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
Indianapolisplant / warehouse
Michiganplant / warehouse
Columbuswarehouse
Columbus Customers
Columbus Customers
Columbus Customers
Customers < 40 miles radius
Wholesaler Columbus Customers
Customers > 40 miles radius
Figure 2: Current distribution plan
Indianapolisplant / warehouse
Columbus Customers
Michiganplant / warehouse
Columbus Customers
Columbus Customers
Indianapolisplant / warehouse
Columbus Customers
Michiganplant / warehouse
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
Phase Out-Plan (const.) New Columbus
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
Phase Out-Plan (const.) New Columbus
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
i. A. Stock / Lambert: 2003: 105
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. bProduct
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
i. A. Stock / Lambert: 2003: 105
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