Interview Shortlist — Dhines vs Adlan

Dhines A/L Shree Kanthan

📍 Shah Alam🎂 24🇲🇾 Malaysian

#1 PICK

📋 Background

CGPA

3.89 — 1st Class

University

UPM (EE)

Current

Texas Instruments

Role

Process Engineer

🎯 Why #1

Has the full Toyota toolkit (DOE, FMEA, 8D, RCA, SPC, DMAIC) + Six Sigma certified. Currently running first-of-site qualifications at TI — same skill set SQE work needs. Bonus: built AI/AVI inspection (10µm particle detection) — Industry 4.0 ready.

✅ STRONG HIRE — SQE / Process QE track

💪 Top Skills

Six Sigma ✓ DOE ✓ FMEA ✓ 8D ✓ Why-Why ✓ RCA ✓ SPC ✓ DMAIC ✓ AI/AVI ✓ PLC ✓ Python C++ FPGA/Verilog SolidWorks SQL Power BI

❓ Top 3 Killer Questions

8D causation proof — D5 verification

▼

Question

"Walk me through your 8D for the GaN/7.5 mil thin wafer dicing qualification. What was the D5 root cause and how did you confirm it wasn't correlation but causation?"

What I'm testing

Did he actually run 8D (not just participated)? D5 = root cause verification (the make-or-break step). Toyota suppliers must prove causation before claiming a fix works.

✅ GREENNames the specific failure mode (e.g. chipping at UV cure edge), explains DOE to prove causation (e.g. controlled wafer lot split, single-variable test), tells what would have happened if wrong.

🚩 RED"We tried several things until yield came back" — no systematic verification, no single-variable control.

Score — /3

AVI vs process — who is missing defects?

▼

Question

"Your AVI detects 10µm particles. A supplier claims their parts pass your AVI but you still get customer complaints about field defects. How do you prove whether the AVI is missing defects vs the defects happen downstream of inspection?"

What I'm testing

The hardest QC problem: inspector vs process distinction. Statistical thinking (false negative rate, sampling, MSA). Will he challenge his own system or blame supplier first?

✅ GREENRuns MSA (Gauge R&R on AVI), compares defect distribution vs historical pattern, investigates process steps between AVI and customer, uses SPC to detect drift.

🚩 RED"We'd blame the supplier" — no critical thinking about own process or measurement system.

Score — /3

SQE diplomacy — Six Sigma vs Kaizen

▼

Question

"A senior Toyota supplier engineer tells you 'We don't need Six Sigma, our kaizen works fine.' How do you respond in your first 30 days with them?"

What I'm testing

Toyota mindset: does he know Six Sigma + kaizen are complementary, not competing? SQE relationship skills — can he influence without alienating? Will he fight or listen first?

✅ GREENAsks "Show me your kaizen results first" → finds their actual pain → introduces DMAIC where kaizen can't reach (multi-variable, statistical). Toyota culture = respect what works, fix what doesn't.

🚩 REDDefends Six Sigma as "better" or dismisses kaizen. Either shows he doesn't understand Toyota culture or can't influence a senior supplier.

Score — /3

Muhamad Nor Adlan

📍 Shah Alam🎓 UTP Mech🇲🇾 Malaysian

#2 PICK

📋 Background

CGPA

3.39

University

UTP (Mech)

Current

Mark Jaya Eng.

Role

Project Engineer

🎯 Why #2

ASNT NDT Level 2 (rare for fresh grad) + Reliability engineering major (Weibull++, BlockSim) — strong for supplier incoming inspection and equipment reliability audits. Weak on Toyota core tools (only Ishikawa/4M from 8-month internship) and currently in construction project role, not production QC.

⚠️ BORDERLINE — Incoming Inspection / NDT track

💪 Top Skills

ASNT NDT Lvl 2 ✓ OSHC ✓ Ishikawa ✓ 4M ✓ Weibull++ ✓ BlockSim ✓ AutoCAD ✓ Catia ✓ Python (basic) C++ (basic) PADI Diver

❓ Top 3 Killer Questions

Real Ishikawa depth — branch that was WRONG

▼

Question

"Your CV lists Ishikawa and 4M from an 8-month internship. Walk me through a real defect you investigated. What was the fishbone branch that turned out to be WRONG, and how did you catch it?"

What I'm testing

Real depth vs interview-talk. Does he know initial Ishikawa branches are often wrong hypotheses? Toyota spirit: "Ask 5 why" — does he know his first answer was probably wrong?

✅ GREENStarted with 4M, ran Pareto, eliminated 3 branches via data, tested 4th, found root cause was actually a 4M interaction (e.g. Material X behaves differently under Machine's Y temperature drift).

🚩 RED"We followed the 4M and found it was Machine" — too clean, no iteration, no mention of wrong branches.

Score — /3

NDT Level 2 acceptance vs rejection judgment

▼

Question

"ASNT NDT Level 2 cert — pick ONE method (UT/MT/PT/RT) you certified in. Describe a defect you'd ACCEPT on supplier's incoming material at Level 2 criteria, and one you'd REJECT. Why?"

What I'm testing

Real ASNT Level 2 understanding vs "passed the test only". Acceptance vs rejection threshold thinking. Cost-quality trade-off awareness.

✅ GREENNames method (e.g. MT for surface cracks), describes real indication type (linear vs rounded, length, location), references acceptance code (ASME V / ASTM E1444), shows false call vs real defect distinction.

🚩 RED"Reject anything with indication" — textbook, not real Level 2 judgment, no acceptance code awareness.

Score — /3

Weibull β-parameter — supplier decision

▼

Question

"You majored in Asset Integrity & Reliability. How would Weibull++ change your supplier decision on a critical CNC machine — vs just looking at MTBF? Why does shape parameter β matter more than average life?"

What I'm testing

Reliability depth (his stated major). Toyota supplier needs machines that don't surprise — early-life failures vs wear-out. Statistical maturity: Weibull β = 1 (random, PM doesn't help), β > 1 (wear-out, PM helps), β < 1 (infant mortality = supplier QC issue).

✅ GREENExplains shape parameter β interpretation across regimes, connects to supplier selection (β<1 = bad process control, reject), connects to PM strategy at customer site.

🚩 RED"MTBF is fine, Weibull is too complex" — dismisses his own major, no statistical maturity, would miss infant mortality defects from bad suppliers.

Score — /3