DMAIC Implementation on catapult
-
Upload
riyankadaga -
Category
Education
-
view
2.867 -
download
5
description
Transcript of DMAIC Implementation on catapult
CATAPULT PROJECT
Group Members:• Abdullah Amini • Kia Vakili • Pedram Karam Beigi• Ramit Shrivastav • Riyanka Daga• Roozbeh Zad
Professor: Jay Hamade May 8th, 2012
D M A I C
DEFINE PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
Problem statement
Problem objective
sipoc
metrics
PROBLEM STATEMENT
• 35% of our Middle East customers that are currently using
the latest Catapult-Forza, are returning the product
launched in January 2012 for their military training
purposes because the distance travelled by the ball doesn’t
meet their requested specification range of 200 +- 2
inches. Resulting in a negative profit impact of $10M and
reducing market share around 20%.
PROJECT OBJECTIVE
• Reducing the product returns from our middle east
customers from 35% to 15% by the end of May 2012 to
save $5.7M, by modifying and revising the hardware and
functionality of the Catapult-Forza , such that it can meet
customers shooting specification range (200 +- 2 inches) in
every attempt.
S-I-P-O-CPROCESSSUPPLIER INPUT
Ohio Willow Wood
Wood
Hercules Rubbers Rubber Bands
Bolt Depot Screws & Bolts
Woodcraft Blueprints
Archbold Co Labor
Dewalt Tools
1. Cut The Wood As Per Dimensions
2. Drill Holes In The Wood As Per Dimensions
3. Join The Sides and The Arm To The Base
4. Punch In The Screws and The Bolts
5. Fit The Rubber Bands
6. Fix The Ball Holding Shell
OUTPUT CUSTOMER
Catapult with Desired
Specifications
Military Training
Academy
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY METRICS
• Primary Metric is used to measure process performance
and is the gage used to measure success.
• In this case distance travelled by the ball is our primary
metric
• Secondary Metrics is the vertical distance from the location
of our catapult to the floor
MEASURE PHASE
DEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
Gage R&R
Normality test
Capability test
metrics
GAUGE R&R ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS
5 Different Parts (Shoot by Catapult)
1. Black Stone
2. Marble Ball
3. White Stone
4. Paper Clip
5. Gray Stone
3 Different Operators (Measuring the Distance)
Randomized Reading
GAGE R&R GRAPHICAL OUTPUT The following charts are the result of running Gage R&R study for the collected data
(measurements) by operators.
Part-to-PartReprodRepeatGage R&R
100
50
0
Per
cent
% Contribution
% Study Var
10
5
0
Sam
ple
Ran
ge
_R=4.74
UCL=12.20
LCL=0
Zad Abdulla Pedram
240
220
200Sam
ple
Mea
n
__X=210.68
UCL=215.53
LCL=205.83
Zad Abdulla Pedram
marble-ballgrey-stonewhite-stonepaper-clipBlack-stone
240
220
200
Parts
PedramAbdullaZad
240
220
200
Operators
marble-ballgrey-stonewhite-stonepaper-clipBlack-stone
240
220
200
Parts
Ave
rage
AbdullaPedram
Zad
Operators
Gage name: Date of study: 03/06/12
Reported by: Tolerance: Misc:
Components of Variation
R Chart by Operators
Xbar Chart by Operators
Results by Parts
Results by Operators
Operators * Parts Interaction
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Results
GAGE R&R ANALYSIS
Components of Variation
“Part-to-Part“ variation is 98.32% .
Repeatability and Reproducibility together have a total of 1.67% of variation.
This is an ideal result which shows the accuracy and consistency of operators’ measurements.
R-Chart by Operators
It shows all the measurements performed by different operators.
Most measurements that were recorded were very close to the average.
X-Bar Chart by Operators
The above X-Bar chart shows that some points are inside the control limits. This means these parts
variations (third and fourth parts) are not easy to detect. This chart shows our measurement system is
making it difficult to measure part to part differences for part three and four for operator one and two but
for operator three just part three is inside the limit and difficult to measure .
GAGE R&R ANALYSIS
Results by Parts
The measurements that were taken should vary little from each other.
Most measurements that were recorded were very close to the average.
The Marble ball readings were the most accurate measurements recorded compared to other parts.
Results by Operators
The above chart shows the measurement of each part by each operator. In this case the total number of
measurement is 15 (5 Parts x 3 Times).
The variations between the measurements of each operator is different. The averages are varying for all 3
Operators. Ideally, the variation in measurement of each operator must be the Same.
Reasons are Human Errors, Reduction in Elasticity Of The Rubber Band, Instrument Related Errors, Setup
For Measurements
Operators / Parts Interaction
Average measurement taken by each operator on each part
The variation in the measurement is very low
NORMALITY TEST
Select one part for the Normality Test – Marble Ball
Shoot the ball 30 times from the catapult
244242240238236234232
99
95
90
80
70
605040
30
20
10
5
1
Result
Perc
ent
Mean 237.7StDev 2.150N 30AD 0.958P-Value 0.013
Probability Plot of ResultNormal
PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
240234228222216210204198
LSL USL
LSL 198Target *USL 202Sample Mean 237.677Sample N 30Shape 117.598Scale 238.751
Process DataPp 0.24PPL 3.25PPU -7.82Ppk -7.82
Overall Capability
PPM < LSL 0.00PPM > USL 1000000.00PPM Total 1000000.00
Observed Performance
PPM < LSL 0.00PPM > USL 1000000.00PPM Total 1000000.00
Exp. Overall Performance
Process Capability of ResultCalculations Based on Weibull Distribution Model
METRICS
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 300
25
50
75
100
125
150
175
200
225
250
Results LSL USL
ANALYZE PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
Process Map
Fishbone diagram
C&E Analysis
FMEA
DETAILED PROCESS MAP
Cut the Wood as per
DimensionDrill Holes
Fix the Rubber band & Install
Angel Measurement
Assembly of Arms and Base
• Wood C
• Tools C
• Blue Prints S
• Operator N
• Supplier S
• Base C
• Arms C
• Arm Holder C
• Object
Holder C
• Tools C
• Blue Prints S
• Operator N
• Arms C• Base C• Arm Holder C • Position of
Pin on Fixed Arm C
• Position of Pin on Moving Arm C
• Tools C• Blue Prints S
• Assembly of Catapult C
• Rubber band N
• Nuts S• Bolts S• Operator N• Angel of
moving Arm C
Arm HolderBaseArms
Object Holder
Arm HolderBaseArms
Partially Assembled
Catapult
Input Input Input Input
Catapult-Forza
FISHBONE DIAGRAM
TOP 3 CAUSES
1. Angel of Moving Arm
2. Position of Pin on Fixed Arm
3. Position of Pin on Moving Arm
C & E MATRIX
Rating of Importance to Customer 1 1 1 10
Process Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
unassembled arm,base,shell
Arms base and sides with holes
partially assembled catapult
catapult Total
Process Step Process Input
1 cut the wood as per dimension wood 1 1 1 5 532 tools 1 1 1 1 133 blueprint 5 5 1 1 214 operators 10 5 1 1 265 suppliers 10 1 1 1 226 Drill holes Base 1 10 1 1 227 arm 10 1 1 5 628 arm holder 5 5 1 1 219 tools 5 5 1 1 21
10 operators 5 1 1 1 1711 blueprint 5 1 5 1 2112 shell 5 1 1 1 1713 assemble arms and base arm 1 1 5 5 5714 base 1 1 5 1 1715 arm holder 1 1 5 1 1716 operators 1 1 5 5 57
17 position of pin in stationary arm 1 10 5 10 116
18 position of pin on moving arm
1 10 10 10 121
19 blueprint 1 1 5 5 5720 tools 1 1 5 1 17
21 Fix rubberband and angular measurmentpartially assembled catapult
1 1 10 5 62
22 rubber band 1 1 5 5 5723 angle of moving arm 1 1 10 10 11224 nuts and bolts 1 1 10 1 2225 operators 1 1 5 5 57
Total 71 63 61 580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Lower Spec
Target
Upper Spec
FMEA ANALYSIS
Page 1 of 1
Responsible Actions Taken SEV OCC DET RPNWho is responsible for the recommended
action?What are the completed actions taken with the recalculated RPN? Be sure to
include completion month/year.
Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed position of the pin is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 1 1 10Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed position of the pin is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 1 1 10Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed angle of operation is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 5 1 50
Process or Product Name: CATAPULT Prepared by: GROUP 3
Responsible: GROUP 3 FMEA Date: (Orig.) 04/06/2012 (Rev.)
Process Step/Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects SEV Potential Causes OCC
Current Controls
DET RPN Actions RecommendedPrevent DetectWhat 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?
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.
Position of the pin on stationary armInappropriate Position of the
pinDistance wanted not
achieved 10Wrong hole selected for the
pin 5Inspecting to avoid errors in
specificationsTest and find the location of the
pin 3 150 Testing and Finding appropriate pin position
Position of the pin on moving armInappropriate Position of the
pinDistance wanted not
achieved 10Wrong hole selected for the
pin 10Inspecting to avoid errors in
specificationsTest and find the location of the
pin 3 300 Testing and Finding appropriate pin position
Angle of the moving arm Improper selection of angleDistance wanted not
achieved 10 Wrong angle selected 10Inspecting to determine the angle of
operationTest and find the appropriate
angle 5 500 Testing and Finding appropriate angle
IMPROVE PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
DOE
Interaction Plot
Pareto Chart
Equation
PARETO CHART OF THE EFFECTS
• Minitab displays the absolute value of the Effects on the Pareto Chart• The Chart shows which Effects are active meaning which effects are affecting the distance• The plot shows that Position of the Pin on Stationary Arm is active• Chart also shows the interaction between other factors
INTERACTION PLOT FOR RESULTS• This Graph helps us look at the
Significant Interaction between the 3 sources of error
• It tells us how big each effect is• Here, In order to get highest yield from
our experiment, angle should be set to point 4, position of the stationary pin should be set to 3 and position of the pin on the moving arm to 3
NORMAL PLOT OF THE EFFECTS
• The Normal Plot and Pareto Chart shows which effects influence the yield• The graphs shows all the points are outside the fitted line hence active
MAIN EFFECTS PLOT FOR RESULTS• The Plot shows the effects of changing angle
and the positions of the pins on the stationary and moving arm
• Here we can see that the Positions of the Pins on the Stationary Arm has the major effect on achieving the target spec and then the Position of the Pin on Moving Arm
Factors Size Of Effect
Interpretation
Angle +15.17 Runs at 4 had better yields than runs at 2
Pin Stationary
+57.29 Runs at 3 had better yields than runs at 1
Pin Moving
+33.45 Runs at 3 had better yields than runs at 1
CUBE PLOT FOR RESULT• From The Cube Plot, In order To Get The
Desired Specification Of The Distance i.e. 78.74 inches,
The Angle should be set to point 4
The Position of the Pin on the Fixed Arm should be between 1 & 3
The Position of the Pin on the Stationary Arm should also be between 1 & 3
OPTIMIZATION PLOT
• As the name suggest, the plot gives the combination of effects for optimum efficiency, i.e. to meet the desired specifications
• In our case, The Angles should be set to point 4
The Position of the Pin on the Fixed Arm should be at point 1.7822
The Position of the Pin on the Stationary Arm should be at point 1.4021
FORMULA
Y = F(X)
Target Value = F (Position of Pin On Stationary Arm) + F (Position of Pin On Moving Arm) +
F (Angle Of Moving Arm)
78.74 = F(1.7822) + F(1.4021) + F(4.0)
CONTROL PHASEDEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
IMR Chart
X Bar – R chart
Normality Plot
Conclusion
BLUE PRINT WITH MODIFICATIONS
1.7822
4
1.4021
I-MR CHART
PROCESS NORMALITY PLOTThe Normality plot shows a scatter plot of the measurements and the line of best fit. More points are on and closer to the line of best fit comparatively. The P-Value is 0.703 which proves our distribution is normal.
PROCESS CAPABILITY PLOTThe Process Capability test shows that the Cpk is 0.51 which is better than our previous Cpk value. However the process is still not capable.
Xbar-R CHART• The X bar chart shows
The points are the average of each subgroup
The red control limits which shows the process in under control as none of the points are outside the UCL and LCL
The green line is the overall average which is the mean X bar which is 78.537
• The R bar chart shows The points as difference in the
largest and the smallest measurement within each sub group
The green line is the grand average of each points which is the mean R bar which is 0.753
The red lines are the upper and lower control limits and here none of the points are outside the UCL and LCL
CURRENT SIGMA LEVEL
• Sigma Level = Cpk x 3
• Current Cpk = 0.51
• Current Sigma Level = 0.51 x 3 = 1.53
CONCLUSION
• All the Data points in the Xbar and R chart are within the UCL and LCL hence the process is in control.
• The Cpk of the process has increased from -7.82 to 0.51.
• Further Analysis is required to increase the Cpk and Sigma level.
THANK YOU!!