Document DGxk2GoB5RNQv3wEmR0yGGzZ5

PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT o/< 4U*MM $ :5tsi''/ a_ Cjy a/oyo^ Us i fk fr. <z<<0'\n<^ &*% d f-lsVtCtf l * S <3~rc/ fu. >1 . fu of3 /wy Mtvno Stse>Jt*3 /,! 5 $t$r:a / /U/**ih--S' S<-"nsritTr; ~Z- ,v?^ K/'A' A BIRD 011380 BIRD INCORPORATED Memo To: J. W. Jackson - BBH Subject: FK COMPLAINT REPORT SYSTEM From: C. Bickum - BBH Date: September 27, 1984 I looked over Mr. McAfee's information. The report which he 3ays i3 difficult to produce would require some manipulation of data. I think that it would be similar to what we found on the Competitive Weight Survey Report in which we were trying to sort the records by the average weight per square, a number that wasn't actually stored anywhere. This required re-formatting into a new "Summarized Domain" which contained the averages and creating the report from that data. It's not difficult but does require a lot of time and planning. Also, the record definition, which he has, includes product code and color designations. So it should be fairly simple to sort by these items. A much improved system could be attained if there was a way to trace the complaint samples back to production data (i.e. Lot Numbers). This would vastly expand the amount of information available about the samples. Maybe something like warranty registration cards would be needed. In summary, Mr. McAfee's complaint file is very useful and should be able to provide the type of reports that are desired. Also, with 3ome expansion, it could be used to provide a method of trying to determine the major factors in poor shingle performance. CB/cm I I BIRD 011381 from the desk of... Bircf Incorporated f 4L r w we s$JL- rrz. Vduifa % Trl FKS02* In Reply To. Subject . Date. MEMORANDUM CHARLESTON, S.C, FromTo^Uk ^JuJuL 6'tA*-' (La Ubt djujcu*Kjlm. Cj7 % fiji jJCpM-^O (Ld VlhLccJx^ UJA-4 ftSJUjOO^t-Q- UiA. . The stu. IMUA*~Q bT * C'fijL UHM-K )fLA^>Ul^ajL/vlg tojuf JU^oLhul JC 'tLu^Lr-'J wu^LL k%_ PmXmA^L. lue^h tCbAout^vJL - tuf Lti-jJ- ojh ~t^L. oJUc ' A. -LsA^HAjf' H 1U. ^ud JL/JL urbecA^ Uil /f~^ tii-La-st wt. Lo^A.L~ L&Ia) sU C^t*- td~*L -itl r Ylu^f ku) u/LJ( l^ ^ 'fLd-tx-o k_ umJH*- <LfLf-3,000 -2Yad ht &So +- kt/TLj tJutA^. , f K J BIRD 011383 BIRD INCORS PORATED Memo To: D. R. Suva - BR Subject: COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATIONS From: J. W. Jackson - BBH Date: July 25, 1984 Re your memos dated 7/13/84 and 7/18/84. I believe that we can get a better handle on the cost of quality by developing a different monthly reporting format. I believe that thi3 has to be done by computer using the Basis system with a file system up in Datatrieve. A timely summary of complaint categories, such as you outlined, could be obtained from the computer for each division. Datatrieve has a report generation function that can be clearly defined so that the complaints would be sorted into the proper categories with costs and percentages broken out. I feel that we have not been able to make proper use of the monthly complaint summaries, coming in from each division simply because it is basically raw data which needs to be analyzed. In its present format it mean taking a considerable amount of time in order to identify meaningful trends. The computer can handle massive amounts of data, such as we have in the present complaint reports, and analyze it very rapidly. I suggest that a task force be set up to develop a com puterized system that would provide monthly reports from the data to Management, the Product Development Lab and Quality Control. The first step would be to define exactly what information each would want in the in dividual reports to determine-if additional data would be required to prepare the monthly reports. JWJ/cm cc: F. W. Wood - BBP Tech File -4* *$**''*- BIRD 011384 -p Memolb: Si>ject: Bird Incorporated W.C. Kinsey/F.W. Wood/R.C. Maloof C.B. Fletcher/J.W. Jackson R.J. Carlson COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATIONS From: Date: Suva July 18, 1984 I recently sent you some information about the classification of complaints for Shreveport. Attached is a similar analysis for the Portland plant. . ) DRS:JS BIRD 011385 ')_______ MemoTo: Subject: Bird Incorporated W.C. Kinsey/F.W. Wood/R.C. Maloof/From C.B. Fletcher/J.W. Jackson/ R.J. Carlson _Date: COMPLAINT CLASSIFICATIONS D, R. Suva July 13, 1984 In reviewing Shreveport's most recent complaint summary, I was struck with the fact that almost $150,000 have been paid out in horizontal cracking complaints during the first five months and that the second highest complaint category was shading from embedment variations. I did some quick calculations and attempted to segregate complaints by organic vs. fiber glass; process quality problems vs. shingle design problems, etc. Listed below are the monetary values for various arbitrary classifications along with the applicable percentages. I would appreciate a critique of my analysis by any of you, assuming- this categorization of quality is correct. What,does this ') tell us about the potential to reduce costs by our commitment to quality? Can we get a better handle on the cost' of quality by developing a different monthly reporting format? COMPLAINT CATEGORY Current Process Quality Problems Old Process Quality Problems Organic Design Problems Fiber Glass Design Problems Premature failure--Organic Other TOTAL $ $103,068 4,227 221,148 20,517 45,424 14,819 $409,203 Z 25% 1% 54% 5% 11% 4% 100% DRS:JS BIRD 011387 yrp SUMMARY OF -fc94HF CLOSED COMPLAINTS SORTED IN DESCENDING AMOUNT ORDER DESCRIPTION HORIZONTAL cracking CURLING BLISTERS STICKING IN BUNDLES WORN CUT OFF ELEND FISHMOUTHING SHADING - EMBEDDING % SHADING - GRANULE COLOR ) VERTICAL CRACKING SHEDDINCSHADING SHADING - GRANULE GRADING SUB-TOTAL QTY 406 148 71 80 75 63 7 20 20 21 23 to 6 950 ALL OTHER 215 TOTAL 1,165 % TO TOTAL QTY 34,8 12.7 6.1 6.9 6.4 5.4 0.6 1.7 1.7 1.8 2.0 0.9 0.5 81.5 J^r5~ 100.0 AMOUNT 361,884 128,067 103,865 83,815 59,329 58,406 30,049 21,602 19,879 17,062 16,037 11,172 10,063 921,190 69,700 990,890 ^. 77uA/ Urt-oJLd be ^ % TO TOTAL AMOUNT 36.5 12.9 10.5 8.5 6.0 5.9 3.0 2.2 2.0 1.7 1.6 l.l 1.0 92.9 7.1 100.0 BIRD 011388