MSE 618 Spring’12Instructor: Prof. Jay Hamade

Group Members:Amirfathi Morvarid

Dabade Shraddha

Glowaski Ryan

Kebede David

Ravan Doust Maryam

Schulte Anthony

Agenda

1. Define Phase

2. Measure Phase

3. Analyze Phase

4. Improve Phase

5. Control Phase

6. Conclusion

The sole customer of the Catapult 1000 Hamade Inc. has

complained that the Catapult 1000 does not meet specifications

100% of the time for the past 3 months. The issue is the projectile

landing target accuracy. Upon impact, the Catapult 1000 needs to

hit a target 60 inches away 100% of the time with an error of no

greater than +/- 2 inches in any direction.

1. What is wrong? Customer complaint

2. Where it happened? Landing accuracy for the Catapult 1000

3. When it occurred? Past 3 months

4. To What extent? Can not hit the target 60 inches away 100% if the

time with an error of no greater than+/- 2 inches in any direction

Problem Statement

DEFINE PHASE

Reduce the variations in the landing zone of the Catapult

1000 hardware from 60 inches to +/- 2 inches 100% of the

time within 10 weeks. If achieved Hamade Inc. will renew the

$1.5M contract.

Problem Objective

SIPOC ANALYSIS

Purpose of SIPOC Analysis

� Define process boundaries

� Data collection points

� Clearly define the customer

� Identify source of problems

� Early detection of issues

SIPOC ANALYSIS

Suppliers Inputs Process OutputsCustomer

s

Hardware

Suppliers

Lumber

Suppliers

Carpenters

Maintenance

Quality

Assurance

Scheduling

Team

Blueprint

Wooden

planks

Screws

Eye-hooks

Adhesive

Tape

Saw

Drill

Hammer

Bolts

Nails

Rubber band

P

R

O

C

E

S

S

Validation:

Quality, Cost

Customer:

Product

(Catapult

1000)

Finance

Dept:

Invoice

Recycling

Dept: Scrap

Hamade Inc:

Catapult

1000

1st Run Failed:

� Object shape

� Operator style

� Foil coverage

� Catapult position

Gage R&R Gage R&R Gage R&R Gage R&R %Contribution

Source VarComp (of VarComp)Total Gage R&R 11.0574 43.02Total Gage R&R 11.0574 43.02Total Gage R&R 11.0574 43.02Total Gage R&R 11.0574 43.02

Repeatability 10.6606 41.48Reproducibility 0.3969 1.54

Operator 0.3969 1.54PartPartPartPart----ToToToTo----Part 14.6442 56.98Part 14.6442 56.98Part 14.6442 56.98Part 14.6442 56.98Total Variation 25.7016 100.00

MEASURE PHASE

2nd Run Success:

� Object selection

� Change operator

� Better foil coverage

� Secured catapult

Gage R&R Gage R&R Gage R&R Gage R&R %Contribution

Source VarComp (of VarComp)Total Gage R&R 3.6421 10.73Total Gage R&R 3.6421 10.73Total Gage R&R 3.6421 10.73Total Gage R&R 3.6421 10.73

Repeatability 2.4512 7.22Reproducibility 1.1908 3.51

Operator 1.1908 3.51PartPartPartPart----ToToToTo----Part 30.2909 89.27Part 30.2909 89.27Part 30.2909 89.27Part 30.2909 89.27Total Variation 33.9329 100.00

� A given distribution is a good fit if:� The data points roughly

follow a straight line

� The p-value is greater than 0.05

� Note: P-value :

0.841 > 0.05

� Confidence Interval: 95%

� Analysis is Acceptable

� Data appears to follow a normal distribution, use of normal capability analysis is justified

� The Customer specifications are the LSL & USL bounds (58 to 62 inches)

� None of the measure were between the specification boundaries

� Cpk > 1.3 is desirable for capable system

� Based on Performance, the current system is not capable

� System needs adjustment to fit within specifications

� Our objective range is

between 58-62 inches

� Our metric average is 69.9

inches.

� The data we collected are

way out of range

� We have to do some

changes to improve the

outcome and bring the data

between USL and LSL

(X’s)BlueprintCut planksMarkingsPower drillLabor

(X’s)BlueprintDrilled planksSawTapeLabor

(X’s)Blue PrintPlanksSawTapeLabor

(X’s)Partially fixed baseBlueprintFastenersBlueprintLabor

(Y’s)Cut planks

(Y’s)Drilled planks

(Y’s)Partially fixed base

(Y’s)Side planks

ANALYZE PHASE

(X’s)Side planksLaborFastenersBlueprint

(Y’s)Support arm

(Y’s)Launch arm

(Y’s)Metal plate with angle markings

(Y’s)Catapult ready to launch

(X’s)Preassembled catapult (with metal angle markings)

FastenersBlueprintPinsRubber

(X’s)Support armScoopFastenersLaborBlueprintHardware

(X’s)Launch armHardware

MachineMachineMachineMachine•Elasticity (N)•Arm Breaking (N)•Wear & Tear (N)•Loose Hardware (S)•Position of pins holding rubberband(C)•Vibrations (N)•Position of launching cup (C)

EnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironmentEnvironment•Ambient Temperature (N)•Humidity (N)•Wind (N)•Room Temperature (C)•Insufficient light (C)•Lack of Space (N)

MaterialMaterialMaterialMaterial•Wood (S)•Screws (S)•Glue (S)•Measuring Tape (S)•Objects (S)•Aluminum Foil (S)

MethodMethodMethodMethod•Position of objects (C)•Position of fingers (C)•Angle of launching arm (C)•Position of launching cup (C)•Angle of viewing (C)•Lack of training (C)•Height of shooting (C)

PeoplePeoplePeoplePeople•Operators not paying attention to details (N)•Delay in reaction (N)•Inconsistent launching angle (N)•Inconsistent viewing position (N)

Shooting Shooting Shooting Shooting DistanceDistanceDistanceDistance

Process Step/InputProcess Step/InputProcess Step/InputProcess Step/Input Potential Failure ModePotential Failure ModePotential Failure ModePotential Failure Mode Potential Failure EffectsPotential Failure EffectsPotential Failure EffectsPotential Failure Effects SEVSEVSEVSEV Potential CausesPotential CausesPotential CausesPotential Causes OCCOCCOCCOCC

Current ControlsCurrent ControlsCurrent ControlsCurrent Controls

DETDETDETDET RPNRPNRPNRPNPreventPreventPreventPrevent DetectDetectDetectDetect

What is the process step/input under investigation?

In what ways does the input go wrong?

What is the impact on the Output Variables

(Customer Requirements) or internal requirements?

How sever is the effect to the customer?

What causes the input to go wrong?

How often does cause of FM occur?

What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that

prevent/detect either the Cause or Failure Mode?

Should include an SOP number.

How well can you detect cause or FM?

Support Arm Support Arm breaks Catapult is inoperable 10 Low Quality Material 3Vendor pre-qualification, vendor material certs

Material Sampling 7 210

Support Arm Out of spec armInaccurate landing distance

10design errors, manufacturing errors

9Design Review, Fabrication machinery maintenance

Quality checks 8 720

Launch ArmLaunch arm could break

Catapult is inoperable 10 Low Quality Material 3Vendor pre-qualification

Material Sampling 7 210

Launch Arm Out of spec armInaccurate landing distance

10error in

manufacturing, design error

8Design review,

calibrating tools and quaity control

Quality checks 8 640

Partially fixed-base Out of spec baseInaccurate landing distance, inoperable catapult

10manufacuring error, base is warped

7calibrating tools and quaity control

Quality checks 7 490

Process Step/InputProcess Step/InputProcess Step/InputProcess Step/Input Actions RecommendedActions RecommendedActions RecommendedActions Recommended ResponsibleResponsibleResponsibleResponsible Actions TakenActions TakenActions TakenActions Taken SEVSEVSEVSEV OCCOCCOCCOCC DETDETDETDET RPNRPNRPNRPN

What is the process step/input under investigation?

What are the actions for reducing the occurrence of the Cause, or improving detection? Should have actions only on high RPN’s or easy fixes.

Who is responsible for the recommended action?

What are the completed actions taken with the

recalculated RPN? Be sure to include completion

month/year.

How sever is the

effect to the

customer?

How often does cause

of FM occur?

How well can you detect cause or FM?

Support ArmCertify Vendors, Cost Analysis of Material, Develop Sampling Test

Purchasing Dept, QA

Vendor Selection Criteria, Created Purchasing Policy to Mandate Material Certs, QA selects on sample piece from received stock to verify material quality

10 3 2 60

Support ArmReview catapult design, verify out of fabrication machinery, update QA procedurers

QA, Engineering Team, Maintenance

Held Review Meeting, Developed preventive maintenance schedule, update QA procedures

10 3 2 60

Launch ArmCertify Vendors, Cost Analysis of Material

Purchasing Department, Accounting/Controller

Developed Vendor Selection Criteria, Analyzed Profit Margins Vs Material Cost

10 3 3 90

Launch ArmReview catapult design,

maintain equipment, refine quality procedures

Engineering team, maintenance and production, QA

Review meeting, develop maintenace schedule, updated

quality procedures 10 4 2 80

Partially fixed-basemaintain equipment, refine quality procedures

QA, Maintenancedevelop maintenace schedule, updated quality procedures

10 2 3 60

Based on this chart, we could conclude that the only factor that has a significant effect on our target distance is the base pin location.

All the rest of the factors, considering the 95%confidence do not have any significant effect on the shooting distance.

IMPROVE PHASE

� If there is no interaction between factors, the lines will be approximately parallel.

� In this case, the strongest interaction is the support arm pin & the base pin location.

� The interaction between the shooting pin arm and the support pin is the weakest interaction.

•There is very little

difference in average

distance between the low

and high level of Shooting

Pin Arm location.

•There is very little

difference in average

distance between the low

and high level of Support

Arm Pin location.

•There is a substantial

difference in average

distance between the low

and high level of Base Pin

Location.

6363

TARGET:

58-62 inches

1. To move pin on

Support Arm from

position 3 to 1

2. To move pin on

Shooting Arm from

position 1 to 3

3. To move Pin on

Base Arm from

position 2 to 5

3.0

4.46

1.7

•The Customer

specifications are the LSL

& USL bounds (58 to 62

inches)all of the

measurements were

between the specification

boundaries.

•Cpk > 1.3 is desirable for

capable system based on

performance, Cpk of the

current system is 0.89

which is a lot better than

previous results but there

is still place for further

improvements.

•Cp value = 0.91 which

means that our system is

operating at a 2.73 Sigma

Level.

Control Phase

Normality Chart

•A given distribution is a good fit if:

�The data points roughly follow a straight line�The p-value is greater than 0.05

•Note: P-value :0.39 > 0.05

Confidence Interval: 95%

•Analysis is acceptableData appears to follow a normal distribution, use of normal capability analysis is justified.

I-MR Charts • Based on the I-MR chart

All the shooting distances

are within the range.

•The I data points in both

the I chart & MR chart do

not show a linear or

parabolic pattern, so the

individual points are

random.

•There is one point outside

the bound of the MR chart,

but this singular point does

not indicate any issues

with the system.

• The Customers

specifications are the LSL &

USL bounds (58 to 62

inches) all of the

measurements were

between the specification

boundaries.

X bar-R Charts•The X-bar chart shows

that this process is in

control and the points

appear to be random.

•The R-Chart also shows

that the process is in

control and most of the

points appear random.

•The first 4 data points

indicate a run. This

suggest that there was a

change but now the

system is stable.

� The DMAIC process of Six Sigma to bring an out of spec and out of control

catapult to within specifications and operate consistently.

� Considerable reduction in process variation

� Upon impact, the Catapult 1000 now hits a target 60 inches away 100% of

the time with an error of no greater than +/- 2 inches in any direction

� The system improved drastically from Cpk= -.1.81 to Cpk= 0.89

� Sigma level improvement from -5.43 to 2.67

� Still room for continuing improvement as target should be at least 4 Sigma.

Conclusion