCL LCL USL LSL UCL LCL • April 2015 reverted to using old vendor’s flour • Taste parameter returned to satisfactory levels
- 39.
- 40. CMCC Team Members CookieMonStar Cookie Company Charter Tollgate Review Schedule STATISTICAL DATAKey Findings in Control Phase Tollgate Scheduled Revised Complete Define: 6/11/2015 6/15/2015 6/16/2015 Measure: 6/18/2015 6/26/2015 Analyze: 6/30/2015 7/11/2015 Improve: 7/11/2015 7/18/2015 Control: 7/20/2015 7/24/2015 • Suspended contract with New Flour Vendor due to not meeting quality standards. • Customer’s complaints decreased after switching back to older vendor’s flour. • Older vendor offered us a discount based on weight. • Considering allowing NEW flour vendor to adjust their measurements and re-test.
- 41. PRIMARY METRIC CHART: CONTROLCHART MEASURING COMPLAINTS OLD FACILITY BEFORE AND AFTER IMPROVEMENTS UCL LCL • April 2015 reverted to using old vendor’s flour • Customer complaints decreased USL LSL UCL LCL USL LSL UCL LCL
- 42.
- 43. Communication Purpose AudienceAuthor Vehicle Frequency Status Reports To keep key stakeholders and and team members aware of progress, issues, and solutions. Team members, VP of Sales, VP of Opertions, Client Contact Project manager Email Monthly Team Meatings To ensure all team members are apprised of progress, changes, and current priorities Project team members Project manager Face-to-face Weekly, Monday and Thursday @ 9:00 – 10:00 Email Communications Things that are not emergencies To distribute meeting minutes, alert team members to document changes posted, share information and answer questions between meetings. Project team members, Client contact, DC Manager, Old and New Plant Director of Operations, Flower Vendors, Facility Managers Project team members, Client contact, all Managers, and VPs Email As needed Phone / in-person Emergencies/ things that require immediate attention Team Members, Flower Vendors, Vice President of Operations, Facility Managers, and Retail Client Contacts Project team members, Client contact, all Managers, and VPs Company or personal cell phone when appropriate. As needed Shared Project Folder Retains all current project documentation. Project team members Project Manager, project team members In-Facility Project Office Location Upload revisions within 24 hours of the change. Shared Online Portal Allows syncroniczation of all company, vendor, and stakeholder information. All team members and clearanced stakeholders All team members and clearanced stakeholders Stakeholder compnay computer terminals Daily; As needed to keep information valid Cookie MonStar Communication Plan
- 44.
- 45. SOP for BakingMONSTARS Cookies Purpose: To ensure that each cookie produced is of consistent color, taste and texture per company specification and customer expectation. Responsible Manager: Mike Tomlin Frequency: Every batch produced Procedure: Send request to store room for ingredients Test ingredients for quality. Transport ingredients to the mixer. Check for correct ingredients and quantities of each Record batch number of each ingredient on production sheet. Load ingredients into the mixer per the recipe, add dry first then wet. Press start on the mixer. Once the mixer stops, turn dough out of the mixer into the transport tub. Transport the dough to the production line and load into the hopper. Set the oven temperature to 400 degrees and set the conveyor speed. Once the temperature reaches 400 degrees press start. Once the baked cookies exit the oven load on cooling racks to be transported the cooling chambers Monitored by: Cookie Supervisor – Casey Hampton aka “Big Snack” Standard Cookie Recipe:* 100 pounds of eggs 250 pounds of flour 125 pounds butter 200 pounds sugar 75 pounds flavoring 130 pounds milk 175 pounds chocolate chips 145 pound of chopped pecans
- 46. Project Executive Overview •Project description o Identify key differences between older and newer facility o Training on Quality Control standards • Major changes the project team implemented o Updated cooking equipment in older facility o Identified flour as the ingredient causing hardness of cookies • Description of the critical controlled inputs that brought about the improvement o Through QC checks, we identified that flour was the component that caused cookie hardness • Key learning of the project o Equipment needed upgrading, but was not the main reason for the increase in customer complaints. o Our new flour vendor was 12% cheaper—but did not meet our quality standards (not sifted properly) o Strengthened the relationship with our old vendor. • What impact does this improvement have on the business o Discount received from older vendor with better product. o Quality Increased, Complaints Reduced and $$$ Saved
- 47. Control Phase ProjectTimeline 6/1/2015 6/11/2015 6/21/2015 7/1/2015 7/11/2015 7/21/2015 7/31/2015 Begin Define Phase SIPOC/ High Level Process Map Stakeholder Communication Plan Draft Report Due Final Report Due Detailed Process Map X/Y Matrix Control Cart Table Udated Project Status Report NVA for Analyze Phase Cause and Effect Matrix FMEA Updated Project Status Report Quick Wins Pilot Plan Future State Process Map Final Report Due Begin Control Phase Implementation Plan Template Final Report Due Presentation Cookie Monstars Campaign Project Timeline Days Complete Days Behind Days Ahead Days Future Today