Laundry Day - Process Improvements

Welcome back Readers!

This week we’re going to take a look back at the very first Ops@Home topic.  Laundry Day.

To recap, we had looked at ways to eliminate muda, or waste, from the laundry process.  Specifically, we looked at reducing the number of times each article was handled.  Less sorting, less effort, less time.  We also tried to minimize waiting for the washer and dryer by prioritizing the order loads get washed.

The experiments have been conducted, the results collected.  Data has been graphed and scrutinized and analyzed.  And here it is.

Let's start off with some assumptions:

1. I didn't count and inventory each article of clothing.  I'm assuming a week's worth of cloths is about the same from week to week.
2. I didn't include the baby's laundry which gets done multiple times a week or sheets and towels.  This was strictly done using the clothing of two adults.
3. Time required to hang dry clothes was not included.  This varies depending on the temperature and humidity of my house or if the clothes are hung outside.

The initial process split the clothes into three loads, Cold Wash (Blue), Warm Wash (Red) and Delicate Wash.  In my case, I had too much clothing in the delicate pile for one load so it was split into two (Green and Purple).

This is what the time study for laundry day looked like:

From start to finish it took 5 hours and 42 minutes.  Now, a lot of this was hands off time as the washer and dryer runs automatically, the beauty of modern conveniences.  However, there was still intervention required during the sort, hang and fold operations.

One of the proposed changes was to eliminate the initial sort step by having a divided hamper and separating the clothes when they are placed in the hamper.  This seemed like a great idea, but from the time study you can see that this step really only took 5 minutes.

The cost of a new divided hamper would range from $40 - $100, which is a significant investment for little time savings.  The advantage to the sorting would be in the ability to easily delegate laundry to another member of my household.  The instructions for how things needed to be washed could be put on the bags and when a bag is full, anyone could toss it in the laundry.  Still not really worth the money for a new hamper.

So what did the revised process look like?

Looks better, doesn't it!  The process improvements brought the total time down to 3 hours and 50 minutes.

That's a savings of almost 2 hours!

A big time savings came from splitting the delicate load into two; one that went in the dryer and one that was hung to dry.  This eliminated one full dryer cycle, which doesn't eliminate much labour, does save on energy. The revised process also removed the bulk of the user intervention between wash and dry cycles.  Much less effort and labour.

To prioritize the loads, I used Johnson's Rule for n jobs on two machines.  This meant that the hang to dry load is done last, as it doesn't require the use of the second machine (the dryer)

During the summer, I hang the clothes outside to dry on the line and try to get them out as early as possible to try to maximize their time in the sun.  In that case, I wouldn't use the Johnson's Rule to prioritize the loads and would do the Hang to Dry load first.  Changing only the order of the loads in the Revised Process, we can see Johnson's Rule at work.

When the Hang to Dry load is done first, the dryer is idle until after the second load goes through the wash.  This extends the process time to 4 hours and 26 minutes.

Here is what the three versions of the process look like in comparison.  As you can see, even the ordering of the loads can have an impact on the process time.

So going forward, I'll skip the divided hamper and keep sorting and washing the loads as follows:

1. Delicate Wash, Perma Press Dry
2. Cold Wash, Normal Dry
3. Warm Wash, Normal Dry
4. Delicate Wash, Hang to Dry

At least until it's warm enough to hang the clothes outside.

Happy Wash Day!

Wayback Wednesday - The New Housekeeping Cookbook

Welcome to the first Wayback Wednesday at Ops@Home!

What's Wayback Wednesday you ask?  It's when we take a look at the work of a pioneer home efficiency engineer and see how we can apply it to the 21st century.    Today we're looking at the work of Christine Frederick and her "New Housekeeping Cookbook."

First, a little about Mrs. Frederick.  Christine Frederick was a university educated wife and mother at the turn of the 20th century.  Working in the home, she found that her days of housework and child rearing were leaving her exhausted at the end of her day and not feeling like she had adequately discharged her duties.  She also found she had little time for her own pursuits, socially and intellectually.  Her husband was a business executive who along with his colleagues were interested in how the work of Frederick Taylor and the other efficiency engineers of the day were benefiting businesses.  Mrs. Frederick saw this new science as an opportunity to improve her life and began to conduct Taylorist work studies within her own home.  These experiments became the basis for several publications beginning with "The New Housekeeping: Efficiency Studies in Home Management"

Frederick took "adequate, immediate and reliable records", one of the main tenants of efficiency engineering, and created an elaborate home record system using index cards and file boxes.  Part of this system was what she called the "New Housekeeping Cookbook".   In Frederick's day, recipes were often pasted or written into large scrapbooks which became cumbersome as new recipes were added.  With her New Housekeeping Cookbook system, Frederick attempted to solve three problems;

1. Recipes difficult to find within the book.  They were added to the next blank page rather than categorized.
2. Recipes often became soiled as it was on the counter during cooking.
3. Recipes were tucked in before they were tried, filling with book with potentially horrible food.

First, rather than using a scrapbook, Frederick used a card cabinet and index cards.

Frederick, Christine.  Household Engineering: Scientific Management in the Home. 1923

This allowed her to categorize recipes and easily add new recipes in the right order.  Second, she mounted a piece of glass on the front of the box, protecting the card as it was being used.  Third, she only added recipes to the cabinet after they were tested and enjoyed.  Recipes she wanted to try were kept in a separate file.

My recipe storage system looks like this, a large stack of paper and more back issues of Canadian Living than the waiting room at my dentist.  

This system is not useful for finding anything.  If I want to find a recipe that I've made before I need to remember if it was in the July 2008 or February 2004 issue.  Nor is it really helpful when I'm trying to come up with ideas for meals.

I also have a recipe binder which is full of wonderful things neatly divided into standard categories.  Meat, Fish, Vegetables, Grains etc. 

It has great recipes, like the one for mini eclaires I cut out of a magazine 7 years ago.  I've never made a mini eclaire, but you know... one day.  I never go to the binder when I'm looking for things to cook, except when I do the Christmas baking.  Why?  Because I have to flip through pages of things like Brined Turkey and Steamed Monk Fish to find something I could make in 20mins on a Wednesday night.  It was also so full of recipes I had never tried, there was no room left to add new favourites.

Needless to say, my system needs some work.  Looking at Frederick's system there are definitely some things I can apply.

Rather than using index cards, I'm going to stick with a three ring binder and page protectors.  These provide the same flexibility and protection as the cards, without needing to rewrite or cut and glue recipes.  Plus, I like pictures.

The first thing I implemented is the separate file for recipes I haven't tried yet.  This cut the binder contents down by almost two thirds.  Now every week I pull a new recipe out of the folder and test it out.  If we love it, the recipe gets filed in the binder. If not, it gets filed in the blue bin.  The Trout Provencale en Papillote was a keeper.  The Roasted Eggplant Dip was not.

Turns out a lot of the recipes I've been storing for years (in some cases a decade) weren't really worth keeping.

The second thing I did was change how I stored the recipes.  Frederick sub-divided her Meat category into "Requiring One Hour or Less" and "One to Four Hours".  I took this idea and used the following categories:

• Weeknights
• Sides
• Lunches
• Occasions
• Slow Cooker
• Desserts
• Baking
• Other

This way when I'm meal planning I can easily skip passed the Monk Fish and get right to the Vietnamese Beef Pho.

The next step was working through the stack of magazines to actually clip out the recipes I thought were interesting.  I realized a lot of what I was storing were ads and out-of-date fashion advice.  More fodder for the blue bin.  This is still an on going exercise but at least I'm no longer adding new magazines to the pile.

Another idea of Frederick's which I think has a lot of merit are her Menu Cards.  When she planned a menu for a dinner or luncheon and she thought it was particularly successful she wrote it on a card and stored it in a special section.  This meant she wasn't trying to recreate a full menu every time she was planning a party.

What I'd really like to know is if anyone has a way to do this digitally.  Any great ideas that could allow me to retire my scissors?