New $80M Facility for Existing Retail Food Products

Details

1. What – Prepare the formulas for nationally branded retail food products to be produced in a newly built, $80 million facility with different processing methods, and ensuring that the consumer would not detect a difference.
   
   
2. Who – A cross-functional team with representatives from Product Development, Sensory, Engineering, QA and Supply Chain. This was led by a project manager and organized into a leadership group, trial team and support staff.
   
   
3. Where – Tennessee
   
   
4. How long – The entire project lasted 2.5 years, however each product evaluation lasted approximately 2-4 months. Production of samples by the trial team was continuous and product evaluations were simultaneously in progress. Constraints included pilot plant time and staffing, sensory testing schedules and raw material availability.
   
   
5. How – A system of designed experiments and sensory analysis leading to data driven decisions based on a predetermined success criteria. A set of products was produced according to a predetermined configuration of variables. These products were then evaluated by the team for quality, and then screened by sensory testing for degree of difference or liking. The project leadership team took these results and determined whether the product was completed or next steps were required. Trials were repeated with new designs of experiment based on the variables identified in the previous round of testing until the products met the success criteria.
   
   The details of the designed experiment are below
   
   

   Recipe	A: Fill Weight	B: Salt	C: Hold Time
   1	Current	Current	Standard
   2	Reduced	Current	Standard
   3	Current	New Level	Standard
   4	Reduced	New Level	Standard
   5	Current	Current	Increased
   6	Reduced	Current	Increased
   7	Current	New Level	Increased
   8	Reduced	New Level	Increased

   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
6. Why – In order to start-up production in the newly constructed facility, a minimum operational efficiency needed to be met. Products having large volume and related ingredients were prioritized to be completed first. In that way, the new plant could be functional and productive while additional construction and qualification phases were completed.
   
   
7. Processes & Procedures Used – A systematic approach to project management, communication, documentation and decision making, including the following:
   
   
1. Decisions that were data driven based on predetermined success criteria. This eliminated much of the subjectivity, pet theories and political strategies in the final results. Objective measures allowed the data and therefore the product attributes, to speak for themselves.
   
   
2. Clearly defined objectives, success criteria and project priority; a project sponsor with internal authority and able to provide resources, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for team members
   
   
3. A leadership group that gave direction and interpreted results; a trial team that performed the experiments; a sensory team that conducted the testing; and a stakeholder group that monitored progress. The leadership group had a core team that met every other week for planning, results review and decision making. There was also an extended team of people that played a supporting role to the project including disciplines such as Finance, IT and QA. Participants reported through traditional, functional structures and were assigned to the project to achieve the objective, and therefore all participants did not report directly to the project manager.
   
   
4. A single project schedule was maintained by the project manager so that all the pertinent information could be communicated in one document. As events changed, schedule conflicts and timeline implications could be readily resolved and communicated. As events impacted the schedule, participants were able to see the other activities that were also affected. This centralized system allowed for longer range planning and the anticipation of timing and resource conflicts.
   
   
5. Meeting on a regular schedule that allowed participants to plan for the meetings with results and current issues. This also meant that only urgent issues interrupted everyday activities for immediate attention, whereas other events could be handled in the routine project review meetings.
   
   
6. Standardized paperwork and documentation of trials and results simplified reporting and analysis. It also allowed trial participants to be scheduled flexibly because training was easier and people could readily be assigned a variety of roles. This is especially important when there is turnover, limited or rotating staff availability. Also, it made it possible for an off-site trial team to easily understand trial plans and execute the tasks.
   
   
7. Clearly defined roles for each participant and a published schedule of activities allowed the team to be flexible. This was a basis for creating clear expectations for each role and short-term goals. Also, as people rotated into the team, took vacations or traveled for other projects, their roles could be filled or assumed temporarily by others.

In summary, this is an organized, repeatable process that has proven to be successful in meeting project goals and timelines. Results are based on objective measurements and therefore are repeatable and documented. The planning process allows the team to be flexible in managing resources and dealing with issues that arise. Team members have clear understanding of their roles and what is expected of them to achieve the goals.