The document describes a project to modify a catapult product called Catapult-Forza. 35% of middle east customers were returning the product because the distance traveled by the ball did not meet the specified range of 200 +/- 2 inches. The project objective is to reduce returns to 15% by modifying the catapult hardware and functionality to meet the distance specification. Key steps include defining metrics, performing gauge R&R analysis, process capability analysis, creating a process map and fishbone diagram, conducting a FMEA analysis, and running a design of experiments including an interaction plot and Pareto chart to identify significant factors affecting distance.

1. CATAPULT PROJECT
Group Members:
• Abdullah Amini
• Kia Vakili
• Pedram Karam Beigi
• Ramit Shrivastav
• Riyanka Daga
• Roozbeh Zad
Professor: Jay Hamade D M A I C
May 8th, 2012

2. DEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
Problem
statement
Problem
objective
sipoc
metrics

3. 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%.

4. 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.

5. SUPPLIER INPUT OUTPUT CUSTOMER
Ohio Willow Wood
Wood
Hercules Rubbers Rubber Bands
Bolt Depot Screws & Bolts Catapult with Military
Woodcraft Blueprints Desired Training
Specifications Academy
Archbold Co Labor 1. Cut The Wood
As Per Dimensions
Dewalt Tools
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

6. 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

7. DEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
Gage R&R
Normality test
Capability test
metrics

8. 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

9. GAGE R&R GRAPHICAL OUTPUT
 The following charts are the result of running Gage R&R study for the collected data
(measurements) by operators.
Gage R&R (ANOVA) for Results
Reported by :
G age name: Tolerance:
Date of study : 03/06/12 M isc:
Components of Variation Results by Parts
100 % Contribution 240
% Study Var
Percent
220
50
200
0
Gage R&R Repeat Reprod Part-to-Part Black-stone paper-clip white-stone grey-stone marble-ball
Parts
R Chart by Operators
Results by Operators
Zad Abdulla Pedram
UCL=12.20 240
Sample Range
10
220
_
5 R=4.74
200
0 LCL=0
Zad Abdulla Pedram
Operators
Xbar Chart by Operators
Zad Abdulla Pedram Operators * Parts Interaction
240
240 Operators
Sample Mean
Abdulla
Average
Pedram
220 UCL=215.53 220 Zad
_
X=210.68
LCL=205.83 200
200
Black-stone paper-clip white-stone grey-stone marble-ball
Parts

10. 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 .

11. 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

12. NORMALITY TEST
 Select one part for the Normality Test – Marble Ball
 Shoot the ball 30 times from the catapult
Probability Plot of Result
Normal
99
Mean 237.7
StDev 2.150
95 N 30
AD 0.958
90
P-Value 0.013
80
70
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
1
232 234 236 238 240 242 244
Result

13. PROCESS CAPABILITY ANALYSIS
Process Capability of Result
Calculations Based on Weibull Distribution Model
LSL USL
P rocess Data O v erall C apability
LS L 198 Pp 0.24
Target * PPL 3.25
USL 202 PPU -7.82
S ample M ean 237.677 P pk -7.82
S ample N 30
E xp. O v erall P erformance
S hape 117.598
P P M < LS L 0.00
S cale 238.751
P P M > U S L 1000000.00
O bserv ed P erformance P P M Total 1000000.00
P P M < LS L 0.00
P P M > U S L 1000000.00
P P M Total 1000000.00
198 204 210 216 222 228 234 240

14. METRICS
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
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 30
Results LSL USL

15. DEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
Process Map
Fishbone diagram
C&E Analysis
FMEA

16. DETAILED PROCESS MAP
Arm Holder
Arm Holder Partially
Base
Base Assembled Catapult-Forza
Arms
Arms Catapult
Object Holder
Fix the Rubber
Cut the Wood
Assembly of band & Install
as per Drill Holes
Arms and Base Angel
Dimension
Measurement
Input Input Input Input
• Wood C • Base C • Arms C • Assembly of
• Base C Catapult C
• Tools C • Arms C • Arm Holder C • Rubber band N
• Blue Prints S • Arm Holder C • Position of Pin • Nuts S
on Fixed Arm C • Bolts S
• Operator N • Object Holder C • Position of Pin • Operator N
• Supplier S • Tools C on Moving Arm C • Angel of moving
• Tools C Arm C
• Blue Prints S • Blue Prints S
• Operator N

17. FISHBONE DIAGRAM

18. TOP 3 CAUSES
1. Angel of Moving Arm
2. Position of Pin on Fixed Arm
3. Position of Pin on Moving Arm

19. C & E MATRIX
Rating of Importance to
1 1 1 10
Customer
Process Step 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
sides with holes
Arms base and
arm,base,shell
unassembled
assembled
catapult
catapult
partially
Total
Process Step Process Input
1 cut the wood as per dimension wood 1 1 1 5 53
2 tools 1 1 1 1 13
3 blueprint 5 5 1 1 21
4 operators 10 5 1 1 26
5 suppliers 10 1 1 1 22
6 Drill holes Base 1 10 1 1 22
7 arm 10 1 1 5 62
8 arm holder 5 5 1 1 21
9 tools 5 5 1 1 21
10 operators 5 1 1 1 17
11 blueprint 5 1 5 1 21
12 shell 5 1 1 1 17
13 assemble arms and base arm 1 1 5 5 57
14 base 1 1 5 1 17
15 arm holder 1 1 5 1 17
16 operators 1 1 5 5 57
position of pin in stationary
17 1 10 5 10 116
arm
position of pin on moving arm
18 1 10 10 10 121
19 blueprint 1 1 5 5 57
20 tools 1 1 5 1 17
partially assembled catapult
21 Fix rubberband and angular measurment 1 1 10 5 62
22 rubber band 1 5 5 57
71 1 1 1 1
23 angle of moving arm 1 10 10 112
24 nuts and bolts 1 10 1 22
25 operators 1 5 5 57
580
63
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Lower Spec
Target
Upper Spec

20. FMEA ANALYSIS
Process or Product Name: CATAPULT Prepared by: GROUP 3
Responsible: GROUP 3 FMEA Date: (Orig.) 04/06/2012 (Rev.)
S O Current Controls D R
E C E P
Process Step/Input Potential Failure Mode Potential Failure Effects V Potential Causes C Prevent Detect T N Actions Recommended
How often does cause of FM occur?
What is the process step/input under In what ways does the input What is the impact on the What causes the input to go What are the existing controls and procedures (inspection and test) that What are the actions for reducing the
How well can you detect cause or
How sever is the effect to the
investigation? go wrong? Output Variables wrong? prevent/detect either the Cause or Failure Mode? occurrence of the Cause, or improving
(Customer Requirements) Should include an SOP number. detection? Should have actions only on
or internal requirements? high RPN’s or easy fixes.
customer?
FM?
Inappropriate Position of Distance wanted not Wrong hole selected for the Inspecting to avoid errors in Test and find the location of Testing and Finding appropriate pin
Position of the pin on stationary arm the pin achieved 10 pin 5 specifications the pin 3 150 position
Inappropriate Position of Distance wanted not Wrong hole selected for the Inspecting to avoid errors in Test and find the location of Testing and Finding appropriate pin
Position of the pin on moving arm the pin achieved 10 pin 10 specifications the pin 3 300 position
Distance wanted not Inspecting to determine the angle of Test and find the appropriate
Angle of the moving arm Improper selection of angle achieved 10 Wrong angle selected 10 operation angle 5 500 Testing and Finding appropriate angle
Page 1 of 1
Responsible Actions Taken S E V O C C D E T R P N
Who is responsible for the recommended What are the completed actions taken with the recalculated RPN? Be sure to
action? 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 10
Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed position of the pin is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 1 1 10
Testing and Trouble Shooting Team Fixed angle of operation is selected by testing on 04/08/2012 10 5 1 50

21. DEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
DOE
Interaction Plot
Pareto Chart
Equation

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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 Interpretation
Effect
Angle +15.17 Runs at 4 had better yields
than runs at 2
Pin +57.29 Runs at 3 had better yields
Stationary than runs at 1
Pin +33.45 Runs at 3 had better yields
Moving than runs at 1

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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)

29. DEFINE MEASURE ANALYSE IMPROVE CONTROL
IMR Chart
X Bar – R chart
Normality Plot
Conclusion

30. BLUE PRINT WITH MODIFICATIONS
1.7822
1.4021
4

31. I-MR CHART

32. PROCESS NORMALITY PLOT
The 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.

33. PROCESS CAPABILITY PLOT
The 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 .

34. 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

35. CURRENT SIGMA LEVEL
• Sigma Level = Cpk x 3
• Current Cpk = 0.51
• Current Sigma Level = 0.51 x 3 = 1.53

36. 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.