UK / International Business Relocation Consultants, Corporate Relocation Consultancy

We first needed to understand what the 'different drivers' were within the two Boards of Directors that made them disagree about which location should house the expanded organisation – with the British arguing for Milton Keynes (MK) and the Americans strongly favouring High Wycombe (HW).
After a variety of on-site discussions with the company executives at MK and HW we found the British arguments mainly centred on the importance of 'the people' issues (workforce quality, ability to recruit and retain them etc). By contrast the US focus was much more on the availability of lots of empty space in the HW buildings compared to that available in the MK building.
As is the case with most of our location analysis work we set about establishing location specific criteria to inform and direct our research in order to establish a search area within which we could examine 'potential candidate' location options. We would then be able to compare and contrast any candidate options against the benchmark locations of MK and HW.
The main criteria and issues identified were;

The impact on staff (and therefore the company) of collocation at HW, MK or somewhere else.
Timing – the need to complete the staff collocation within 6-12 months.
Space – enough to accommodate up to an extra 150 staff over and above the 400+ already based at MK and HW (a total of up to 550+).
Image – a location to reflect the promotion of the expanded company into the top ten UK pharma companies.
Accessibility – London by road or train; key airports in the UK and the US and access to/by suppliers, advisors and customers.

Staff Groups: We suggested prioritising staff by reference to their importance to the future welfare, development and effectiveness of the company and based on four groupings; 1 being 'must not lose'; 2 being 'important to keep'; 3 being 'would rather keep' and 4 being 'could be replaced'.
Group Numbers: This produced an overall total of 34 in group one, 106 in group two, 98 in group three and 164 in group four – 402 total staff. This then informed us further into the study as we were able to better estimate redundancy and recruitment numbers and therefore the cost to the company at the various 'what if' locations we found.
Staff Issues: We wanted to quantify the financial and organisational impact on the company if staff had to travel to a different workplace or move home as a result of the collocation. To do this we decided to gather data based on the numbers likely to have to (a) sustain a daily commute to a 'new' location (b) need to relocate (c) be made redundant and (d) be recruited.
Staff Issues Review: Using GIS based postcode mapping technology we plotted where each employee lived in order to provide a number of indicative estimates based on the various collocation options and scenarios.
Collocation Space and Timing: Our research and reports also focused on the provision of information on the 'qualifying' sites and buildings capable of housing up to 550 staff and with the 'right' image
Timing: We were restricted by the need to have a building which could be occupied by 550 or more people within a short timescale as it meant that in searching for buildings we were only able to consider those already 'out of the ground' and unable to consider sites still being developed.
Accessibility: The accessibility criteria also restricted the geography of our search area because of the need to focus on speedy access to London and the airports.
The Search Area: Taking all the various issues and criteria into account our search area actually covered an area which included Aylesbury, HW, Hatfield, Slough/Windsor, Windlesham, Guildford and MK.

Because MK was the northernmost location in the search area a move to most of the alternative locations would increase MK based staff journey times and the likelihood of the company facing the cost and disruption of staff relocation, redundancy and recruitment. And as the numbers based at MK were 38% higher than at HW the sums involved would be greater.
By contrast moving out of HW would mean less cost and disruption as the site was in reasonable striking distance of most alternative locations – with the possible exception of Hatfield.
None of the identified buildings in the search area were of the same calibre as the existing MK building and because of MK's excellent motorway and fast train options to London and the airports they came out on top on these counts too.
Our overall conclusions were therefore that the best option for the company would be to either expand the MK site or try to better utilise the existing space within the existing building. This was our recommendation and it was accepted.

We called in a firm of Building Economists to advise what could be done to accommodate the extra 150 staff who would now be moving to MK. We already knew the company had a large distribution centre on-site and a very large atrium at the entrance to their offices and we suspected the atrium space could be much better utilised.
The Building Economists confirmed the space could indeed be better designed and without involving very much structural work being involved – and therefore at relatively little expense. They estimated at least a further 150 staff could be housed in the building without jeopardising the working efficiency for the company or the environment for staff.

Plans and contracts were duly drawn up and work quickly commenced. The redesigned building was completed within a few months and relocation of staff from HW began.