6 sigma catapult project
TRANSCRIPT
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