STAR Flashcards
Asking for Sensor Requirement
Have a Backbone; disagree; commit
Are Right, A Lot
“S/T: Team Insisted Sensor be put in requirements
A: Explained correct requirement flow,
identified hole in process,
pulled in correct team
R: Requirement was integrated in process”
“S/T: There was a single sensor that was used to diagnose a 3 different HV components. That setup met safety requirements but would shut down the vehicle since it was not able to rationalize which of the components caused the failure. Some of the components, did not need, a shutdown, but we could not determine that with the curernt setup. The team insisted we add a requirement for this sensors presence in the system, simply because it was the “better” for the customer. I, while agreeing it is better, refused to just add this requirement blanketly, because understood that this was just 1 example of possibly many related to cutomer inconvenience.
A: I, while agreeing it is better, refused to just add this requirement blanketly, because understood that this was just 1 example of possibly many related to cutomer inconvenience. I setup a discussion with requesting team and explained how our requirements flow works, how not what. Adding a sensor is not a what, it is a how, and so I then helped identify the missing area of requirements that would contain “what” requirement like this across the company, as this type of requirement, which was more of a convenience for the customer, spanned more than just the battery. I then identified the key individuals and setup a team to outline the request and obtain agreement that this was indeed a missing requirement and there is a need to address this at a high level.
R: The team that was brought in was able to agree on how to outline those requirements and I was able to decompose those further into battery level requirements that could be directly tied to customer satisfaction.”
Workload Management Tool
Hire and Develop the Best
“S: Issues with workload for team
T: Tasked with I/O Tool
A: Garned expert input, piloted through new engr
R: New member able to follow without oversight, implemented”
“S: Team was having issues determining priority on their workload. Newer team members did not have an overall understanding of the duration and some of the inputs needed for the standard works our team performed. This was causing unnecessary scrambling and miscommunications with the greater teams.
T: I suggested to my manager that I create a guide tool that could help outline the inputs, who they received them from, the time it took to perform the standard work once all inputs were obtained, and output consumer and location.
A: I created the tool using input from our technical specialists and team members, and piloted it through newer team member to ensure that it was easy to understand and follow.
R: The team member was able to easily comprehend their expected workload and work through their standard works without previous checks and oversight. This provided the employee with more confidence and freedom to manage their workload.”
Advanced to Engineering handoff
Ownership
“S: Lack of hand-off procedure
T: Suggested I create one, cross-functional support
A: Created comprehensive package, accounting for assumptions and sources
R: Used in latest hand-off seamlessly, communication clear”
“S: Noticed lack of clear handoff procedure and collateral between our advanced requirements group and ours. Made more apparent when there was an attempt to hand-off a program due to workload management. This lack of process was deteremined to cause valuse that were rolled down without considerations or with assumptions that should not have been carried through to execution e.g. carry-over cells, uncorrelated analysis, etc.
T: I spoke with my manager at the time and suggested that I tackle this
A: I create a comprehensive handoff package that consisted of all expected documents, requirements, as well as the inputs used to develop those requirements, their sources, and any safety factors that were used. The document was an easy to follow and well laid-out format so even a new system engineer could easily comprehend and continue developing without confusion.
R: This hand-off package was recently used and it allowed for a seamless program handoff, ensuring that the receiving engineer new exactly where the requirements came from, which ones needed to be refined, and what assumptions were made. “
SOR for CATL
“Bias for Action
Ownership
Deliver Results”
“S: Sourcing new cell chem
T: Create SOR in short time
A: Integrate new pack in exsisting car in short time
R: Completed SOR with improved targets, cost savings, documented process”
“S: Sourcing a new supplier for a battery pack with a new cell chemistry
T: Create an SOR with high level requirements that would result in a similarly performing battery pack compared to the outgoing model, but at a much lower price. This type of work is typically months long and occurs in an advanced stage, but it was needed in a very short timeframe.
A: My role was to lead a cross-functional tema to determine battery level requirements, such as power, range, DCFC range, max/min currents, voltages, resistances, etc. and ensure they integrate seemlessly into the rest of the HV architecture as that was going to be carry-over. The breakdown of requirements typically takes many weeks of simulations, analysis, calculations and feedback loops but we did not have that time in this situation.
R: I ended up providing a comprehensive and complete SOR in an extremely short time frame with improved targets where the customer would benefit and cost savings in areas such as cell technology. The supplier quoted within our cost targets and provided an initial design solution that met all of our targets.
I: I then documented that initial SOR process as a standard work to be used by our group for all future purchased packs.”
BEV4 Advanced Role
Ownership
“S: Adv Engr left suddenly, unclear values and sources
T: Take over temp at height of program
A: Rapid on-boarding and data confirmation, learnings
R: Kept pace, understood and improved metrics, documented sources”
“S: I work on the execution side for battery requirements, and we have an advanced side that does the initial rock sorting phase of a program and then hands it off to our team to continue and refine. The program I was following was still in the advanced phase and that individual ended up leaving the company very suddenly. The team they were on was understaffed due to previous departures.
T: Myself being the most knoweldgeable about this program determined it would likely make the most sense to step into that role temporarily until they were able to back fill that position.
A: I obtained the latest working level data and tools from the person leaving and had to learn very quickly how and why the values were the way they were. Jump into and work with the analysis teams that had been working on it, as well as report out on status and timing all in a matter of a week or two on areas that I was not experienced with as they typically happen only in the advanced phase.
R: I was able to receive the baton and keep the pace of the program moving while actually improving the level of quality that was being performed. Eventually they hired a replacement who I trained and I was able to provide them with a much clearer and smoother handoff having documented all of the inputs and assumptions that I originally did not receive.”
DCFC Improvements
“Customer Obsession
Invent and Simplify”
“S: Not meeting DCFC Targets
T: Decided to comprehend better, dive deep
A: Identified shortcoming in cal strategy, faced pushback, simple S/W solution
R: Patented process, now being implemented across board”
“S: We are having issues meeting aggressive DCFC charging targets
T: I identified a key sensor/controls combo that was a large factor in us not meeting our targets.
A: I recognized the potential for a major improvement and challenged this limitation and was told this was how were doing this and it would be hard to change the controls at this time came up with a novel feature that would allow the customer to improve their charge time with no additional hardware changes, just charging strategy. This idea was so well received and novel that I was able to file a patent for it that is currently pending.
R: Leadership and controls team are currently working on implementing this change and this idea was so well received and novel that I was able to file a patent for it that is currently pending.”
Bolt Recall Statistical Role
“Bias for Action
Learn and Be Curious
Ownership
Deep Dive”
S: Assignde Special Project
T: Determine risk for combo defects
A: Determined colletion plan, statistical approach, consulted experts
R: In months, enough data, high confidence internval, potential risk, steer recall resolution
“S: I was part of a special project team to solve to identify and root cause a potential field issue related to batteries.
T: The task was to determine exposure and potential risk to customer and due to the complex nature of this issue, my role as a battery system engineer was the most applicahble and therefore I stepped up to this unique challenge.
A: I had to put together a complex data collection and stasitical analyze process in a very short timeframe. This was outside of my scope had to determine which statistical best practices to use to perform this analysis. This comprised mutliple statistical processes, techniques, and data sources and ultimately became a Trade Secret so I won’t be able to go into any further detail.
R: I was able to determine isolate the issue to specific customer, maintaining the safety of the customer as the #1 priority, while reducing extremely high service costs for unecessary replacements. No additional field issues have occured after this was implemented. “
BDU Staircase Profile
“Frugality
Deep Dive”
“S: Contactor Failing Durability
T: Assess Deviation
A: Not customer centric, overdesigned, no source of req
R: DFSS Solution, not overdesigned, reduced cost, customer focused”
“S: BDU contacter was failing the durability cycle at the supplier
T: Was asked to provide deviation from requirements by component team and DRE
A: Our team was responsible for creating the battery requirements which they referenced as the source of the durability profile, however our requirement document did not provide the table to be run as a durability cycle, but rather a sizing and performance metric. The profile they ran was actually impossible for a customer to perform, so I started asking questions to try and understand why the component team was using it as a durability cycle. After many questions between them and colleagues that worked on the previous programs, it was determined that they did not know why their SOR had it in there and why they required the supplier to meet this profile.
R: I ended up performing a DFSS analysis on the potential options for durabiltiy form a cost, performance, and durabiltiy standpoint, ultimately creating a process to determine the worst-case but still customer applicable durability cycle base don the failed mode of the component. This allowed the component to not be overdesigned while still meeting durability for all customer excursion drive profiles.”
Adv Batt pack Design STLA-Frame
Bias for Action
“S: New clean-sheet pack design
T: Responsible for (pack components), but poor requirements
A: Benchmarked, feedback loop, first principles
R: Completed design in few months, met targets”
“S: The compoany was developing the first in-house designed battery pack and had just put in place initial team members
T: I was responsible for the advanced clean-sheet battery design from ,cell layout, BDU, eclosure design, etc. The level of detail for higher level requirements had not been ironed out or finalized but we could not wait for those in order to meet our expected milestones
A: I utilized benchmarking data as well as cooridnated a rapid feedback loop with our requirements engineers and component engineers
R: We were able to go from blank sheet to a fully designed battery pack in only a few months”
Utilizing Transmission space for HV components
Invent and Simplify
“S: Packaging challenge, pushback from chief
T: Needed to find home for connectors
A: Created spaceclaim study, moved connectors to tunnel
R: Chief impressed, bought off, improved multiple metrics, prod design”
“S: Challenged with meeting a packaging issue on a newly designed battery pack with strict packaging limitations. Our connectors did not have the clearance or the service access we desired.
T: I was the lead pack engineer but at some point HV components were placed in the transmission tunnel but it was not optimized. I was told multiple times by the others that the chief said not to place anything else in the tunnel as there was no other location for the component that was currently there.
A: I did not agree with this as it was a very inefficient solution, so I moved these components around in CAD, placing the current component under the hood, where I found plenty of space for it once a few others were moved around, and I moved our connectors up onto th transmission tunnel.
R: I presented this to the chief and they were surprised and it was well received and become POR moving forward. This allowed us to not only meet our hand clearance requirements but also alleviated many of the along car packaging constraints and crash issues we were having. I left that position but was able to see a example at the autoshow and that connector solution was still present.”
One Pedal Drive Release
“Customer Obsession
Learn and Be Curious
Dive Deep”
“S: Insufficient requirements
T: Lead calibrator, focus on customer experience
A: Benchmark, DoEs, Refine. Turned subj into obj
R: Exec Review, Magazine +”
“S: Responsible for leading development of OPD calibration as Lead Calibrator I was given very high-level requirements but none with regard to how this feature should feel to the customer.
T: As the lead calibrator I made it my focus to ensure it was a great experience for the customer especially since it would be a new and unique feature that most customers new to EVs would not have experienced before
A: I started with simple benchmarking using accelerometers and current clamps on competitive vehicles assessing om pedal range to deceleration, to transient behavior. I researched opinions of these vehicles online to get an overall sentiment from online forums and magazine reviews. I then performed some DoEs with those benchmarked vehicles as well as the vehicle I was developing for to determine what felt ““good”” subjectively and turned that into objective measurements using accelerometers and current clamps, and overall sentiment ratings.
R: Those objectivemeasurements were turned into targets and that correlated with more positive and a better perceived customer perception. Once refined, we presented our performance on an executive ride and drive, and we received extremely positive feedback especially compared to other competitors and even other vehicles we were developing. Ultimately, we were able to translate our learnings onto other vehicles in the portfolio. Upon launch, automative journalist feedback was nothing but positive and the one pedal drive featurew as even singled out as positive compared to the competition”
JL/DT Manifold in half the time
“Deliver Results
Invent and Simplify”
“S: Engr Left,manifold not meeting targets
T: Redesign, half the time, hit targets
A: CFD Rapid Iteration loop,
R: Exceeded targets, highest in history, met all other metrics”
“S: We had a team member that had left the company and we realized that the component that his person was working on was not meeting the targets due to the overall engine program targets changing shortly before the employee left.
T: I was assigned the task of completely redesigning the intake manifold, which was typically a 1 year design timeframe and the task was to do it in 5 months. Within these 5 months I had to design an airflow path that flowed more air compared to any manifold FCA had previously developed, while simultaneously all of the other functional objectives ( structural, NVH, and packaging challenges)
A: In order to meet the new aggressive airflow targets in this shortened timeframe, I worked with our CFD team to develop a new design cadence where I would take smaller sections of the manifold and iterate them alongside my CAD designed and then run them myself utilizing the CFD capability inside of the CAD program. Simultaneously the CFD team would run the full airpath model. This allowed for rough iterations on these smaller sections such as individual intake runners, that could be iterated once an hour where the full analysis from our CFD team would typically take 2 days.
R: This allowed us to exceed the airflow targets with the new aircore and still have enough time to design the rest of the manifold to meet all functional objectives (structural, NVH, sealing, etc) and kick off tooling on time for production. “
PCV Distribution tube iterations
“Earn Trust
Deliver Results”
“S: Trusted CAE and did not meet distribution target
T: Needed design solution FAST
A: 3D printed DoE, dyno testing,
R: Desing Solution prior to K.O”
“S: Earlier in my career, I utlized come CAE analysis for secondary gas distribution target for an intake manfiold to design distribution holes. The CFD process used was uncorrelated and to my dismay, when testing physical part, we did not even come close to meeting the target.
T: I had to rapidly come up with a design solution that I could implement in the next design freeze without the aid of CAE analysis, using preciousand expensive dyno testing time that the team did not have much to spare of.
A: I ended up creating design matrix of different hole sizes and spacing, as well as the ability to rotate the assembly. I drew this in cad and 3d printed it down in the lab. I came up with a DoE in order to rapidly test and determine which combination of design parameters worked best. I then did confirmation testing to compare the top 3 designs more precisely.
R: I was able to go from concept to design solution in a matter of 2 weeks and easily met my design freeze deadline. The next iteration of prototype parts incorporated my design and it matched almost perfectly to the testing I had done.”
Turbulator innovation
“Deliver Results
Invent and Simplify”
“S: Conflicting Requirements. Flow and EGR Dist
T: Outside the Box thinking to meet both
A: Recognized targets had different operatin mods (part vs full throttle)
Implemented fins with tapered opening.
R: Met both targets, novel solution. New Best practice.”
“1. S.) Engine program was not meeting HP targets, intake was identified as a major potential improvement, I was tasked with increasing airflow while simultaneously meeting secondary gas distribution targets, where we would introduce exhaust gas back into the air stream. These are conflicting targets as better distribution usually in order for the engine to remain stable, typically means more turbulence which is opposite of what you want for HP.
2. T.) Typically we would solve the distribution with a long mixing zone in the intake, coupled with a distribution tube, to allow the EGR to mix with the air before entering the cylinders. However, we did not have the packaging space nor could meet HP targets with a long mixing zone.
3. A) Setup and performed my own CFD models where I designed and iterated molded-in fins. Where EGR was active, the throttle blade would normally force the air against the top and bottom of the intake, this is precisely where I put these angled fins that would now agitate those 2 airstreams into a turbulent vortex. This combined with an EGR distribution tube.
4. R.) Since it was in a tapered area of the zip tube, at wide open throttle those intruding fins caused 0 restriction since they were not seen by the air due to the taper. This was a unique and novel solution that solved the distribution and HP targets and allowed the intake to go into production meeting all of it’s functional objectives. In addition, this solution was implemented by the COE as best practice design going forward for all intake manifolds with EGR and I even filed a patent for this feature which is still in process.”
Tell me about a time where you anticipated a customer need they didn’t know they wanted
One Pedal Drive
Customer Obsession
Describe a time when you went above and beyond for a customer
One Pedal Drive
DCFC Patent
Customer Obsession
Tell me about a time you had to understand a complex problem and had to dig in to figure it out
Bolt Recall
Dive Deep
