071121 Case-study Giles Tabandite Tuerker Wotke

Logistics Management

Case study

Giles Laboratories

Prof. Möller WS 07/08

Maurice Tabandite Matrikelnummer: 298 478

Burak Türker Matrikelnummer: 298 487

Philipp Wotke Matrikelnummer: 292 414

2

Table of contents

1. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................3 1.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESENT SITUATION ................................................................3 1.2. CHALLENGES AND FUTURE PLAN ..............................................................................3

2. . FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF TWO POSSIBLE SCENARIOS.............................5 2.1. SCENARIO ONE: MAINTAIN COLUMBUS PUBLIC WAREHOUSE .......................................5 2.2. SCENARIO TWO: PHASE-OUT PLAN ...........................................................................6 2.3. COMPARISON OF THE FINANCIAL IMPACTS .................................................................7

3. EFFECTS OF PARAMETRICAL VARIATION.............................................................7 3.1. FREIGHT RATES ......................................................................................................7 3.2. WAREHOUSING RATES.............................................................................................8 3.3. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL .........................................................................................9

4. FAVORITE SCENARIOS REFERRING TO TRANSPORTATION AND WAREHOUSING MANAGEMENT...................................................................................10

4.1. TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ...........................................................................10 4.2. WAREHOUSE MANAGEMENT ..................................................................................10 4.3. CONCLUSION ACCORDING TO THE DIFFERENT OBJECTIVES .......................................10

5. CUSTOMER SERVICE CONSIDERATIONS.............................................................11 5.1. CUSTOMER SERVICE LEVEL - OBJECTIVE OF AN INTEGRATED LOGISTICS SYSTEM ........11 5.2. INFLUENCE OF CUSTOMER SERVICE LEVEL TO THE FUTURE PLAN...............................12 5.3. DEVELOPMENT OF AN ALTERNATIVE DISTRIBUTION PLAN...........................................12

6. CARRIER PLAN ANALYSIS - INFORMATION PROCESSING................................13 6.1. CURRENT CARRIER PLAN - INFORMATION PROCESSING.............................................13 6.2. FUTURE CARRIER PLAN – INFORMATION PROCESSING ..............................................14

7. FURTHER ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT..................................................................15 8. CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................................................15 9. LIST OF FIGURES.....................................................................................................16 10. LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................16 11. ATTACHMENT................................................................................................................................................... 16

3

1. Introduction

1.1. Description of the present situation

Giles Laboratory is a daughter-company of the worldwide operating Thunder

Pharmaceutical Group. The core business of Giles Laboratory is to produce and sale

nutrient and dietary food. Giles-plants has four production facilities, the biggest one situated

in Indianapolis. Giles main market is the USA and enjoys 40 % of the market. Customers

are consumer outlets (90 % revenue) and to a certain extent medical practitioners and

hospitals (10 % revenue).

Figure 1 shows the organizational structure of Giles. Distribution, controlling and

manufacturing department are at the same organizational level. The manager of the

distribution is responsible for all logistics functions, except plant shipping and receiving.

1.2. Challenges and future plan

Giles runs 41 warehouses, four plant warehouses and 37 field warehouses. The plant

warehouses supply the field warehouses and customers located near the plants. Thurber

Pharmaceuticals wants Giles to reduce the number of the field warehouses. Furthermore

the company needs more direct transport relations between warehouses and its

Vice President

Director of DistributionComptroller Manufacturing

Manager

DistributionManager

OperationsPlanningManager

PurchasingManager

ProductionPlanningManager

PlantManager 1- 4

Plantshipping

Plant receiving

Vice President

Director of DistributionComptroller Manufacturing

Manager

DistributionManager

OperationsPlanningManager

PurchasingManager

ProductionPlanningManager

PlantManager 1- 4

Plantshipping

Plant receiving

Figure 1: Giles organization structure

4

customers. Analyzing the warehousing situation of the strongest competitor, it became

evident that the market-coverage – warehouse proportion had to be improved.

In 1996 the distribution manager developed a phase out plan. The plan contained phasing

out Columbus warehouse and serving Columbus customers by the plant warehouses in

Michigan and Indianapolis. The current distribution plan foresees that the plant

warehouses in Michigan and Indianapolis deliver Columbus directly (Fig. 2). Phasing-out

Columbus means that Indianapolis and Michigan plant warehouse have to take over the

field warehouse’s function (Fig. 3).

Indianapolisplant / warehouse

Michiganplant / warehouse

Columbuswarehouse

Columbus Customers

Columbus Customers

Columbus Customers

Customers < 40 miles radius

Wholesaler Columbus Customers

Customers > 40 miles radius



Columbuswarehouse

Columbus Customers

Columbus Customers

Columbus Customers

Customers < 40 miles radius

Wholesaler Columbus Customers

Customers > 40 miles radius

Figure 2: Current distribution plan


Columbus Customers


Columbus Customers

Columbus Customers


Columbus Customers


Columbus Customers

Columbus Customers

Figure 3: Phase-out plan

5

2. . Financial implications of two possible scenarios

2.1. Scenario one: Maintain Columbus public warehouse One possibility of managing the

field-warehouse-issue around

Columbus is to renegotiate its

contract (cp. Tab. 1).

The transportation-costs for 5000

cases that are shipped monthly

from Michigan to Columbus at a

freight-rate of $0,70/ctw add to

$10.500 per year. $18.000 are

needed to ship 120.000 cases

per year (=10.000 cases per

month) from Indianapolis to

Columbus based on a freight-rate

of $0,60/ctw - in total $28.500 per year.

The handling-costs are 1.5% of the manufactured cost of average inventory. That means

handling costs of $8.100 for the yearly transferred 60.000 cases from the Michigan and

$16.200 for the rest of 120.000 cases shipped from Indianapolis to Columbus. The costs

for transit storage that are fixed on a throughput-rate of $0,25 per case have to be added.

These transit storage costs mount up to $45.000 per year. Therefore, the total handling-

costs add up to $69.300 per year.

These costs plus the inventory carrying costs and the variable costs are defined as the

total costs. The inventory carrying costs are based on a percentage of the manufacturing

costs of shipped cases. An analysis figured out the percentage of inventory value that is

the basis for the calculation of the ICC. The ICC can be calculated by multiplying the

average of the yearly amount of transported cases by the manufacturing costs per case

and the given percentage of inventory value (=14,07%). This results in an inventory

carrying cost of about $227.934.

Variable costs per cases are stated as $1,66 per case. For the total number of 180.000

shipped cases the variable costs sum up to $298.800 per year.

The Addition of all given costs that include costs for transportation and handling, inventory

carrying costs and variable costs lead to the total costs that come up in case of

maintaining the public warehouse amounting to $624.534.

Transport-costs $28.500Michigan $10.500Indianapolis $18.000Handling-costs $69.300in Michigan $8.100in Indianapolis $16.200in Columbus $45.000Inventory cc $227.934Michigan $99.600Indianapolis $199.200Setfree-capital $0Inventory cc after s.c. $227.934one-time-reductionVariable costs $298.800

Total costs

Maintain Columbus

$624.534

Table 1: Total costs overview – New Columbus

6

2.2. Scenario two: Phase-out plan

The redirection of the cases that were formerly shipped from Michigan to Columbus has

no financial impact to the transportation costs. That means $10.500 per year for shipping

from Michigan to Indianapolis. The freight-rates from Indianapolis to Columbus can be

averaged to $1,37/ctw according to the given chart of percentaged total weight shipments

and the appendant costs. The change of freight-rate-costs and yearly shipment size

results in increasing transportation addressed from Indianapolis to the customers. These

costs would then mount to $61.425. The total transportation-costs in case of the phasing-

out plan would then be $71.925.

The handling-costs are the same as in scenario 1 (Michigan: $8.100; Indianapolis:

$16.200). In case of phasing out the Columbus warehouse the inventory carrying costs

would not change in the first year. These costs would also be to the amount of $227.934.

According to the assumption that this one-time-reduction only takes place in the first year

after closing the Columbus warehouse, there would also be a change of the total

inventory carrying costs taking place in the second year. The difference of $18.371 in

comparison to the first year is based on the reduction of the total variable costs that need

to be paid. This difference is calculated with the given percentage in the tune of 17,01%

and the average yearly inventory amounting to $135.000. For the second year the

inventory carrying costs would then be at an amount of $209.563. The variable costs are

calculated in the same way like in scenario 1 and are accounted for $298.800.

Transport-costs $71.925 $71.925Michigan $10.500 $10.500Indianapolis $61.425 $61.425Handling-costs $24.300 $24.300in Michigan $8.100 $8.100in Indianapolis $16.200 $16.200in Columbus $0 $0Inventory cc $227.934 $227.934Michigan $99.600 $99.600Indianapolis $199.200 $199.200Setfree-capital $0 -$18.371Inventory cc after s.c. $227.934 $209.563one-time-reduction -$135.000 $0Variable costs $298.800 $298.800

Total costs

Phase-out-plan (1st year) Phase-out-plan (2nd year)

$487.959 $604.588

Table 2: Total costs overview – Phase-out plan

7

Freight-rate-Variation (Variation of Phase-Out-Plan)

$580.000,00

$600.000,00

$620.000,00

$640.000,00

80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150% 160% 170% 180%

freight-rate-variation

tota

l cos

ts

Phase Out-Plan New Columbus (const.)

BEP at 153%

actual freight-rate

Figure 4: Financial impact of freight-rate-variation concerning the Phase-out-plan

The total cost for the phase-out-plan would add up to $487.959 for the first year and

$604.588 for the following years.

2.3. Comparison of the financial impacts

As it is shown, maintaining the Columbus warehouse results in lower transportation costs

but also in higher handling costs. In case of phasing out the Columbus warehouse the

cost-distribution concerning transportation and handling conduct the other way round.

There is no change in inventory carrying costs in the first year for both scenarios. But due

to the reduction of variable costs there can be a change of ICC discovered for the phase-

out-plan from the second year on.

Therefore, phasing out the Columbus public field warehouse is to recommend.

3. Effects of parametrical variation

3.1. Freight rates

Fig. 4 shows the devolution

of the total costs over the

freight-rate-variation with

parametrical phase-out-

plan-costs versus constant

New-Columbus-costs The

total costs of the phase-out-

plan would subtend

the calculated total costs-

straight-line of the

renegotiated Columbus

contract if freight-rates had

a rise of about 53% in

reference to the actual freight-rate of $1,37/ctw.

8

Freight-rate-Variation (Variation of New Columbus)

$580.000,00

$600.000,00

$620.000,00

$640.000,00

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110%

freight-rate-variation

tota

l cos

ts

Phase Out-Plan (const.) New Columbus

BEP at 30%

Figure 5: Financial impacts of freight rate variation concerning New Columbus

Warehousing-rate-Variation (Variation of New Columbus)

$600.000

$620.000

$640.000

$660.000

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150%

warehousing-rate-variation

tota

l cos

ts


BEP at 96,5%

actualwarehousing-rate

Figure 6: Financial impacts of warehousing rate variations

The variation of the freight-

rates concerning New

Columbus in comparison to

the total costs within the

phase-out-plan is shown in

Fig. 5. There is a BEP at a

reduction of about 70% down

to 30% of the actual combined

freight-rate of about

$0,63/ctw. This is an

unrealistic scenario due to the

heavy reduction that is

needed to reach the BEP.

3.2. Warehousing rates

The warehousing-rate

includes the throughput-rate

postulated in the New-

Columbus-scenario.

Therefore, the analysis of

this special variation factor

can only be done for one

future scenario. Fig. 6

shows the comparison of

the total costs with flexible

warehousing rate in New-

Columbus vs. the total cost

of the actual phase-out plan. If throughput-rates sank down more than 3.5% of the actual

rate of $0,25 in New- Columbus warehouse would be more rentable than its phase-out.

Because of the low needed-reduction of about 3.5% of the throughput-rate maintaining

the Columbus warehouse could be a very profitable option to the phase-out-plan.

9

Personnel-costs-Variation (Variation of Phase-Out-Plan)

$600.000

$620.000

$640.000

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150%

handling-rate-variation

tota

l cos

ts

Phase Out-Plan New Columbus (const.)

Figure 7: Financial impacts of personnel-variation concerning phase-out-plan

Personnel-cost-Variation (Variation of New Columbus)

$600.000

$620.000

$640.000

50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110% 120% 130% 140% 150%

handling-rate-variation

tota

l cos

ts


Figure 8: Financial impacts of personnel-variation concerning New Columbus

BEP at 90%

actual handling-rate

3.3. Additional personnel A comparison of the two

possible decisions has to be

done according to the change

of personnel-costs.

Personnel-costs are included

in the handling-costs as a

percentage of manufacturing

costs. The initial situation for

this percentage is 1.5%. Fig 7

shows the course of the total

cost depending to the

personnel cost when phasing-

out Columbus. The phase-out-plan is rentable until the handling-rates increase to 110% of

the present warehousing-rate. From that point on the New Columbus contract would be

more profitable.

At a changed point of view,

that means a flexible

handling-rate according to

maintaining the Columbus

warehouse, handling-rates

have to decrease by 10% that

a renegotiation would be

rentable (cp. Fig. 8). Referring

to this analysis the phase-out

plan can be realized.

BEP at 110%

actual handling-rate

10

4. Favorite scenarios referring to transportation and warehousing management

4.1. Transportation Management

The first plan – phasing-out Columbus - includes higher transportation costs but fewer

inventory costs. The second plan – renegotiating the contract with Columbus - means

more inventory costs but lower costs for transportation.

On the one hand there are lower transportation costs of $ 50.925 for New Columbus, due

to the shorter distance between the Giles-warehouses and its customers. Maintaining

Columbus contract means better access of Giles to their customers. On the other hand

the phase-out plan implies more full shipments for the whole distribution-chain. There will

be more direct transportation relations between the plant, warehouses and customers.

The transportation management gets a better overview about the whole logistic-chain and

the warehouse stock. Besides that a reduction of the complexity in tour planning for the

Giles HQ, due to direct relations and fewer inventory turn over in different warehouses is

also possible.

4.2. Warehouse Management

On the hand inventory management has to maintain a certain service level to ensure a

fast reaction to the customer’s demands. On the other hand inventory management has to

offer its services at the lowest possible costs. In consequence inventory management has

to find a balance service level and inventory costs. Keeping Columbus warehouse would

enable inventory management to act more flexible to the current demand situation.

Furthermore the warehouse offers a safety function to guarantee the supply of Gile’s

customers.

The phase-out plan would result in a lower stock of about $ 135.000 and a one time

saving of $ 108.000. Moreover the reduction of stock in public warehouses would result in

a better overview for the inventory management about the current stock level.

4.3. Conclusion according to the different objectives

Due to the full shipments and multitude of direct relations between Indianapolis and

Columbus customers the phase-out plan seems to be the better way to handle the costs

and customer-service level for the transportation management. Warehouse management

however would renew the Columbus-contract. The most important factor for the

11

management are that the warehouse is close to the customers and that this decision can

help to maintain and to extend the service-level for the Columbus customers.

5. Customer service considerations

5.1. Customer service level - objective of an integrated logistics system

In Fig. a the logistics and the marketing divisions are shown and in what way they are

interlinked. While marketing consists of the “four P’s” –Product, Price, Place and

Promotion - logistics causes costs to fulfill the ‘place-requirements’ for the marketing-

logistics intersection. This system of functions must be seen as an integrated system,

which single objective is to achieve a targeted service level. Each function is interlinked

among each other. Thus it must be the objective to align this integrated logistics-system

towards the targeted customer service level.

Fig. b shows an approach to define the customer service level. The x-axis shows an

increasing customer service, while on the y-axis increasing logistics cost and revenues

can be seen. The function that represents the revenues runs concave. A high customer

service level leads to a situation of market saturation. Whereas the logistics-costs function

runs convex. At a certain point before the maximum service level the logistics costs

exceed the revenues. Due to that effect a service level has to be found, where the

Product

PromotionPrice

Place(Customer

Service Level)

InventoryCC

Lot quantitycosts

Transp.costs

Ware-housing

costs

Order Processingand information

costs

Logi

stic

s

Mar

ketin

g

Integrated System

Objective

Function

i. A. Stock / Lambert: 2003: 97

Fig. a

Incremental customer service

Incr

emen

talc

osts

orin

crem

enta

lrev

enue

Revenue

LogisticsCosts

Maximumincremental

profit

OptimumServiceLevel

Fig. b


Product

PromotionPrice

Place(Customer

Service Level)

InventoryCC

Lot quantitycosts

Transp.costs

Ware-housing

costs


costs

Logi

stic

s

Mar

ketin

g

Integrated System

Objective

Function


Fig. a


Incr

emen

talc

osts

orin

crem

enta

lrev

enue

Revenue

LogisticsCosts

Maximumincremental

profit

OptimumServiceLevel

Fig. bProduct

PromotionPrice

Place(Customer

Service Level)

InventoryCC

Lot quantitycosts

Transp.costs

Ware-housing

costs


costs

Logi

stic

s

Mar

ketin

g

Integrated System

Objective

Function


Fig. a


Incr

emen

talc

osts

orin

crem

enta

lrev

enue

Revenue

LogisticsCosts

Maximumincremental

profit

OptimumServiceLevel

Fig. b


Figure 9: Customer Service Level as the objective function of a logistics system

12

CustomersCommercialtraveler

Plant Warehouses 1 - 4

CT

Michiganplant warehouse

CT

Indianapolisplant warehouse

Giles Central warehousesof customers

Giles

Complete Indianapolis Area

CustomersCommercialtraveler

Plant Warehouses 1 - 4

CT

Michiganplant warehouse

CT

Indianapolisplant warehouse

Giles Central warehousesof customers

Giles

Complete Indianapolis Area

Figure 10: Alternative distribution plan

difference between logistics costs and revenues in relation to the service level reaches its

maximum. That level has to be the objective function of the logistics system.

5.2. Influence of customer service level to the future plan

A change in customer service level can influence the sales volume. Consequently this can

influence the future plans. Tab. 3 shows the comparison of the marginal contributions per

case and the break even point of both solutions. If Giles keeps Columbus warehouse, it

has to produce 92.172 cases. When closing Columbus Giles can reach the BEP at

92.057. That means even without taking the one-time reduction of inventory of $ 108.000

into account the phase-out plan contributes positive to the result of Giles.

5.3. Development of an alternative distribution plan

The main objective of the logistics system within Giles is to achieve the requested service

level (cq. Chapter 5.1). Thus the alternative distribution plan concentrated on achieving

- Total variable costs with ICC-Reduction $604.588,20- ICC-Reduction $18.370,80Total variable costs p. a. $624.534,00 $622.959,00Variable costs per case $3,47 $3,46

- Variable costs $3,47 $3,46- Variable costs of manufacturing $14,40 $14,40Variable costs per case ./. $17,87 ./. $17,86Revenue per case $24,90 $24,90Marginal contribution per case $7,03 $7,04

20 % fixedcharges $648.000,00 $648.000,00Marginal contribution per case ÷ $7,03 ÷ $7,04BEP 92172 92057

New Columbus Phase-out Plan

Table 3: Marginal contribution and BEP of New Columbus and Phase-out Plan

13

this aim at the lowest possible costs for the whole logistics system. The existing structure

(cp. fig. 2) is not optimized for Giles most important clients.

Usually these clients are supplied by their own distribution centers. Consequently Giles

has to withdraw from supplying all their customers directly (cp. Fig. 10). The new concept

is to provide the central warehouses of the main customers directly. Smaller customers

within the Indianapolis area can be supplied by a commercial traveler who is contracted

by Giles. Thereby the Giles sales representatives can concentrate on purchasing

departments of the important customers.

6. Carrier plan analysis - Information processing

6.1. Current carrier plan - Information processing

This chapter deals with the aspects of the information controlling the physical distribution

system. In Fig. 11 shows the current situation of information processing and planning of

the carrier plan.

At the moment field warehouses deal with customer orders and organize LTL shipments.

TL-orders are given to the headquarters (HQ). When anything extraordinary happens

supervisors initiate corrective actions by informing the HQ. The HQ in turn distributes TL-

orders to the plant warehouses and makes the shipping schedules. Stocking

requirements for field warehouses – thereby also the shipping schedules – are based on

the average usage level. This implies that all plans are made regarding the past. The

current arrangement is not the optimal solution due to the decentralized order

Figure 11: Current carrier plan

F ie ld W a re h o u s e

C u s to m e r

H e a d q u a r te r

1 5 C a s e - T L

P la n t W a re h o u s e

TL

TL

O rd e rs

T L -O rd e rs

S h ip p in gs c h e d u le s

T L -O rd e rs

S to c k in gR e q u ire m e n ts F W

Ø u s a g e le v e l

In it ia t io n o fc o r re c t iv e a c t io n s

14

management and the planning of stocking requirements. Optimizations can lead to

decreased stock levels and a quicker order to delivery time.

6.2. Future carrier plan – Information processing

An organization has to assure that orders – one of the most important information for a

company – is dealt with according to its importance, by implementing business processes.

Figure X shows the future plan of information flows concerning orders and the planning of

stocking requirements.

The future plan suggests that orders should be placed at the HQ. These orders in turn are

the basis of stocking requirements calculations and shipping schedules and initiate LTL

shipments from the filed warehouses. Then concluded deliveries are send from the field

warehouses to the HQ, to initiate corrective actions. In so doing the planning of the carrier

plan is forward-oriented, processes can be harmonized and the order to delivery time can

be reduced.

Figure 12: Future plan

Field Warehouse Customer

PlantWarehouse

TL

TL

Headquarters

Deliveries(Data transm.)

Orders

StockingRequirements

by orders

LTL

Shippingschedules

Orders< TL

15

7. Further room for improvement

There are some different points, which should be changed at Giles. The first is, to

establish a new purchasing department. Right now the purchasing department belongs to

the office of distribution, although there does not exist an interlink between these

functions regarding the work-content. Purchasing has to be more strategic oriented and

should work closer with its most important intern customers, especially the manufacturing

department. Production planning should know the conditions of production, especially

trough run times, machine informations and worker qualifications, the output quantity and

quality and the requirements of the plants. Therefore production planning should be done

at the department of manufacturing. Another point to mention is the missing close

relationship of Giles with its customers. This relationship can be realized by an installation

of EDI-Technology and automated reports of stock level (cp. Chapter 6). The

implementation of these proposals can lead to more inventory-deposit and “in-time” data

transfer between transportation units, field and plant warehouses and HQ. The last point

to mention is the necessity to increase the integration of sister companies concerning

shared warehouses.

8. Conclusions

Overall the phase-out plan is recommendable due to its cost advantages and the general

strategical proceeding of Thurber regarding the numbers of warehouses. The analysis of

parametrical variations concerning freight rates and personnel figured out that even

drastic changes would not excuse an alteration of closing down Columbus warehouse. A

slight reduction of the throughput rate would make maintaining Columbus more attractive,

without taking the one time reduction into account. Further room for improvement is given

through the possibility of integrating customers via EDI and better information processing.

Regarding the mother companies strategy to reduce warehouses, the new distribution

plan and the cost-analysis it is highly recommendable to phase-out Columbus warehouse.

16

9. List of figures

Figure 1: Giles organization structure……………………………….…………………………3

Figure 2: Current distribution plan…………………………………….………………………..4

Figure 3: Phase-out-plan……………………………………………….……………………….4

Figure 4: Financial impact of freight-rate-variation concerning the Phase-out-plan………7

Figure 5: Financial impacts of freight rate variation concerning New Columbus…...…….8

Figure 6: Financial impacts of warehousing rate variations…………………………………8

Figure 7: Financial impacts of personnel-variation concerning phase-out-plan…………..9

Figure 8: Financial impacts of personnel-variation concerning New Columbus…………..9

Figure 9: Customer Service Level as the objective function of a logistics system………11

Figure 10: Alternative distribution plan……………………………………………………….12

Figure 11: Current carrier plan………………………………………………………………...13

Figure 12: Future plan………………………………………………………………………….14

10. List of tables

Table 1: Total costs overview – New Columbus………………………………….…………..5

Table 2: Total costs overview – Phase-out plan…………………………………….………..6

Table 3: Marginal contribution and BEP of New Columbus and Phase-out Plan….…….12

11. Attachment

A: Excel calculating-sheet (digital)

B: Word Document – Giles Laboratories

C: Pdf-File – Giles Laboratories

D: Powerpoint presentation – Giles Laboratorie

071121 Case-study Giles Tabandite Tuerker Wotke

Documents