Jeffrey Berk's Web Page

Collins and Aikman Products Endorsements

the5berks — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:39:47 +0000

Recommendations For Jeffrey

Advanced/Continuous Quality Engineer

Collins & Aikman

“Jeff was always professional and detail driven in his approach to his tasks. He worked with may levels of associates from line operators, techs, engineers, managers, suppliers to customer engineers and managers. Jeff has the ability to work on all aspects of a program from initial concept thru volume production in detail. He was directly responsible for initial inputs for TGR / TGW on a new program all the way thru PPAP and answering quality issues directly to the customer both verbally and thru the customers electronic systems. He was respected and worked well with his peers.His peers looked to Jeff for his input on various situations due to his depth of knowledge on all aspects of his programs.” September 16, 2008

Paul Herrman, sales, Decatur mold and engineering
managed Jeffrey at Collins & Aikman

“Jeffery is knowable in all phases of a quality organization. He is detailed orientated when producing a presentation for management or customer requirements. I have seen him take the time to explain to coworkers not only what to do but why they need to complete a project. He understands statistical theory and how to apply it to production processes. He handles himself well when interfacing with customers and is helpful in explaining problems to suppliers. He has worked well in committee work with customers and suppliers. His Microsoft computer skills have been accumulated over several years and he is able to quickly produce excel work sheets and power point presentations.” October 13, 2008

John Ipson III Special Projects Engineer , Siegel-Robert Automotive

worked with Jeffrey at Collins & Aikman

These recommendations and more can be found at

FORD SUPPLIER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ENGINEER

the5berks — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:50:24 +0000

Primary responsibilities included understanding and applying the Ford Global Product Development System (GPDS) Engagement Process to 2011 Engine Programs from a Program Engineering perspective. The scope of this responsibility included the following:

Researched Powertrain supplier and program details in Ford databases (for example SIM) and reports (for example NPPR). Used Microsoft Excel and Assess extensively to filter, sort, extract, and group Program information in order to track Powertrain supplier readiness. Contacted Ford Buyers, CPMT Engineers, STA Site Engineers and others for information to update program data related to the GPDS Engagement Process in Ford eTracker and eRoom databases.

Reviewed and evaluated Supplier Readiness Assessments (Schedule A) submissions in eTracker (database) at regular intervals, rating them red, yellow or green based on Quality of Event criteria established by the STA Powertrain Group, formalizing this information into a regular report format.

Participated in conference calls with other program colleagues and with Powertrain suppliers in an effort to maximize the GPDS Engagement Process.

Communicated details regarding Schedule A reporting and use to STA Site Engineers, CPMT Engineers and managers in order to improve the reporting of the Quality of Events from Powertrain suppliers.

Engaged newly identified Powertrain suppliers to the SRA Process for Engine Programs by notifying the supplier, and including all the information necessary to the supplier program manager for their use including the Master Schedule A, Engine Program Key Timing and Events, and the Schedule A User Guide.

The illustration below shows the results of Jeffrey’s continued follow-up and communication efforts on the job. The chart compares the ratings (Red, Yellow, Green) on May 28, 2008 to the ratings on July 25, 2008 of the original 34 Ford Production Supplier Sites. Improvement was measured if any Schedule A rating changed from Red to Yellow or Green, or Yellow to Green. Supplier SRA (Schedule A) reporting on the 2011MY 5.0L 4V TiVCT Coyote Engine Program improved nearly 40% represented by the green bar!

Analysis of Failure Types in Thermoplastic Injection Molding

the5berks — Sat, 24 May 2008 22:06:36 +0000

Here is one method I developed to tie failure types in a PFMEA for plastics to practical applications in manufacturing and quality. Any process could be defined using this method. The key to making a PFMEA work for you is to ask yourself “why” the part exhibits a particular failure mode at least 4 times. Reading across the following document from the left, lets say a part exhibits “Poor Appearance”. The first why could be “short shot”. The second why should address either “Tool” or “Machine” in this example. The third why is the specific root of the failure, such as “Air entrapment in the cavity”. And finally the fourth why is the explanation of why that occurs, such as “The mold must allow air to escape from the cavities as it is being filled”. The chart then lists Areas to Investigate/Possible Fixes. It is difficult to fix a problem or root cause a part failure, either in production or returned from the customer without stepping through the necessary root cause steps to understand the root of the specific failure. The following chart starts by listing all the major failure categories in thermoplastic injection molding, Appearance, Dimensional, Performance, and Production.

Please leave me a message if you found this information helpful or have suggestions! Let me know the problems and issues you are working on. Maybe I can help!!!

Powerway Project Acknowledgement

the5berks — Fri, 23 May 2008 01:00:49 +0000

Selected Structured Problem Solving Experience Summaries

the5berks — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:34:51 +0000

Capability and Statistical Analysis Background Summary

the5berks — Thu, 22 May 2008 22:21:11 +0000

American Society for Quality

the5berks — Thu, 22 May 2008 02:57:02 +0000

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

ASQ Member and Past Section 1013 Secretary/Treasurer

***

Authored technical paper, “An Application in Control Plan Auditing” and presented in a workshop for ASQ Automotive Division Summer Workshop. This paper is copyrighted by ASQ.

Several years before Layered Process Audits (LPAs) became common place, Control Plan Audits were implemented at Textron Automotive Trim, Port Huron Operations based on the above article. Control Plan Audits replaced the commonly used part inspection only method. The advantage to the Control Plan Audit (which can be used in part to meet today’s LPA requirements) is a complete role down of the work completed during the APQP Process to the manufacturing floor on a daily basis. Failure Modes identified in the DFMEA and PFMEA are linked to the Control Plan. The Control Plan Audit then is driven and linked by the Control Plan.

At Textron Automotive Trim, the implementation of Control Plan Audits was a major contributor in driving down customer PPMs, which was key to achieving QS-9000 Certification and the Chrysler Gold Pentasar Award. Customer PPMs were over 800, but with the implementation of Control Plan Auditing, levels below 50 PPM were achieved. I went on to integrate Control Plan Audits with Layered Process Audits and Craftsmanship Reviews to even further facilitate customer PPM reductions at Collins and Aikman to less than 20 on Door Trim Panels.

The subject was written up in the Plant’s quarterly newsletter, Textron Automotive Trim’s “Trim Talk” 3 years later:

Here is the full technical paper:

Six Sigma Capability

the5berks — Wed, 21 May 2008 19:45:58 +0000

Six Sigma Certification is an important Goal of mine. I have accumulated a substantial background of education and experiences that are well worth mentioning here to my readers. The following is a list of my competencies related to Six Sigma as a result of 20+ years of education, actual practice, facilitating or teaching in work teams or as a contributing team member. Projects I have worked on has equated to $100,000′s in cost savings to my previous employers. Having this background is a definite plus to my next employer.

DEFINE and DISCOVER

Benchmark

Baseline

QFD

Process Flow

Project Management

MEASURES and ASSESSMENT

Define Measures

Gage R & R

Data Collection Forms, Plans, Logistics

Sampling Techniques

Defect Metrics

X-Bar & R

Histograms and Pareto

Probability and Capability

ANALYSIS and DATA MANAGEMENT

Cause and Effect Diagrams

Failure Modes & Effects Analysis

Statistical Inference

Control Charts

Capability

Root Cause Analysis

P Diagram

ANOVA

Corrolation-Regression

IMPLEMENT and IMPROVE

DOE

Tolerancing

Mistake Proofing

Reliability Testing

CONTROL STRATEGY and FEEDBACK

Control Charts

Control Plan

Instructions

Visual Aids

APQP Specialist hard at work on the Dodge Dakota Cab Back Bolster Assembly

the5berks — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:18:09 +0000

The whole Textron Automotive Trim APQP, Design, Quality and Manufacturing Team truly Delighted the Customer with their efforts. This was also Port Huron’s first experience in submitting PSO and PPAP using the new Powerway implemented by DaimlerChrysler.

Article written up by Textron Automotive Trim’s “Trim Connection” quarterly newsletter:

…and the write-up in Port Huron’s “Trim Talk”

APQP Specialist on the GMX381 Epsilon Program

the5berks — Mon, 19 May 2008 19:40:24 +0000

New adventures announced in Textron Automotive Trim’s Trim Talk. This Door Trim consisted of new and significantly developed TPO Insert Low Pressure Injection Molding. I worked with my Design Engineering Group at TAC for 2 years running DOE projects on prototype tools to develop the tool and process model we eventually finalized and used in production.

Customer Quality Audits have to handled in early stages too!