Factory relocation: sequencing the move, funding the production gap, and keeping the people who know how it works

The gap in output is the decision everything else follows

There are three ways to cover the period when production is interrupted, and each costs real money. Build stock in advance, which ties up working capital and only works for products that keep and whose demand you can forecast. Run both sites in parallel for a period, which means duplicate rent, duplicate staffing and equipment split across two buildings. Or accept a shutdown and negotiate with customers, which risks the relationship and sometimes the contract. Choosing early determines the sequence, the budget and how much equipment has to be duplicated, so it cannot be settled halfway through.

Sequence by recommissioning time, not by convenience

The order is dictated by how long each asset takes to become productive again at the far end, and by what has to be ready before it arrives. Services, compressed air, extraction and any process utilities must be live and proven at the new site first. Equipment with long recommissioning, qualification or run-in requirements moves earliest so its downtime overlaps with the period you have already covered. Simple, quickly restarted machines move last. The equipment that is still producing stock for the gap comes out at the very end, which usually makes it the hardest thing on the plan.

Approvals and requalification take longer than the machines do

Production from a new address frequently needs customer approval, site-specific registration with a regulator, updated certification scope, or renewed sample approval before anything can be shipped. In regulated sectors and in automotive and aerospace supply chains, that process can be the longest item on the programme and it cannot start meaningfully until equipment is installed and producing at the new site. Map every approval that names the current address, establish what each body needs and how long it takes, and start those conversations before the move rather than when the first parts come off.

People are the asset that does not get loaded onto a lorry

A move of any distance loses staff, and the ones most able to find alternative work locally are frequently the ones you least want to lose. Machine setters, maintenance technicians and long-serving operators carry knowledge that exists nowhere in writing, and losing several at once turns a competent plant into a struggling one. Deal with it explicitly: consult early, be honest about the location and timing, consider retention arrangements through the move, and use the period beforehand to document the settings, workarounds and knowledge that currently live in individual heads.

Where relocations actually overrun

Overruns cluster in a few places: services at the new site not ready when equipment arrives, machines that ran acceptably in their old foundations refusing to perform after being moved, unexpected condition revealed when equipment is lifted, approvals arriving after production is technically capable, and the old site's reinstatement obligations surfacing late. Build float around those specifically. Disconnection, lifting, transport, re-energisation and recommissioning are competent-person activities carried out under permit and lifting plans by qualified contractors, and the schedule must reflect what safe execution takes rather than the optimistic version.

Frequently asked questions

Should we move older equipment or replace it as part of the relocation?

Assess each machine on what it will cost to move, reinstall and recommission against what it would cost to replace, and include the probability that it does not run properly afterwards. Older equipment near the end of its life is a poor candidate for a move, since you pay the full disruption for an asset you will replace shortly anyway. A relocation is also the one moment when removing a machine is easy, which makes it a natural point to retire assets that have been tolerated for years.

How far ahead should a relocation be planned?

Work backwards from the longest lead item, which is rarely the building. It is usually a customer or regulatory approval, a utility connection at the new site, or the notice period on the existing premises. Those set the earliest credible date, and everything else fits inside them. Planning forward from a desired move date produces programmes that collapse when the first approval timeline becomes clear, typically after commitments have already been made to landlords and customers.

What should we tell customers, and when?

Early and specifically, because customers who learn about a move from a missed delivery draw conclusions that are difficult to correct. Tell them what is changing, when, what you are doing to protect their supply, and what they need to do at their end — approvals, address changes, receiving arrangements. Many will help if asked in advance, for instance by taking stock ahead of the shutdown or accepting a temporary change in delivery pattern. The same conversation held after a problem gets a very different response.