1. MSE 618 ProjectTeam 3 Ravinder Singh Allen GiragosianSimon Psavko Jidhin JamesRijul DhruvChirag Contractor

2. Introduction Team 3 is an international catapult manufacturing company, supplying IVY LeagueUniversities 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 areduction in sales. A Six Sigma Process has beenemployed to rectify this situation 3. DMAICThe DMAIC methodology has 5 main phases: Define Phase where the problem is defined and the desired goalsspecifically Measure Phase where the key aspects of the current data and therelevant data is collected Analyze Phase where the data is investigated using detailed processmap and verify the cost and effect relationship. Determine what therelationships are, and attempt to ensure that all factors have beenconsidered. Improve Phase where the optimization of the current processbased on the data analysis obtained in the Analyze phase usingtechnique of DOE(Design of Experiment) and the FMEA (FailureMode Effect Analysis) is prepared. Control Phase where controlling the future state process to ensureany deviation from the target are corrected before they result indefect 4. Define Phase 5. Problem StatementThe catapults used by the IVY League Universities in theiregg toss competition every spring experienced an X percenterror in the distance travelled, this caused the sales order todecrease by Z percentProblem ObjectiveThe objective of this project is to increase the efficiency ofthe catapult in such a way that it travels a distance of XYZ99 percent of the time and thus causes a 25 percentincrease in sales 6. S.I.P.O.C.SupplierInput Process Output Customer Oregon Wood MaterialCatapultIVY league Companycapable of universitiesHome DepotLabor shootingeggNationalBlue Print Rubber99% of the shootingIndustry time. teams.Shell co. CuttingMachineCut wood to AssembleFix Pins and Fix Punchspecificbase side Rubbershooting Holesdimensionsand armsBandshell 7. Primary MetricThe primary metric is the shooting range of the catapult.Secondary MetricThe secondary metric is the Height of the catapult, this will beconstant throughout the project. 8. Measure Phase 9. A set of 90 different readings collected using 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&RTwo-Way ANOVA Table Without InteractionSourceDFSSMS F PParts9 64207.4 7134.15 85.7586 0.000Operators2 356.1178.042.1402 0.124Repeatability 786488.7 83.19Total 89 71052.2Gage R&R %ContributionSource VarComp(of VarComp)Total Gage R&R86.3509.93Repeatability 83.1899.56Reproducibility3.1620.36Operators3.1620.36Part-To-Part 783.440 90.07Total Variation869.791100.00 Study Var %Study VarSource StdDev (SD)(6 * SD)(%SV)Total Gage R&R9.292555.75531.51Repeatability 9.120854.72530.93Reproducibility 1.778110.669 6.03Operators 1.778110.669 6.03Part-To-Part 27.9900 167.94094.91Total Variation29.4922 176.953 100.00Number of Distinct Categories = 4 11. Normality Test 12. Capability Test 13. The following things can be inferred from the capability graph: Cp of 0.84 indicates a process whose average is not centered andwhose parts may not be conforming to the specification. Cpk of -2.02 indicates that the average is outside the specifications. While the Pp and Ppk are similar to the Cp and Cpk it relates to theoverall process rather than subgroups (within). The slight differencein values is due to the way the mean is calculated. PPM Total (Exp. Overall Performance) indicates that there will be 1million out of 1 million shots outside the specifications. We are not meeting customers requirements and should improvethe process by reducing the variation. 14. 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 15. Primary metric 16. 28.35Shooting Height Number of trialsSecondary metric 17. Analyze Phase 18. Detailed process mapYs:Components Ys: Partially assembledYs: Partially assembledcut to size catapultcatapult with holesPre- CUT DrillAssemblyXs: Material (C)Xs: Operator (N)Xs: Tools (C) Operator (N) Components cut to size (C) Operator (N) Blueprint (S) Fasteners (C) Blueprint (S) Tools (C) Tools (C) Partially assembled catapult (C) Catapult without Ys: Final productYs: bowlPinFinal Assembly AssemblyXs: Operator (N)Catapult bowl (C) Tools (C) Blueprint (S) Partially assembled catapultFastener (C) with holes (C)Tools (C) Operator (N) Catapult without bowl (C) 19. Fish Bone DiagramCost and Effect AnalysisMachine Environment Fabrication Tools (C)Temperature (N) Assembly Tools (C) Airflow (N) Inspection Tools (C) Humidity (N)ShootingRange Wood (C) Pin on Shooting Arm (C) Inspector (N) Rubber band (C) Pin on Base (C) Designer (N) Fasteners (C) Pin on Fixed Arm (C) Operator (N) Shooter (N)MaterialMethodsPeople 20. Cost and Effect MetricsCost and Effect Analysis 21. Shooting Arm PinFixed Arm PinBase Pins 22. FMEA 23. Improve Phase 24. Design of Experiment 25. Design of ExperimentDOE RECCOMENDATIONGOAL IS 58 INCHES 4Pin Fixed Arm Location : 0Pin Movable Arm : 0Pin Base: 5 26. Control Phase 27. Using the new and improved Catapult, obtainedthrough the improve and analyze phase, we re-ran the experiment to validate that our catapultis now within client specification. 28. Control Charts 29. Normality Test 30. Capability Test - Before 31. Capability Test - After 32. ConclusionThrough the utilization of the Six Sigma Process; variation has been reduced and the catapult isnow within specification. The Catapult Fair Parties may now continue!