MSE 618 Project

1. MSE 618 Project Team 3 Ravinder Singh Allen Giragosian Simon Psavko Jidhin James RijulDhruv Chirag Contractor

2. Introduction Team 3 is an international catapult manufacturing company, supplying IVY League Universities for their annual Catapult Fair Party. Recently a batch of 100,000 pieces supplied to these universities did not perform according to specification, creating dissatisfaction and a reduction in sales. A Six Sigma Process has been employed to rectify this situation

3. DMAIC The DMAIC methodology has 5 main phases: • Define Phase where the problem is defined and the desired goals specifically • Measure Phase where the key aspects of the current data and the relevant data is collected • Analyze Phase where the data is investigated using detailed process map and verify the cost and effect relationship. Determine what the relationships are, and attempt to ensure that all factors have been considered. • Improve Phase where the optimization of the current process based on the data analysis obtained in the Analyze phase using technique of DOE(Design of Experiment) and the FMEA (Failure Mode Effect Analysis) is prepared. • Control Phase where controlling the future state process to ensure any deviation from the target are corrected before they result in defect

4. Define Phase

5. Problem Statement The catapults used by the IVY League Universities in their egg toss competition every spring experienced an X percent error in the distance travelled, this caused the sales order to decrease by Z percent Problem Objective The objective of this project is to increase the efficiency of the catapult in such a way that it travels a distance of XYZ 99 percent of the time and thus causes a 25 percent increase in sales

6. S.I.P.O.C. Cut wood to specific dimensions Assemble base side and arms Punch Holes Fix Pins and Rubber Band Fix shooting shell

7. Primary Metric The primary metric is the shooting range of the catapult. Secondary Metric The secondary metric is the Height of the catapult, this will be constant throughout the project.

8. Measure Phase

9. Aset of 90 different readings collectedusing three different operators utilizing 10 parts and 3 trials per parts provided the data for this phase. The collected data was input into Minitab™, this process provided the MSA analysis; Gage R&R, Normality, Capability Analysis.

10. Gage R&R Two-Way ANOVA Table Without Interaction Source DF SS MS F P Parts 9 64207.4 7134.15 85.7586 0.000 Operators 2 356.1 178.04 2.1402 0.124 Repeatability 78 6488.7 83.19 Total 89 71052.2 Gage R&R %Contribution Source VarComp (of VarComp) Total Gage R&R 86.350 9.93 Repeatability 83.189 9.56 Reproducibility 3.162 0.36 Operators 3.162 0.36 Part-To-Part 783.440 90.07 Total Variation 869.791 100.00 Study Var %Study Var Source StdDev (SD) (6 * SD) (%SV) Total Gage R&R 9.2925 55.755 31.51 Repeatability 9.1208 54.725 30.93 Reproducibility 1.7781 10.669 6.03 Operators 1.7781 10.669 6.03 Part-To-Part 27.9900 167.940 94.91 Total Variation 29.4922 176.953 100.00 Number of Distinct Categories = 4

12. Normality Test

13. Capability Test

14. The following things can be inferred from the capability graph: • Cp of 0.84 indicates a process whose average is not centered and whose parts may not be conforming to the specification. • Cpkof -2.02 indicates that the average is outside the specifications. • While the Ppand Ppk are similar to the Cp and Cpkit relates to the overall process rather than subgroups (within). The slight difference in values is due to the way the mean is calculated. • PPM Total (Exp. Overall Performance) indicates that there will be 1 million out of 1 million shots outside the specifications. • We are not meeting customer's requirements and should improve the process by reducing the variation.

15. Primary Metric We have a target distance specified by the customer of 58 +/- 4 inches. Secondary Metric The secondary metric, which should remain constant throughout the process, is the height of the catapult

16. Primary metric

17. 28.35” Shooting Height Number of trials Secondary metric

18. Analyze Phase

19. Detailed process map Partially assembled catapult Y’s: Components cut to size Y’s: Y’s: Partially assembled catapult with holes Drill Pre-Assembly CUT X’s: • Material (C) • Operator (N) • Blueprint (S) • Tools (C) X’s: • Operator (N) • Components cut to size (C) • Fasteners (C) • Tools (C) X’s: • Tools (C) • Operator (N) • Blueprint (S) • Partially assembled catapult (C) Y’s: Final product Catapult without bowl Y’s: Final Assembly Pin Assembly X’s: • Operator (N) • Tools (C) • Partially assembled catapult with holes (C) • Catapult bowl (C) • Blueprint (S) • Fastener (C) • Tools (C) • Operator (N) • Catapult without bowl (C)

20. Fish Bone DiagramCost and Effect Analysis Environment Machine • •Temperature (N) • • Airflow (N) • • Humidity (N) • Fabrication Tools (C) • Assembly Tools (C) • Inspection Tools (C) Shooting Range • Wood (C) • Rubber band (C) • Fasteners (C) • Inspector (N) • Designer (N) • Operator (N) • Shooter (N) • Pin on Shooting Arm (C) • Pin on Base (C) • Pin on Fixed Arm (C) Methods People Material

21. Cost and Effect MetricsCost and Effect Analysis

22. Shooting Arm Pin Fixed Arm Pin Base Pins

23. FMEA

24. Improve Phase

25. Design of Experiment

26. Design of Experiment DOE RECCOMENDATION Goal is 58 Inches ± 4 Pin Fixed Arm Location : 0 Pin Movable Arm : 0 Pin Base: 5

27. Control Phase

28. Using the new and improved Catapult, obtained through the improve and analyze phase, we re-ran the experiment to validate that our catapult is now within client specification.

29. Control Charts

30. Normality Test

31. Capability Test - Before

32. Capability Test - After

33. Conclusion Through the utilization of the Six Sigma Process; variation has been reduced and the catapult is now within specification. The Catapult Fair Parties may now continue!