INGENIERIA DE LA CALIDAD

CASE 2: BOGATTI1
Bogatti is one of the fastest-growing carry-out Ice creams restaurants. Currently the company has
opened more than 250 stores nationwide and two international. However, at the end of the last
fiscal year, it was evident that the Cuenca’s stores were not doing well financially and the district
manager knew something had to be done. The corporate marketing staff had put the Cuenca
district in a precarious position with their new promotion ‘15 or it is free - guaranteed.’ This
promotion required each of the individual restaurants (5 total in the Cuenca) to prepare and
assemble their iconic Ice cream in less than 15 minutes or it would be free. The dish consisted in
two fried scoops of vanilla and blackberry ice cream, topped with some chocolates. The district
manager knew something was up when the corporate marketing department inquired about his
store’s average cook time earlier in the year. The district manager had reported that the average
ice cream cook time for his stores was about 11 minutes but obviously the marketing department
was not well versed in statistics because they did not take variation into consideration when they
set the 15-minute limit.

Each of the 5 stores serves between 130 to 280 ice creams per day (an average of ~200 units per
store per day) and is open 343 days per year. Although the promotion was drawing new
customers, in the past two weeks, the store managers reported giving away about 1,300 free ice
creams across 5 stores (out of ~14,350). With an average store cost of $3.20 for each Ice Cream,
the losses were piling up quickly. Luckily the district manager had a recent graduate who had
taken a Quality Engineering (Six Sigma) class and decided to leverage his young employee’s
new knowledge.

Having a good idea of what to do, the recent graduate decided to initially gather data by
recording the cook times from each of the stores. Since the stores were open from 12 noon to
10PM he decided to sample 3 ice creams every 2 hours (5 times per day) for each of the 5 stores.
He did this for 10 consecutive days. The file Case2Data2021.xls contains the baseline data for
all of the stores.

The recent graduate put together a cross-functional team with representatives from each of the
stores to identify potential causes of variation. The team decided that cooking times of greater
than 15 minutes should be considered a defect per the promotion strategy. The team observed the
cooking process, reviewed the data and discussed potential problems based on their collective
experiences. The team identified 4 potential special causes that they set out to confirm with data.

Overcooking: During a brainstorming session the team suspected that new cooks might be
overcooking ice creams at some of the stores resulting in cooking times of 15 minutes or greater
during the new cooks’ shift. There are new cooks at stores A, B, and C. The number of new
cooks by shift is found in Table 1.

1
P. Hammett (2004). Modified by H. Kim (2006). Modified by P. Burneo (2023) This Six Sigma case study has
been prepared as an instructional tool. Although the data and problem description are based on an actual SixSigma
project, the authors have modified the project data and results for instructional purposes. Thus, no inferences should
be drawn about a particularcompanyorits quality levels based on the information in this case study.
 Table 1. New cooks stores A, B and C

The team thought of prescribing a conclusive training effort for new cooks and needed to verify
the feedback and justify the investment of 4 hours ($180) in training per cook. In order to justify
their actions they wanted to calculate the projected savings.

Standard Equipment: Another observation that the team pointed out was that one of the stores
(Store D) did not have the electronic digital controls that were standard in the rest of the stores.
The team hypothesized that manual controls would have higher variation in cook times because
there was some subjectivity to setting temperatures with the non-electronic dial controls. The
team needed to verify the impact of different controllers and justify the installation of $500
electronic controls. The team collected data after installing the electronic controllers. In order to
justify their actions they wanted to calculate the projected savings.

Equipment Power Level: When brainstorming differences in the cooking process between the
stores, the team from store E noted that their frying equipment (also known as oven because it’s
brand) was powered with 110V. All of the other stores commented that their ovens were
powered with 220V. During the 10 days of baseline data collection, the store with 110V power
had to turn down its oven temperatures to avoid blowing a fuse. The team hypothesized that
running the oven at a lower temperature increased the mean cook time for the store during the
data collection period. Being data-driven and following suit with the analysis of the previous
issues the team collected data before and after their actions of working with the power company
and hiring an electrician to install a 220V service. The total cost of installing the 220V service
was $2,500. In order to justify their actions they wanted to calculate the projected savings.

Manager Experience: The team also noted that manager experience might have an impact on
cooking time performance. A survey of manager experience by store is found in Table 2 below.
The team suspected that the Manager in store B needs additional training to catch up with the
experience of the other store managers. A full day of Manger training costs $240.

1
P. Hammett (2004). Modified by H. Kim (2006). Modified by P. Burneo (2023) This Six Sigma case study has
been prepared as an instructional tool. Although the data and problem description are based on an actual SixSigma
project, the authors have modified the project data and results for instructional purposes. Thus, no inferences should
be drawn about a particularcompanyorits quality levels based on the information in this case study.
In all cases, the team collected an additional 5 days after making the above changes, in order to
verify improvements, the data is reported on the “Post Improvement Baseline” sheet in the file
Case 2 – Data Set.xls.

With the above special causes addressed, the team established a new baseline of the cooking
process but was still not satisfied with the performance levels. The team brainstormed two
potential options for improving the cooking process.

The first option was to purchase new frying equipment that allowed ice creams to be cooked
faster (mean shift). In reviewing specifications for the new frying equipment the team
hypothesized that they would be able to reduce the mean cook time by 0.4 minutes. The team
also determined that the new equipment would not impact the variation in cook time. The team
received a quote for replacing the ovens for $20K each or a total of $100K for all five stores.

The second option was to optimize the existing cooking process to reduce the variation in
cooking time. One of the cooks on the cross-functional team suggested using only the center of
the Oven to cook ice creams to reduce variation in cooking time. Through observation, the cook
formed the hypothesis that the middle third of the Oven had more repeatable cook times than the
outside thirds of the equipment. Since Oven had plenty of capacity the team decided to evaluate
the idea. They conducted a study to analyze the difference in cooking times between the center
and outside thirds of the machine. A sample of cooking times and machine locations were
collected at one store to determine whether there is an opportunity to reduce variation by using
only the middle oven. The data is found on the “Oven Location Data” sheet in the data file Case
2 – Data Set.xls. At the existing Ice Cream sales level, there was no cost to implementing this
solution other than the inconvenience to the cooks. The store managers will not implement this
solution without data-driven proof of the improvement in cooking time.

1
P. Hammett (2004). Modified by H. Kim (2006). Modified by P. Burneo (2023) This Six Sigma case study has
been prepared as an instructional tool. Although the data and problem description are based on an actual SixSigma
project, the authors have modified the project data and results for instructional purposes. Thus, no inferences should
be drawn about a particularcompanyorits quality levels based on the information in this case study.
 LINEAMIENTOS
Utilizando la información proporcionada en el caso, desarrolle un informe ejecutivo siguiendo la
metodología DMAIC en base a los siguientes lineamientos. Utiliza las preguntas como una guía
para analizar los datos y preparar un informe de máximo 10 páginas (incluida la portada y los
anexos). Además de apoyarse en los slides de la clase, desarrollen un pensamiento crítico y
habilidades de investigación para identificar estrategias y procedimientos de análisis para el caso.

Nota: Su objetivo principal es redactar un informe en base a la metodología DMAIC, no

simplemente responder a las preguntas detalladas. Considerar las recomendaciones y
observaciones realizadas dentro de la calificación del Caso 1.

DEFINIR

 Desarrollar un Project Charter que integre la información relevante del caso:

definición del problema, alcance del proyecto, objetivos, CTQ’s, etc. (20 puntos)

MEDIR

 Determinar la tasa de defectos que mantiene la empresa en sus locales de Cuenca (Hint:
estado actual del proceso a partir de los datos observados, hallando la tasa de defectos) (5
puntos). Los datos no son normales, qué hago capacidad o tasa de defectos de minitab
 Determinar cuál es el costo estimado de impacto del mal manejo de los locales (5 puntos)
(Hint: cuál es el costo de regalar el producto)
 Utilizando herramientas y métodos adecuados de control estadístico de procesos y de
análisis de la capacidad del proceso, evaluar la estabilidad y la capacidad del proceso
utilizando (20 puntos). Carta de control entre tiendas y entre horas de cada tienda
Si ya veo causa asignable elimino punto y recalculo limites? Todos los puntos están fuera

ANALIZAR

 Analizar el tiempo de cocción estratificado por tienda y turno. ( Hint: basándose en el

diagrama de cajas, ¿qué tiendas/turnos necesitan mejoras con respecto a la media y la
variación?) (20 puntos)
 Analizar las posibles causas especiales identificadas por el equipo interdisciplinar (cross-
functional) y determinar si las medidas adoptadas estaban justificadas desde el punto de
vista de los costos. (20 puntos) para esto hago con limites antiguos o puedo ver que solo
los datos nuevos estén bajo control?

MEJORAR/CONTROLAR

1
P. Hammett (2004). Modified by H. Kim (2006). Modified by P. Burneo (2023) This Six Sigma case study has
been prepared as an instructional tool. Although the data and problem description are based on an actual SixSigma
project, the authors have modified the project data and results for instructional purposes. Thus, no inferences should
be drawn about a particularcompanyorits quality levels based on the information in this case study.
  Basándose en este análisis, realizar recomendaciones y verificar sus conclusiones con los
datos adicionales. (10 puntos)

1
P. Hammett (2004). Modified by H. Kim (2006). Modified by P. Burneo (2023) This Six Sigma case study has
been prepared as an instructional tool. Although the data and problem description are based on an actual SixSigma
project, the authors have modified the project data and results for instructional purposes. Thus, no inferences should
be drawn about a particularcompanyorits quality levels based on the information in this case study.