| Course | MT475 Quality Management |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Quality improvement proposal |
| Length | About 1,110 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MT475 Unit 10
A Corner Seal Station and a Re-Centered Welder: An MT475 Unit 10 Quality Improvement Proposal Paid Back in Under Seven Months
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
MT475: Quality Management
Unit 10 Quality Improvement Proposal
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Overlook Skylight Company, its costs and every figure are composite; the sources cited are real.
The Pattern
The proposal opens with the chart, not the solution, because the argument depends on what kind of variation the data show. The revised p chart from Unit 4 shows the water-test failure rate stable at about 2.1 percent once two special causes, a thin-sealed glass lot and a weak test regulator, were removed. Stable means the remaining failures come from the process as designed. Deming (1986) warned that common-cause variation can only be reduced by changing the system, and that treating each failure as a special event wastes effort.
A stratification of 412 stable-period failures by leak location shows where the system fails. Sixty-one percent leaked at the lower corners of the frame, where water collects during the test and where welded corners are cleaned and sealed. Twenty-two percent leaked at the glass edge, and the rest were scattered.
Why Not React to Bad Days
The plant's habit has been to hold a meeting whenever the water-test rate looks high, usually ending with a reminder to glaziers to take more care. Those meetings have not moved the rate, because the rate is not driven by care on particular days. It is driven by the corner groove the cleaner leaves behind, which every skylight receives. A reminder cannot fill a groove. That is why the proposal changes equipment and settings rather than asking people to try harder, and why it measures success on the chart rather than on the next good week.
Change One: A Corner Seal Station
The lower corners are where the corner cleaner trims weld flash, leaving a small groove that the glazing sealant must fill. Inspection of fifty failed corners found voids in that groove in forty-one. The proposal adds a corner seal station immediately after the corner cleaner: an automated bead of sealant applied into each lower-corner groove, with new knife sets on the cleaner that leave a cleaner, shallower groove. The station targets the common-cause failure rate directly.
Change Two: Re-Centering the Frame Welder
The Unit 5 capability study found the frame welder stable but aimed about 0.019 inches wide, with a Cpk of 0.84 and about 5,800 oversize frames per million. Re-centering the welder costs almost nothing, half a shift of a technician's time, and would lift Cpk to 1.20, cutting predicted oversize frames from about 1,850 a year to about 100. Oversize frames also make corners harder to seal, so the two changes work together.
How the Two Changes Interact
The changes are separate but not independent. An oversize frame puts more stress on its lower corners when it is fitted to a curb, which can open a weak seal. Re-centering the welder therefore helps the corner seal station do its work, and the station protects the frames that remain slightly wide. Doing both at once also avoids two rounds of new chart limits, since the process will change only once.
Costs
The corner seal station, including the sealant applicator, a small conveyor section, the new knife sets, installation and validation, costs about $104,000. Re-centering the welder and the confirmation study cost about $4,000 in labor. The total is about $108,000.
Savings, Estimated Three Ways
Rework savings: if water-test failures fall from about 2.1 percent to 1.0 percent of the roughly 160,000 skylights built each year, about 1,760 fewer units need rework at about $47 each, saving about $82,700.
Frame savings: if oversize frames fall from about 1,850 to about 100 a year, about 1,750 fewer frames are remade at about $41 each, saving about $71,900.
Warranty savings: leak calls are the largest part of the $985,000 in external failure costs from Unit 3. If corner leaks in the field fall in proportion to plant failures, warranty leak costs fall by about $77,800 a year. Because field leaks may not follow plant failures closely, a conservative case halves this figure to $38,900.
Even if warranty savings come in at half the estimate, the changes pay for themselves in under seven months.
Payback
In the base case, annual savings total about $232,400, and the $108,000 investment pays back in about 5.6 months. In the conservative case, savings total about $193,500 and payback takes about 6.7 months. Juran and Godfrey (1999) describe the business case as the bridge between a quality project and management's decision, and both cases here clear any reasonable threshold.
The Pilot
Before the station is installed permanently, a four-week pilot runs it on one of the plant's two glazing lines, using a rented applicator, while the other line continues as before. The welder is re-centered on both lines at the start, so the comparison isolates the seal station. The pilot succeeds if the pilot line's water-test failure rate falls to 1.3 percent or lower, with corner leaks below a third of failures, while the other line stays near its current rate. Both lines are charted on the same p chart so that the difference is visible day by day.
The Control Plan
If the pilot succeeds, a control plan keeps the gains. The water-test p chart continues, with new limits calculated after four weeks of the improved process. Sealant bead width at the corner station is checked hourly with a gauge and charted. Knife sets are replaced on a fixed schedule. The welder's centering is checked weekly with five frames on an X-bar and R chart, and any shift beyond the limits triggers a re-centering. The process owner is the glazing supervisor, and the quality engineer reviews the charts monthly.
Who Owns What
The glazing supervisor owns the corner seal station and its hourly checks. The maintenance technician owns the welder's centering and the knife replacement schedule. The quality engineer owns the charts and the monthly review. The vice president of operations, who approved the Unit 8 charter, approves the capital and receives the pilot results. Naming owners in the proposal means that no step depends on someone remembering to do it.
Risks
The seal station could slow the line; the pilot measures throughput. Field leaks may come partly from installation, which the proposal cannot fix. And the improved process will need its new limits calculated before anyone can judge further changes, so the plant should resist adjusting it in the first month. Montgomery (2020) stresses that control charts must be recalculated after a deliberate process change, or the old limits will mislead.
References
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. MIT Press.
Juran, J. M., & Godfrey, A. B. (Eds.). (1999). Juran's quality handbook (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
Montgomery, D. C. (2020). Introduction to statistical quality control (8th ed.). Wiley.
MT475 Unit 10 instructions, in plain terms
The final MT475 assignment is a proposal for a quality improvement, built on the course's earlier analysis. Open with the pattern in the data and the kind of variation it shows, since the right solution depends on whether the problem is special or common cause. Propose specific changes and explain how each addresses the cause. Cost the changes and estimate savings in more than one way, including a conservative case. Calculate payback. Design a pilot that tests the main change against a comparison before full commitment. Write a control plan that keeps the gains, with charts, checks and owners. Name risks. Show how the changes relate to each other. About eight pages with the pattern, the changes, costs and savings, a pilot design and a control plan suits most sections, citing earlier units wherever their evidence carries a step.
Inside the MT475 Unit 10 example
The proposal opens with the revised p chart and Deming's point that only system changes reduce common-cause variation. A stratification shows corner leaks dominate. A section explains why meetings about bad days have not moved the rate. The corner seal station is described with the evidence of voids in failed corners. Re-centering the welder follows from the Unit 5 study. A section shows how the two changes reinforce each other. Costs total $108,000. Savings are estimated three ways, with warranty savings halved in a conservative case, under a highlighted line on payback even at half. Payback is 5.6 or 6.7 months, with Juran and Godfrey on business cases. A four-week pilot compares two lines, a control plan sets charts and checks, owners are named and risks close with Montgomery on recalculating limits after a change.
Where the points sit in the MT475 Unit 10 rubric
Improvement proposals are graded on whether the solution fits the diagnosis and whether the business case holds up. Instructors credit proposals that identify the type of variation first and choose a system change for common-cause problems. Evidence linking each change to a cause, such as the corner inspection, earns analysis marks. Costs and savings estimated transparently, with a conservative case, are rewarded over a single optimistic figure. Payback calculated correctly is expected. A pilot with a comparison and a success threshold shows the student will test before committing. A control plan with specific charts, checks and owners is a frequent marking point. Recognizing risks, including the need to recalculate limits, shows maturity. Clear sections and a summary table of costs and savings help the grader.
MT475 Unit 10 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak Unit 10 proposals recommend training or more inspection for a stable process, which does not change the system that produces the defects. Another frequent problem gives one savings estimate with no conservative case. Students often skip the pilot and ask for full investment at once. Control plans are commonly vague, such as continue monitoring, without charts or owners. Earlier units are sometimes ignored, so the proposal does not build on the analysis. Before submitting, check that your main change addresses the cause your data identified and that it would affect every unit, not just bad days. Then recompute payback using your conservative savings. If the proposal only works in the optimistic case, say so or strengthen the evidence.
Get an MT475 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
Send your earlier charts, cost figures or the case for Unit 10, together with the proposal instructions and rubric. The composite proposal returned links every change to the pattern the data showed, prices costs and savings with a conservative case, and defines pilot success in advance on a control chart. The first custom sample is free, delivered within 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More MT475 papers and BS in Business Administration samples
- MT475 Unit 1: Quality Definitions Board Post
- MT475 Unit 2: Seven Quality Tools Exercise
- MT475 Unit 3: Cost of Quality Report
- MT475 Unit 4: P Chart Control Chart Analysis
- MT475 Unit 5: Process Capability Study
- MT475 Unit 6: Product Recall Seminar Reflection
- MT475 Unit 7: Supplier Quality Scorecard Review
- MT475 Unit 8: DMAIC Project Charter
- MT475 Unit 9: ISO 9001 Gap Analysis
- MT460 Unit 10: Final Strategic Case Analysis
- MT459 Unit 10: Consumer Insight Report
- MT455 Unit 10: Sales Organization Plan
- MT453 Unit 10: Key Account Growth Plan
MT475 Unit 10 questions, answered
How should an MT475 improvement proposal use earlier control charts?
As the diagnosis. A chart showing stable variation argues for changing the process design, while one showing special causes argues for finding and removing them. Reprint the relevant chart, state which pattern it shows, and explain why the proposed change fits that pattern. Proposals that ignore the charts they were built on tend to read as generic.
Where do the savings estimates come from?
Ideally from the quality cost records your case or company provides: rework cost per unit, warranty spending, scrap. Multiply the expected reduction by the cost per failure and state the assumed reduction clearly. Where a benefit is uncertain, a conservative case that halves or removes it shows the proposal does not depend on optimism. Payback period is a common summary measure.
Does the proposal need a pilot?
Many prompts expect one. Where none is required, a pilot still shows the change will be tested before full rollout. Define its length, the measure, and what result counts as success, preferably as new control limits set in advance. A control plan then describes how the gain will be held once the pilot ends and attention moves elsewhere.
Where can I find a free MT475 Unit 10 sample paper?
The full MT475 Unit 10 proposal is printed here, with a corner seal station and welder re-centering for a composite skylight plant and a four-week pilot.
How long is payback in the MT475 Unit 10 sample?
About 5.6 months in the base case and 6.7 months if warranty savings come in at half the estimate, on a $108,000 investment.