Improving Packaging Process Of Natrel Dark Chocolate Partly Skimmed Milk

Examine your table from the 'Analyze' phase and pick ONE of the process steps from that table that you propose to improve. Come up with three alternative solutions to improve the process step. Describe each alternative improvement, with three advantages and three disadvantages for each alternative solution (nine advantages and nine disadvantages in total). Then pick the best solution that you'll want to implement and indicate why this is your preferred solution.  Outline your implementation plans - for example, how will you pilot the solution and then roll out full implementation? How long will your pilot implementation last, before you determine whether to roll out the solution as a permanent change? What possible risks do you anticipate with your implementation, and how would you manage (e.g., decrease, eliminate, mitigate, etc.) those risks?

Project/Team Charter

To initiate with any project it is very important to define the processes that are involved in the project (Kumaravadivel & Natarajan, 2013). It is a very wise idea to determine the problem, the goals and the scope of the project. This project is regarding the improvement process of packaging the Natrel dark chocolate partly skimmed milk. All the processes in the packaging process are to be analysed critically as milk is one of those drinks that are consumed by people all over the nation.

The project is expected to be over by within a span of twelve months as all the processes of packaging the chocolate milk will be analysed thoroughly and special attention would be given to the maintenance of quality.

This portion of the Define section of the project deals with the maintenance of quality of the products and giving special attention to the external factors such as the satisfaction of the customers and the reduction of the wastes (Ismyrlis & Moschidis, 2013).

All the stages that are involved in the improvement procedure of the packaging of the Natrel dark chocolate partly skimmed milk are analysed with the help of the toll gates (Food Factory, 2015). The project would be terminated at any stage if a discrepancy were found to be creeping up in the process since the project is a onetime investment. 

After examining the table from the above paragraph of the Analyse phase, one of the process steps that require improvement is the step of sorting of containers during order fulfilment. The three alternatives for the betterment of the process are implementation barcodes during the process or implementation of Radiofrequency Identification (RFID) tags during the process or implementation of Near Field Communication (NFC) tags during the process.

Three advantages of implementing barcodes are that data can be generated in one direction, easier to scan and no special hardware or software required (Maralit et al., 2013). The disadvantages are they are capable of storing small amount of data, distortions may arise and barcode reader may turn non-functional. Three advantages of implementing RFID-tags are that they can scan multiple items at once, durable to sun and rain and allows higher security (Fiddes & Yan, 2013). The disadvantages are they are not accurate every time, inner metals can react and they are expensive. Three advantages of implementing NFC-tags are that they are accurate, versatile and improve efficiency and productivity. The disadvantages are they are of shorter range, vulnerable to security risks and are expensive.

The recommended best solution among the alternatives is the implementation of the NFC-tags just before the initiation of the sorting process. This would facilitate the process by increasing the efficiency and the productivity (Alabdulhafith, Sampangi & Sampalli, 2013). The process of discarding the damaged containers may be easily achieved. This pilot implementation is expected to get effective within a range of six months before it brings a permanent change to the system. There are security risks in this process but the risks can be mitigated with the help of a risk management plan.

The proposed change for the system can be converted into a permanent change by the following a certain set of guidelines. These guidelines require assistance from the managing authority of the enterprise (Food Factory, 2015). These guidelines include providing special training to the employees, embedding a set of policies for the improvement of the process and appointing a team of members whose job would be to regularly check and monitor whether the change is effectively tasking place for the improvement.

References

Alabdulhafith, M., Sampangi, R. V., & Sampalli, S. (2013, February). NFC-enabled smartphone application for drug interaction and drug allergy detection. In Near Field Communication (NFC), 2013 5th International Workshop on(pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Ambe, I. M. (2014). Key Indicators for Optimising supply chain performance: The case of light vehicle manufacturers in South Africa. Journal of Applied Business Research, 30(1), 277.

Fiddes, L. K., & Yan, N. (2013). RFID tags for wireless electrochemical detection of volatile chemicals. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical, 186, 817-823.

Food Factory (2015, August). Food Factory: Season 2, Episode 1 - All You Cone Eat. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKWMOZWn2hc.

Igba, J., Alemzadeh, K., Anyanwu-Ebo, I., Gibbons, P., & Friis, J. (2013). A systems approach towards reliability-centred maintenance (RCM) of wind turbines. Procedia Computer Science, 16, 814-823.

Ismyrlis, V., & Moschidis, O. (2013). Six Sigma's critical success factors and toolbox. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma, 4(2), 108-117.

Kumaravadivel, A., & Natarajan, U. (2013). Application of Six-Sigma DMAIC methodology to sand-casting process with response surface methodology. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, 69(5-8), 1403-1420.

Maralit, B. A., Aguila, R. D., Ventolero, M. F. H., Perez, S. K. L., Willette, D. A., & Santos, M. D. (2013). Detection of mislabeled commercial fishery by-products in the Philippines using DNA barcodes and its implications to food traceability and safety. Food Control, 33(1), 119-125.