Introduction
A company for medical devices was developing a particular technology for enabling smaller medical devices for launching a substrate development endeavor to be a section of a large-scale technology and product development effort. The development of the substrate consisted of a prediction of the stress that was caused by the welding process using laser to ensure the reliability of the product. For this Design for Six Sigma (DFFS) case study, design and analysis of computer experiments (DACE) was employed to account for the risks that were associated with welding using laser in a substrate for the process of electronic welding. DACE process was chosen to use computer simulations for stress and warp prediction of the specimen which …show more content…
A 25-2 fractional factorial i.e. experimental designs use a fraction of rounds for a complete factorial design. DOE (design of experiments) have an impact which is negligible on critical parameters for curvature and stress. Together with DOE, analysis software for finite element was employed to predict from each run of two responses i.e. deformation and stress. Deformation of one layer was transferred to MATLAB (environment for matrix computing) to calculate the radius of curvature which results from this representing warp. Results from DOE shows that two factors out of the five that are related with epoxy (strong adhesive) appeared to have impacts which are negligible on both responses (evaluated through a Pareto analysis). This gave room for DOE to be reduced effectively to the other three remaining factors. As a result of two factors being eliminated, data points from low and high levels remained almost the same without much difference. So the data becomes the same as the data for 23 full …show more content…
A proper benchmark has not been set for this case. This means that the output for the project has not been displayed quantitatively or even dollarized. This does not give the reader a clear picture of the progress made in the case. Since this is a very technical case, the technical terms used in the project have not been clearly defined. So it would be difficult for any common man to understand the case without even understanding the basic definitions of the technical terms. The case has not been presented using the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control technique used in Six Sigma. This technique would have been helpful to understand each step and the processes involved in these steps and would establish a proper flow with the case. The charts displayed in the case could have been explained better using the DMAIC technique. The factors such as Voice of Process and Voice of Customer are missing in this case that provide us feedback for the project to help us know if the project is heading in the right direction or not. Since this project was done during a summer internship, it is important to know about the feedback from the senior faculty or management. If the senior management had found some flaws in the project, then were any remedial measures taken to make improvements in the project? Were there any additional costs involved for rectifying those mistakes? How much more time was required for making those changes?
A company for medical devices was developing a particular technology for enabling smaller medical devices for launching a substrate development endeavor to be a section of a large-scale technology and product development effort. The development of the substrate consisted of a prediction of the stress that was caused by the welding process using laser to ensure the reliability of the product. For this Design for Six Sigma (DFFS) case study, design and analysis of computer experiments (DACE) was employed to account for the risks that were associated with welding using laser in a substrate for the process of electronic welding. DACE process was chosen to use computer simulations for stress and warp prediction of the specimen which …show more content…
A 25-2 fractional factorial i.e. experimental designs use a fraction of rounds for a complete factorial design. DOE (design of experiments) have an impact which is negligible on critical parameters for curvature and stress. Together with DOE, analysis software for finite element was employed to predict from each run of two responses i.e. deformation and stress. Deformation of one layer was transferred to MATLAB (environment for matrix computing) to calculate the radius of curvature which results from this representing warp. Results from DOE shows that two factors out of the five that are related with epoxy (strong adhesive) appeared to have impacts which are negligible on both responses (evaluated through a Pareto analysis). This gave room for DOE to be reduced effectively to the other three remaining factors. As a result of two factors being eliminated, data points from low and high levels remained almost the same without much difference. So the data becomes the same as the data for 23 full …show more content…
A proper benchmark has not been set for this case. This means that the output for the project has not been displayed quantitatively or even dollarized. This does not give the reader a clear picture of the progress made in the case. Since this is a very technical case, the technical terms used in the project have not been clearly defined. So it would be difficult for any common man to understand the case without even understanding the basic definitions of the technical terms. The case has not been presented using the Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control technique used in Six Sigma. This technique would have been helpful to understand each step and the processes involved in these steps and would establish a proper flow with the case. The charts displayed in the case could have been explained better using the DMAIC technique. The factors such as Voice of Process and Voice of Customer are missing in this case that provide us feedback for the project to help us know if the project is heading in the right direction or not. Since this project was done during a summer internship, it is important to know about the feedback from the senior faculty or management. If the senior management had found some flaws in the project, then were any remedial measures taken to make improvements in the project? Were there any additional costs involved for rectifying those mistakes? How much more time was required for making those changes?