1 / 10

Short-distance relocation management approaches: 5 Cases from Finland

Short-distance relocation management approaches: 5 Cases from Finland. Peggie Rothe & Chris Heywood ERES Conference 2014 Bucharest , Romania. Background. Why study organisational short-distance relocation:

arlais
Download Presentation

Short-distance relocation management approaches: 5 Cases from Finland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Short-distance relocation management approaches: 5 Cases from Finland Peggie Rothe & Chris Heywood ERES Conference 2014 Bucharest, Romania

  2. Background Why study organisational short-distance relocation: • Choosing new office spaces and relocating thereto is a process that numerous organisations go through each year • The process is a significant event in the course of an organisation’s life because • it brings a hiatus to the organisation’s operations • the decisions concerning location and office solution determine the future operating environment which can have a significant impact on productivity, efficiency, workforce satisfaction and the like

  3. Background Relocation is much more than just a location decision The process consists of multiple tasks including, but not limited to: • Identifying the business need; • Specifying space requirements; • Deciding whether a new building is required, or whether an existing real estate product might be suitable as is, or with adaptation; • Searching for possible premises; • Evaluating possible premises; • Negotiating with landlords; • Disposal of old premises; • Designing new buildings and/or workplaces; • Managing the employees through change; • Physically moving; • Moving the IT infrastructure; and • Fine‐tuning the new workplace and its workplace practices.

  4. Previousliterature Literature on workplace change • Increases knowledge on new ways of working and different workplace solutions • Often assesses user experiences as a result of the changes in the physical environment Literature on location and site selection decision making • Predicts and explains where certain types of organizations are likely to relocate Search and decision Preparations Design of workplace Move Occupancy Literature on change management in workplace change Thereis to date no studies shedding light on the entire process from the perspective of the occupier organization – how do organizations manage their relocations?

  5. Purpose of the paper • PURPOSE • To describe different short‐distance relocation management approaches applied by organizations in Finland

  6. Methodology Case study • 5organizations Hadrelocated in HMA within the previous 18 months Differentindustries (e.g. pharmaceutical, retail, IT) Relocatingstaffbetween 45 and 200 employees • 32 semi‐structure interviews 15 interviewees were company representatives who were actively involved in the process of relocation, making decisions and executing the relocation of their organization; 17 were employees who did not have an assigned role in the process. • Written documents (e.g. memos, emails, presentations) received from 4 of the 5 cases • Allinterviewsrecorded and transcribed • Analysis usingqualitative data analysis software (Atlas.ti)

  7. Findings – 5 uniquestories Story A: ”A new beginning in a new space” Story B: ”M&A supportedbyrelocation” Story C: ”Morespace” Story D: ”Engagingsite-selection” Story E: ”Location, location, location”

  8. Findings – 4 management models • ”Democracy” • High degree of employee involvement • Communicates trust • Workload shared between several people • Possible inefficient decision-making • Possible lack of expertise and uneven workload • ”Orchestra” • Workload shared between several people • Employee involvement • Suitable for implementing a vision which requires employee acceptance • Possibly inefficient decision-making • Risk of employees feeling run over • ”One-man-show” • Efficient process • Efficient decision making • Entire workload in the hands of one person • Possibly subjective decision-making • Non-transparent process, communicates power • No employee engagement or involvement • ”Caretaker government” • Workload shared between several people • Experts taking care of their own part of the process • Possibly inefficient decision-making • No employee involvement

  9. To sum up… • Relocation is notjust a locationdecisionorworkplacechange; it is both • Successfulrelocationrequires management of bothlocation and workplacechange • 4 differentmodels of how to manage the internalprocesswereidentified • No single ’best’ model, the mostappropriatemodeldepends on Processaims Level of change (fromlogisticalmove to strategicchange) The organization’ssituation (e.g. timeschedule and resources)

  10. Thankyou!For moredetails: peggie.rothe@aalto.fi

More Related