This document outlines a project to improve the accuracy of a Catapult 1000 using the DMAIC process. The catapult was not meeting specifications of hitting a target 60 inches away 100% of the time within +/- 2 inches. Through defining, measuring, analyzing, improving, and controlling the process, the team was able to significantly reduce variation and bring the catapult within specifications. Key results included a Cpk improvement from -1.81 to 0.89 and sigma level increase from -5.43 to 2.67. While an improvement, further work is still needed to reach a target sigma level of at least 4.

1. MSE 618 Spring’12
Instructor: Prof. Jay Hamade
Group Members:
Amirfathi Morvarid
Dabade Shraddha
Glowaski Ryan
Kebede David
Ravan Doust Maryam
Schulte Anthony

2. Agenda
1. Define Phase
2. Measure Phase
3. Analyze Phase
4. Improve Phase
5. Control Phase
6. Conclusion

3. DEFINE PHASE
Problem Statement
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

4. Problem Objective
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.

5. SIPOC ANALYSIS
Purpose of SIPOC Analysis
Define process boundaries
Data collection points
Clearly define the customer
Identify source of problems
Early detection of issues

6. SIPOC ANALYSIS
Customer
Suppliers Inputs Process Outputs
s
Hardware Validation:
Suppliers Blueprint Quality, Cost
Wooden P
Lumber planks R Customer: Hamade Inc:
Suppliers Screws O Product Catapult
Eye-hooks C (Catapult 1000
Carpenters Adhesive E 1000)
Tape S
Maintenance Saw Finance
S
Drill Dept:
Quality Hammer Invoice
Assurance Bolts
Nails Recycling
Scheduling Rubber band Dept: Scrap
Team

7. MEASURE PHASE
1st Run Failed:
Object shape
Operator style
Foil coverage
Catapult position
Gage R&R
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp)
Total Gage R&R 11.0574 43.02
Repeatability 10.6606 41.48
Reproducibility 0.3969 1.54
Operator 0.3969 1.54
Part-To-
Part-To-Part 14.6442 56.98
Total Variation 25.7016 100.00

8. 2nd Run Success:
Object selection
Change operator
Better foil coverage
Secured catapult
Gage R&R
%Contribution
Source VarComp (of VarComp)
Total Gage R&R 3.6421 10.73
Repeatability 2.4512 7.22
Reproducibility 1.1908 3.51
Operator 1.1908 3.51
Part-To-
Part-To-Part 30.2909 89.27
Total Variation 33.9329 100.00

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. ANALYZE PHASE
(Y’s) (Y’s) (Y’s) (Y’s)
Cut Drilled Partially Side planks
planks planks fixed base
(X’s) (X’s) (X’s) (X’s)
Blue Print Blueprint Blueprint Partially fixed base
Planks Cut planks Drilled planks Blueprint
Saw Markings Saw Fasteners
Tape Power drill Tape Blueprint
Labor Labor Labor Labor

13. (Y’s)
Catapult
(Y’s) (Y’s) (Y’s) ready to
Metal plate
Support arm Launch arm launch
with angle
markings
(X’s) (X’s) (X’s) (X’s)
Side planks Support Launch arm Preassembled
Labor arm Hardware catapult (with metal
Fasteners Scoop angle markings)
Blueprint Fasteners Fasteners
Labor Blueprint
Blueprint Pins
Hardware Rubber

14. Machine Environment
•Elasticity (N) •Ambient Temperature (N)
•Arm Breaking (N) •Humidity (N)
•Wear & Tear (N) •Wind (N)
•Loose Hardware (S) •Room Temperature (C)
•Position of pins holding rubberband •Insufficient light (C)
(C) •Lack of Space (N)
•Vibrations (N)
•Position of launching cup (C)
Shooting
Distance
Material Method People
•Wood (S) •Position of objects (C) •Operators not paying
•Screws (S) •Position of fingers (C) attention to details (N)
•Glue (S) •Angle of launching arm (C) •Delay in reaction (N)
•Measuring Tape (S) •Position of launching cup •Inconsistent
•Objects (S) (C) launching angle (N)
•Aluminum Foil (S) •Angle of viewing (C) •Inconsistent viewing
•Lack of training (C) position (N)
•Height of shooting (C)

18. Current Controls
Process Step/Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects SEV Potential Causes OCC Prevent Detect DET RPN
How How
How
sever What are the existing controls and well
What is the impact on the often
What is the process is the procedures (inspection and test) that can
In what ways does the Output Variables What causes the input does
step/input under effect prevent/detect either the Cause or Failure you
input go wrong? (Customer Requirements) to go wrong? cause
investigation? to the Mode? detect
or internal requirements? of FM
custo Should include an SOP number. cause
occur?
mer? or FM?
Vendor pre-
Support Arm Support Arm breaks Catapult is inoperable 10 Low Quality Material 3 qualification, vendor Material Sampling 7 210
material certs
Design Review,
Inaccurate landing design errors,
Support Arm Out of spec arm 10 9 Fabrication machinery Quality checks 8 720
distance manufacturing errors
maintenance
Launch arm could Vendor pre-
Launch Arm Catapult is inoperable 10 Low Quality Material 3 Material Sampling 7 210
break qualification
error in Design review,
Inaccurate landing
Launch Arm Out of spec arm 10 manufacturing, 8 calibrating tools and Quality checks 8 640
distance
design error quaity control
Inaccurate landing
manufacuring error, calibrating tools and
Partially fixed-base Out of spec base distance, inoperable 10 7 Quality checks 7 490
base is warped quaity control
catapult

19. Process Step/Input Actions Recommended Responsible Actions Taken SEV OCC DET RPN
What are the actions for What are the completed How sever How well
How often
reducing the occurrence of the actions taken with the is the can you
What is the process step/input Who is responsible for the does cause
Cause, or improving detection? recalculated RPN? Be sure to effect to detect
under investigation? recommended action? of FM
Should have actions only on include completion the cause or
occur?
high RPN’s or easy fixes. month/year. customer? FM?
Vendor Selection Criteria,
Created Purchasing Policy to
Certify Vendors, Cost Analysis
Mandate Material Certs, QA
Support Arm of Material, Develop Sampling Purchasing Dept, QA 10 3 2 60
selects on sample piece from
Test
received stock to verify
material quality
Held Review Meeting,
Review catapult design, verify
QA, Engineering Team, Developed preventive
Support Arm out of fabrication machinery, 10 3 2 60
Maintenance maintenance schedule, update
update QA procedurers
QA procedures
Developed Vendor Selection
Certify Vendors, Cost Analysis Purchasing Department,
Launch Arm Criteria, Analyzed Profit 10 3 3 90
of Material Accounting/Controller
Margins Vs Material Cost
Review catapult design, Engineering team, Review meeting, develop
Launch Arm maintain equipment, refine maintenance and maintenace schedule, updated 10 4 2 80
quality procedures production, QA quality procedures
maintain equipment, refine develop maintenace schedule,
Partially fixed-base QA, Maintenance 10 2 3 60
quality procedures updated quality procedures

20. IMPROVE PHASE
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.

21. 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.

22. •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.

23. TARGET:
58-62 inches
1. To move pin on
Support Arm from
63
63 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

24. 3.0
1.7
4.46

25. Control Phase
•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.

26. 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 acceptable
Data appears to
follow a normal
distribution,
use of normal
capability analysis is
justified.

27. • Based on the I-MR chart
I-MR Charts 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.

28. 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.

29. Conclusion
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.