Synopsis
Design for support and
support the design:
integrated logistic
support – the business
case
Iain Galloway
The author
Iain Galloway is Principal Consultant of Logistic Support
International, based in Yeovil, Somerset, UK.
Abstract
The cost of supporting multi-million-pound military
systems and equipment during the “in-service” phase is
now often well in excess of two-thirds of the total cost of
ownership. The management approach used to predict,
budget, validate and control overall support costs is
known as integrated logistic support (ILS). Explains the
military approach to “designing for support”, how this is
integrated into the operational requirement and the
benefits which accrue. This leads to an analytical process
known as logistic support analysis (LSA), which is integrat-
ed into a dynamic “supportability database” known as the
logistic support analysis records (LSAR). This becomes the
definitive repository for information on all support activi-
ties, including provisioning and technical documentation,
and continues “live” in the in-service phase “supporting
the design”. Under a US Department of Defense initiative,
using electronic data interchange (EDI), known as CALS –
which was computer-aided acquisition and logistic
support, and has now been redefined as “continuous
acquisition and life-cycle support” – the UK Ministry of
Defence is currently fielding an Interim Defence Standard
00-60, which it is promoting as a contender for a NATO
and ISO Standard on ILS. The final edition will be a stan-
dard for contracting for ILS, provisioning, technical docu-
mentation and CALS using EDI.
Logistics Information Management
Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · pp. 24–31
© MCB University Press · ISSN 0957-6053
24
Since glasnost the militarily advanced nations of
the western world are all, without exception, on
reduced and reducing budgets, partly caused
by world recession and partly by lack of real
need for their services. This has caused them to
take a long, hard look at controlling costs, not
just of procurement but of support – in other
words, cost of ownership. The Americans have
led in this management approach because they
have led the world in advanced systems
(advanced implying complex, less reliable,
requiring more maintenance, and therefore
more costly systems). On a fixed or diminishing
budget the balance between cost of expenditure
on performance and support is critical. There
are parallels in this to civil systems, where the
customer may wish to know (or insist on know-
ing) cost of support or ownership; or the con-
tractor may wish to offer a system and its sup-
port as a selling point or expansion of business
area. The British military is applying this man-
agement approach, known as integrated logistic
support or (ILS) to Eurofighter and the Com-
mon New Generation Frigate, both interna-
tional projects, as well as many others, such as
the Attack Helicopter and the Challenger II
Tank. This management approach is equally
applicable to civilian systems providing a com-
prehensive, disciplined and structured method
of managing support.
The overall aim of any new material system
is to provide a needed capability at an afford-
able cost. By “affordable” it is implied that
this is best value for money in respect of both
performance and life-cycle costs. It is also
implied that the project should be procured
within budget, but once into service that cost
becomes very difficult to control. As a rule of
thumb, two-thirds of the total cost of owner-
ship of a military system is spent during this
phase, which averages 25 years. The National
Audit Office stated that £1 billion was spent
on unscheduled maintenance and repair
during the 1989-1990 financial year. Addi-
tionally, the world is now entering what is
viewed as a prolonged period of peace without
a competitive arms race, the corollary being
that systems and equipment will remain in
service even longer. All indications are that
front-end decisions on design deeply affect
the cost of in-service support. In order to curb
the cost of support to that which provides
optimum value for money, it is prudent to
consider how to “design for support” at the
 Design for support and support the design
Iain Galloway
earliest possible opportunity, and then how
best to manage that support – “support the
design”!
Much has been written and said regarding
testing of both technology and development
models in attempts to ensure that the required
performance and reliability are obtained.
There is also great interest in life-cycle costing
(LCC), and LCC models proliferate. Testing
and modelling are major factors in controlling
development budgets, and information thus
obtained is relevant to support as well as
acquisition costs, but they do not, in them-
selves, address the management of total sup-
port.
Integrated logistic support (ILS) is a com-
prehensive and structured approach to the
management of total support. ILS is a disci-
plined approach to designing for supportabili-
ty, by collecting, collating, storing, analysing
and recording the necessary information and
managing this information and effort to opti-
mize the resources required. A good ILS
programme is also able to indicate feasible
trade-offs in supportability (and sustainabili-
ty) which have credible values, and is thus of
great value in estimating risk with respect to
courses open for support. This is also the way
to more accurate life-cycle costing. Thus ILS
techniques have great impact on project
management during design, and product
management in service.
Like many management concepts, ILS
began in the USA around 1970 when the
Department of Defense (DoD) was attempt-
ing to control the cost of both acquisition and
support of ever more complex programmes.
Unfortunately, the practice of ILS attracted
more jargon than necessary, and this rendered
it almost unintelligible to a layman from
outside the US DoD procurement system.
Notwithstanding this, the concept of ILS is
sound and is being adapted to meet the
requirements and existing procurement and
support systems of the UK Ministry of
Defence. It is equally applicable to civilian
systems which have finite support
requirements.
The concept
Integrated logistic support follows the con-
cept of integrating the requirements for the
performance of a system with the optimiza-
tion of its through-life support costs. This
commences at the concept stage and contin-
25
Logistics Information Management
Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · 24–31
ues throughout the acquisition and support
phases by relating support to design by using
an analytical engineering approach. ILS is
defined by US DoD 5000.39 as: “A disci-
plined, unified and iterative approach to the
management and technical activities neces-
sary to:
• integrate support considerations into
system and equipment design;
• develop support requirements that are
related consistently to readiness objectives,
to design, and to each other;
• acquire the required support; and
• provide the required support during the
operational phase at minimum cost”.
This may be translated as: “The management
and technical processes, whereby full and
informed consideration is given to total sup-
port of a system, and its costs, so that these
may be optimized at all stages of a dynamic
programme”.
The aim, therefore, is to ensure that all
elements of support are justified, planned,
acquired, tested and provided in a timely and
cost-effective manner. It is more than a
“cradle-to-grave” concept; it operates from
“conception to organ utilization” – where
credit may accrue by sale, adaptation or rede-
ployment of the “remains”.
This may be done by “integrating” the
requirements for support along with those of
performance at the earliest stages of design
(concept), and monitoring both at each stage
of development. This will allow risk to be
identified, assessed, and latterly allowed for in
the design of both performance and support,
while balanced against cost and time-scale.
Initial approach
The first approach to ILS for any requirement
of a new system is to develop readiness and
supportability objectives and then decide to
what extent and depth an analysis of the factors
is necessary. Such an analysis, known as logistic
support analysis (LSA), will be time consuming
and therefore costly, so it will require an invest-
ment appraisal. Initial factors are:
• system mission requirements, e.g. operational
concept and environment, service support
concept, performance requirements,
threat, mission(s), measures of effective-
ness, manpower needs;
• deficiencies of current system, e.g. quantita-
tive and qualitative manpower require-
 Design for support and support the design
Iain Galloway
ments, reliability and maintainability
(R&M), performance (operation and
support costs), support equipment
requirements;
• technological opportunities, e.g. materials,
data processing, computer capabilities,
manufacturing technology, training devices
and simulation, BIT, BITE and automatic
test equipment (ATE);
• logistic constraints and limitations, e.g. sup-
port funding, existing support structure,
affordability, manpower, personnel and
training, standardization and
interoperability.
Readiness and supportability (R&S)
Readiness may be considered as a combina-
tion of capability and availability when
applied to systems. Readiness drivers are
those characteristics which have the greatest
effect on the readiness value of a system.
These may stem from the design of the hard-
ware or software, support items or services, or
from operational facets. Readiness is a for-
ward-looking attribute which represents the
ability of the system to deliver the output for
which it is designed (e.g. in varying environ-
ments of peace and war). The system readi-
ness objectives are the criteria used in assess-
ing the ability of a system to undertake, and
sustain for a specified period, a specified set of
missions at planned peace-time and war-time
utilization rates.
There is no universal measure of readiness
which can be applied to all systems; forms of
expression are dependent on the system, its
design, and the conditions of its use. For
example, for aircraft expressions could
include:
• mission capable rate;
• operational availability;
• sortie rate.
The first two measures may well be applied to
an armoured fighting vehicle, but when broken
down into clearly defined terms they will be
very different. The project manager must
choose the means of defining system readiness
which is quantifiable, measurable, precisely
defined by readiness criteria, related to the
projected utilization rates and conditions of
use, and compatible with the reporting system
of the organization concerned.
Supportability is the degree to which
system design characteristics and planned
26
Logistics Information Management
Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · 24–31
logistic resources, including manpower, meet
system utilization requirements. Early activi-
ties should:
• define supportability objectives which are
critically related to design and to one
another;
• adopt these supportability objectives as an
integral part of the system requirements
and the design.
Supportability objectives prescribe conditions
and constraints guiding development of sys-
tems design and logistic support. They are
related to the planned operational role and
utilization rates of the system, in various
scenarios, and to the overall support capabili-
ty available. The following are examples of
specific support objectives:
• mean time/distance between failures
(MTBF);
• mean active repair time (MART);
• maintenance manpower or manhour
constraints;
• personnel skill constraints;
• operation and support cost constraints;
• targets for system failures (expressed as a
percentage) repairable at each level of
maintenance;
• “mean down time” in an operational
environment;
• turn-around-time in an operational
environment;
• standardization and interoperability
requirements.
Elements and resources
Support elements, which are the qualitative
and quantitative subjects for analysis, can be
divided into eight support resources. These all
affect life-cycle cost and supply information to
the analysis processes, which are the means
whereby relevant intelligence is absorbed in a
structured and digestible form. (This infor-
mation is also of use to the project and prod-
uct managers.)
Logistic support resources
The following elements, consisting of labour,
material and facilities, which all have finite
costs, should be taken into consideration to
optimize life-cycle cost :
• Manpower. It is necessary to identify, justify
and make provision to acquire and train the
optimum number of personnel, from
within the parent organization and con-
 Design for support and support the design
Iain Galloway
tracted out, with the skills and grades need-
ed to operate and support the system
throughout its projected life.
• Supply support. This encompasses all man-
agement procedures and techniques used to
acquire, catalogue, receive, store, transfer,
issue and dispose of all secondary items,
including provisioning for initial support.
• Support equipment. This is defined as all
equipment required to support the opera-
tion of a system. It includes associated
multi-use items, ground handling and
maintenance equipment, tools, test and
ATE. It also includes the logistic support
for this equipment.
• Technical documentation. This includes all
recorded information, regardless of form or
character, of an instructive or technical
nature; for example manuals, drawings and
documentation to support both hardware
and computer software.
• Training and training support. This is the
processes, procedures, techniques, training
devices and equipment used to train
employees and contractors to operate and
support the system. It includes: individual
and group training; initial, formal and on-
the-job training; and the logistic support
necessary to sustain it.
• Computer resource support. This is the facili-
ties, hardware, software, manpower and
skills needed to operate and support
embedded computer systems.
• Facilities. These include the planning,
acquisition and management of permanent
or semi-permanent real-estate and property
assets required to support the system.
• Packing, handling, support and transportation.
This is the resources, processes, proce-
dures, design considerations and methods
of ensuring that the system and its support
items are preserved, packaged, handled and
transported correctly. It includes environ-
mental considerations, and preservation
requirements for long- and short-term
storage and worldwide transportation.
Analysis processes
The ensuing mass of data addresses three
main subjects:
(1) Maintenance planning – the process con-
ducted to evolve and establish mainte-
nance concepts and requirements for the
life time of the system, in peace and war.
27
Logistics Information Management
Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · 24–31
It is closely linked to performance objec-
tives, and therefore to prediction and
testing of reliability. The planning, effect-
ing, reporting and analysis of tests are of
paramount importance to ensure valida-
tion.
(2) Design interfaces – the relationship of
logistics-connected design parameters,
such as reliability and maintainability
(R&M) to quantifiable readiness objec-
tives and support resource requirements
must be examined and defined. This
should be carried out as early in the devel-
opment cycle as possible, e.g. design and
R&M engineers meeting regularly from
concept stage onwards to discuss MTBF
and MART.
(3) Standardization and interoperability – it is
necessary to scrutinize the system to
component level, together with its sup-
port and training equipment, to ensure
that standardization and interoperability
are balanced against minimum cost of
acquisition and ownership. These aspects
breed commonality, which in turn height-
ens availability and lowers cost.
Failure analysis is carried out by two process-
es known as failure mode effect and criticality
analysis (FMECA – US Mil Std 1629 A/B),
which identifies corrective maintenance; and
reliability-centred maintenance (RCM – US
Mil Std 1843/2173), which identifies preven-
tive maintenance. Both use a “feedback loop”
to design. The summation of these investiga-
tions is a logistic support analysis (LSA – US
Mil Std 1388-1A/2B) leading to a list of sup-
port resources which can be optimized for
cost by carrying out a level of repair analysis
(LORA – US Mil Std 1390). The feedback to
design of those items carrying high expendi-
ture allows change to be made economically.
The information can also be used for predic-
tion and trade-off modelling (see the ILS
process diagram in Figure 1).
Logistic support analysis
Logistic support analysis (LSA) incorporates
the analytical effort to influence the design of
a system and to define support requirements
and criteria. The internationally accepted
standard has been US Mil-Std 1388-1A,
which consists of five task sections, 15 main
tasks and 77 subtasks. It is mandatory to tailor
these tasks to the requirements of each
 Design for support and support the design Logistics Information Management
Iain Galloway Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · 24–31

Figure 1 Logistic support analysis process during • functions to satisfy;

equipment design • best support concept;
• best overall concept.
Staff target/ Maintenance (3) Mil-Std 1388-1A tasks which define the
requirement and concept
use study support required are conducted from PD
throughout full development and produc-
tion, and (ideally) in-service. They are
Design designed to provide data on the following:
• detailed support resource require-
Failure modes effects ments;
and criticality analysis • impact on logistic infrastructure;
• post-production support needs;
Reliability-centred • supportability assessment.
maintenance
Corrective
maintenance The logistic support analysis records (LSAR)
Preventive were defined originally in Mil-Std 1388-2A. It
maintenance
consisted of 15 “80-column” record cards.
These are designed as a standardized medium
Support resource
requirements for systematically recording, processing,
storing and reporting data to answer such
Level of repair questions as:
analysis • What needs to be done?
• Who does the work?
Maintenance • What parts, tools and TE are required?
plans
• How is the work done?
Key • When is the work done?
Feedback of features or support requirements • Where is the work done?
The LSAR as defined by Mil-Std 1388-2A
was intended for manipulation by computer
system. The standard is applicable to any software, and this proved relatively successful,
system which is subject to failure and there- the “deliverables” also being defined by the
fore maintenance and repair, military or civil. US DoD as “standard” reports. The “-2A”
It is an iterative process which is part sequen- standard was revised and updated to “-2B”,
tial, part concurrent, and is shown in the which involves the use of relational database
“feedback loop” diagram in Figure 2, which is management techniques in 1991. The data
summarized as follows: element definitions were also revised, expand-
(1) LSA consists of analysis and documenta- ed and “anglicized” to cover every aspect of
tion, conducted iteratively throughout support. The input of data is tailored to the
system or equipment procurement and specific needs of the system, and the output
service, by both customer (normally the information using -2B can be delivered in the
requiring authority), and the contractor. form of customized reports, which are of
It can be carried out by the contractor immediate use to management. “Automated”
alone against readiness and supportability deliverables can also take the form of techni-
objectives. cal orders, provisioning documentation,
(2) Mil-Std 1388-1A tasks which influence standard and special tools lists, common bulk
design are conducted during concept, item lists, etc. The analysis processes fed by
feasibility and project definition (PD) the LSAR identify poor design which causes
phases and are designed to answer ques- high maintenance frequencies, lengthy main-
tions as follows: tenance times and extensive support require-
• what to invest; ments, all “cost drivers” and factors adding to
• system deployment/use; life-cycle costs.
• standardization aspects;
• past “drivers”;
Revision of ILS standard
• new technology benefits;
• new programme requirements (the The position on standards for ILS is that,
“supportability objectives”); owing to the “Perry Memorandum”, issued
28
 Design for support and support the design Logistics Information Management
Iain Galloway Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · 24–31

Figure 2 The complete feedback loop of logistic support analysis

Logistic support Task Logistic support Task Logistic support Task Function block
analysis strategy 101 analysis plan Use study
102 analysis reviews 103 diagram

Task Task
continue 201
501
Evaluation Baseline
verification comparative system
design aims
Tasks
Tasks The complete feedback loop of logistic support analysis 203,205
402,403
Post production Evaluate design
support analysis standardization
technology
Tasks
202,204

Tasks Tasks
Complete design 301,401,501 Failure mode Configuration 302,303 Analyse design
LSAR database effects and task hardware block trade-offs sensitivity
analysis diagram comparative

in late 1994, the US DoD has withdrawn
support for many US military standards,
including 1388-1A/2B for LSA. However, the
UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has been
pursuing not only a defence standard for LSA
but also one incorporating ILS, provisioning
and technical documentation, software sup-
port and electronic data interchange. To this
end, Interim UK Defence Standard 00-60 was
released in October 1994. It is being revised
and expanded not only to include the
AECMA (European Aerospace) standards for
provisioning (AECMA specification 2000M)
and technical documentation (AECMA speci-
fication 1000D), but also to absorb the tasks
and common data elements from US Mil Std
1388-1A/2B, converted to the “British” lan-
guage. The EDI standard to be used is UN
EDI EDIFACT. The bulk of the review is due
to be published in the spring of 1996, with
some technical aspects following in the
autumn. The ultimate objective is to have an
international standard for support and DEF
STAN 00-60 is a strong contender. A NATO
pilot programme is already under way.
project calls for a major LSA programme then
the ILSM needs an LSA manager (LSAM).
The ILSM and LSAM are “core players”.
Other members of the ILS management team
are likely to be drawn from the following
areas:
• reliability engineering;
• maintenance engineering;
• life-cycle costing;
• parts provisioning;
• packing, handling, storage and transport;
• technical publications;
• training;
• manpower and personnel integration
(Manprint);
• field support/contractor logistic support.
These are unlikely to be full-time appoint-
ments, but likely to be shared with other
projects on a “matrix” basis. When working to
the requirements of a customer, both cus-
tomer and contractor should field identical
teams so that management and communica-
tion work well on both vertical and lateral
planes.

Management
The management organization
Each ILS programme requires an ILS manag-
er (ILSM). He should be of a status commen-
surate with the importance of the programme,
ideally the “deputy PM for support”. If the
29
Perceived benefits
There are many benefits perceived in follow-
ing an ILS strategy for procurement. Most,
however, are viewed as long term. This need
not be so; consider the following:
• optimum system readiness at a designated,
and thus affordable, life-cycle cost; thus the
 Design for support and support the design Logistics Information Management
Iain Galloway Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · 24–31

use of ILS techniques in managing a pro- has mutated to “continuous acquisition

ject will lead to better financial and risk
control, and a much better ability to pro-
ject and adhere to life-cycle costing
predictions;
• maximum involvement of the contractor in
the provision of support for his equipment
at an early stage, and at a fixed price – in
turn this will assist in stabilizing in-service
costs and allow much more accurate long-
term planning with better control of risk;
• the provision of accurate and timely infor-
mation on which to judge “trade-offs”,
performance versus readiness versus sus-
tainability (to include cost, resource, risk
and benefits);
• better cost control stemming from better
definition of the “use” requirement, work-
ing disciplines, and internal procedures.
and life-cycle support”.
• The Army “lead ILS” project is project
“BOWMAN” (the next generation of a
family of Combat Net Radios – project
value approximately £2 billion) and has
adopted ILS for others such as the Attack
Helicopter, Challenger II Tank and
“TRACER” (a future armoured reconnais-
sance vehicle which is a platform for com-
plex electronics systems).
• The Royal Air Force was the first service to
commit fully to ILS, and has merged its
engineering and supply branches under the
Air Member for Logistics, who is a mem-
ber of the Air Force Board. The leading
project is Eurofighter, but all RAF systems
and major mid-life updates are procured
using ILS procedures.

UK MoD commitment CALS

All three military services are actively pursu-
ing ILS (Figure 3) policies under Central
Staffs and MoD (PE) guidance:
• The Royal Navy has declared The Com-
mon New Generation Frigate its lead
project. This is a co-operative venture with
France and Italy and will require heavy
investment in information technology to
meet the needs set out in the US DoD
CALS initiative. This was originally “com-
puter acquisition and logistic support” but
“Continuous acquisition and life-cycle sup-
port” (originally computer-aided acquisition
and logistic support) is aligned with concur-
rent engineering. It is a US DoD initiative
begun in 1985, by the Under Secretary of
State for Defense, to reduce the amount of
paper in defence procurement, by rationaliz-
ing the flow of digital information. This is to
be achieved in two stages:
(1) CALS phase I was a drive to induce
contractors to submit all erstwhile paper

Figure 3 The integrated logistic support process

Concept Feasibility Project Full Production and Operating and

formulation study definition development in service support

C C C C
O O O O
N N N N
T T T T
R R R R Concurrent Post-
Devise ILS A Technical A Initial design A FD studies A delivery of production
strategy C appraisal C and C C Production production support plan
and ILS and support implem-
T and initial T sub-system T design T design
S assessment S design S S systems ented

Tests Tests Tests Tests

Draft Complete Revised Revised Material

ILSP ILSP ILSP ILSP ILSP provisioning plan
implemented

Logistics LSA and

support LSA allocate LSA/LSAR LSA/LSAR
analysis LCNs
(LSA)

30
 Design for support and support the design Logistics Information Management
Iain Galloway Volume 9 · Number 1 · 1996 · 24–31

deliverables in digital format; text, graph-
ics, and data. This required the introduc-
tion of common standards, which, because
of the nature of the world defence busi-
ness, have a need to be internationally
accepted. This quest continues, but in the
meantime many US DoD programmes are
phasing in CALS successfully, with the
ILS/LSAR database providing the core
data.
(2) CALS phase II requires the introduction of
shared databases, between the contractor,
his subcontractors and the customer
(DoD). This has raised many questions, as
yet unanswered, regarding IPR, security,
access to, ownership of and payment for
data, to name but five. The consensus
appears to be that integrated weapon
system databases – expurgated as neces-
sary and composed primarily of ILS data
elements – for one system under one prime
contractor are a probable outcome. Wider
sharing of information under CITIS –
contractor integrated technical information
system – may prove more difficult to real-
ize due to contractual problems.
The UK Government is committed to the
CALS initiative and this is being supported by
both UK MoD and Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI) in a move towards common
international standards for carrying out busi-
ness, both military and civil, using electronic
data interchange. The UK focus is the UK
CALS Industry Council, whose President is
Lord Chalfont, and whose annual conference,
Advanced Procurement and Logistic Systems
(APLS) is held each spring in London, admin-
istered by Technology Appraisals Limited of
Twickenham. The Council members are senior
industrialists from the leading trade associa-
tions: SBAC, DMA, BNEA, EEA, CSA, ECIF,
DISC and academia. The executive committee
has a number of groups interfacing with the
MoD, DTI and international affairs, and deal-
ing with commercial information management,
business re-engineering/ concurrent engineer-
ing, product design, product support, electron-
ic data exchange and education.

On-line conferences in
General Management
on http://www.mcb.co.uk
MCB is proud to introduce On-line conferencing facilities as part of an ongoing development of Internet Resources
for all MCB current subscribers. Each conference will last for approximately 3 months and the proceedings will
then be rigorously vetted by a team of academics in the field, to form the basis of a paper submitted for publica-
tion in the relevant journal.

Forthcoming conferences in your area

The Work Environment • Waste Management • Effects of Warfare on the Environment
• Services Management: New Directions and Perspectives
• Hospitality Industries: Strategies for the Future • Implementing Dietary Guidelines
• Japan Management Practices (in Japanese) • Key Library Issues in Japan Today (in Japanese)
• Critical Success Factors in Japanese Management (in Japanese)
• Decentralization and Control in Multisite Service Organizations
• Public Services Management in the Next Millennium: Working Together or Falling Apart?
• Relationship Marketing: A New Philosophy for Marketing or a New Function?
• Healthy Eating • Electronic Communication and Disaster Management
For further information on how to take part in a conference, or how to sponsor your own, log onto MCB’s home
page at URL http://www.mcb.co.uk, or contact Carol Oliver on:
Phone: +44 (0)1280 817222 Fax: +44 (0)1280 813297 Email: carolo@mcb.co.uk

Regular hands-on workshops worldwide – the launch of CyberCafes

From November 1st 1995, MCB is launching hands-on workshops specially designed for Managers. Their sole
purpose is to give Managers the opportunity to leapfrog the technical problems of getting connected and discover
the wealth of information provided on the Internet.
To find out more about CyberCafes contact Sandra Pass on:
Phone: +44 (0)1280 817222 Fax: +44 (0)1280 813297 Email: sandrap@mcb.co.uk

Step in…explore…Get Connected to MCB at http://www.mcb.co.uk

31