Kaizen Projects - Food Manufacturer

Company A, a Large UK based Food Manufacturer, identified a need for Lean training aimed at their Managers and Supervisors to facilitate the implementation of a Continuous Improvement culture, and so contacted Track Training with a view to how these needs could be met. 

After meeting with Track Training it was decided to put 36 candidates through the highly sought after Business Improvement Techniques (BIT) Apprenticeship programme Track Training provides. 

A total of 36 candidates made up 3 teams who undertook the programme over a 13 month period, where via Kaizen projects the teams created cost savings of £367,283.00 per annum. This was in culmination with the Lean Continuous Improvement culture which became embedded within their area of the business allowing for ongoing continuous improvement and waste identification, as well as the 5S and Visual Management projects which were part of the programme.

 

TESTIMONIAL

”From our initial meetings Track Training listened and responded to our specific organisational needs and created a training plan bespoke to our requirements. We’re very pleased with the delivery especially the “out of hours” sessions that have been delivered. We will definitely continue to use Track Training as our Lean training provider of choice for the future.” Fresh Meats Operations Manager

 

TEAM A

Team A focused their attention on one of the primary manufacturing lines, producing a standard high volume product that is usually set up for long production runs.

In essence, fresh produce is packed into in-process formed trays, of which three lanes are normally available. In this particular instance only two lanes had been useable because of film alignment and gassing issues, this had been the situation for the preceding three months.

Having considered this an appropriate area to improve the team measured and understood the current process using Flow Process Analysis tools, supplemented with the application of the relevant Problem Solving tools.

Quality – Aim to improve the Quality of the process by 50%

Cost– Manage costs and potential losses more closely

 

Packs Produced per hour

Pre – Improvement       295                      Post – Improvement      500 

Labour Savings

Total direct cost per hour (10 operatives at £10.00 per hour)          

100

Currently weekly packs in production (post improvement)              

18,000

Current labour hours (500 packs per hour)                                    

36

Previous labour hours (295 packs per hour)                                   

61

Weekly savings                                                                           

2,502

Annual savings                                                                           

130,088

Packaging savings

Previously producing 10.5 packs per metre                                    

1,714

Currently producing 16.5 packs per metre

1,091

Savings in metres                                                                         

623

Cost per Metre                                                                             

£0.64

Base film cost                                                                               

£0.73

Weekly Savings £                                                                          

£455

Annual Savings £                                                                           

£23,663

Total Annual Savings                                                                                                                        £153,752                                                   

 

TEAM B

Team B looked at a different product that was a variety of fresh and prepared produce that was packed and delivered to the customer on a consignment basis.

This product suffered from fluctuations in the balancing of the right volumes of certain ingredients being placed in the packs at the right quantities and volumes. This was manifest in accurate volumes being inserted to the pack and in some instances the wrong quantity of ingredients. There was also an issue of double handling of work elements within this process line., with the considerations as improvement outcomes of this process detailed below:

Quality – The team aim to improve the Quality of the process itself by 30%. 

Cost- As an outcome of this project, the team have identified improvement objectives as follows: 

 

To manage costs and ingredient waste more closely, resulting in maintaining greater control of the process and reduction in ingredient waste. Negate the potential losses that are currently being incurred calculated so far as circa £40,592.24 per annum in ingredient waste: 

Ingredient A @ 22kg = £66 x 52 = £3432 p.a.

Ingredient B @ 98kg = £190 x 52 = £9886.24 p.a.

Ingredient C @ 110kg = £88 x52 = £4576.00 p.a.                              

Total = £17,894.24

 

This should be combined with the measured Ingredient D waste, as detailed in the following:

Ingredient D, waste measured at 69 kg per week @ an average cost of £3.50 per kg =£241.50 p.w.

x 52 = £12,558.00

 

In addition the labour cost savings calculated at 0.5 hrs per run x 3 = 1.5 hrs x 13 people @ 10.00 p.h. = £195 p. w. x 52 = £10,140.00

Therefore, the combined total of the above = £40,592.24

 

This line process is actually replicated in 99% across a further three lines that suffer similar issues. Subsequent to the implementation of this improvement on this line it was rolled out to the other lines, thereby achieving an annual cost reduction of:

Total across all three lines            = £121,776.72

 

TEAM C

Similarly, this team looked at a fresh product with a variety of flavourings added. The primary issue with this product was the amount of giveaway added to each product within the process as an outcome of it. Ultimately, this issue was determined to be in sufficient control/monitoring of the product within the process, and then given away to the customer as an outcome of that.

 

Improvement Objective Statement:

Quality – The team aim to improve the Quality of the process itself and therein the compliance of product to overall cost and product requirements by 50%+. 

Cost- As an outcome of this project, the team have identified improvement objectives as follows: 

Delivery – To minimise the excess product being used within the manufacturing process to achieve the finished good.  Thereby decreasing the giveaway and minimising the overall product cost and improving the profitability of the product.

 

To manage cost and ingredient waste more closely, resulting in maintaining greater control of the process and a reduction in ingredient waste.  To negate the potential losses that are currently being incurred calculated so far as circa £75,755 per annum in ingredient A and other ingredient waste:

 

Cost breakdown is as detailed below:

Ingredient A @ £2.94 per kg = £28,020 p.a

Ingredient B @ £2.75 per kg = £4,306 p.a.

Ingredient C @ £0.01 per kg = £71 p.a

Ingredient D @ £2.42 = £37184 p.a

Ingredient E @ £2.41 per kg =£6173.31 p.a.                       

Therefore, the total savings of the above = £75,755

 

Conclusion

The cumulative total of the three projects detailed is £351,283.72. This was achieved through the positive engagement and training of the teams to identify and act on what they had observed as a result of the taught sessions.

Additionally, in parallel to the above there were other smaller projects run simultaneously, and as an outcome of these initiatives these achieved a further £16,000 in savings, bringing the total to £367,283.00

An additional outcome of the above has been to trigger the change of the cultural mind set within the business to that where these individuals now look at achieving improvements in a large amount of the work they have done subsequently. Therefore, with appropriate support allowing these improvement to be maintained in the future.