+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services (/showthread.php?tid=4268)
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Unitof1 - 13th February 2012
Just trying to make this clear.
If I was a member of the ifa under the new advisor standard I would not be compertant (an ifa code of conduct concept) to undertake an evaluation unless I had 1(@) consulted the HER and 2(@) agreed a written scheme with the said advisor?
what else do I need?
ps what is an HER?
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Wax - 13th February 2012
The key is contacting the "local authority" It is the local government advisor who should have an in depth knowledge of their area and it's archaeology along with how the planning system actually operates on the ground. The Local HER is just a snapshot and may well be out of date. There is a bad habit amongst some consultants to dismiss the years of knowledge that the local archaeology advisory service have. How anyone can produce a DBA without at least speaking the local service I don t know but they do, then wonder when the County Mounties throw it back at them.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Dinosaur - 13th February 2012
A year or two back I was asked to write a DBA for a client who'd been told they needed one by the local (to that project) Mounties, who'd even produced a spec for the work....trotted along to the SMR (as it was in those days), and one of the first things I came across (I wonder what that spot is right in the middle of my site?) was a DBA done 6 months earlier for the previous owner of the same site! In fact so detailed and comprehensive that it was concluded that whatever we produced within our spec and budget wouldn't be half as good (and the client and Mounties were told as much), so that one went through again....not sure where I'm going with this, except that Mounties can be human too :face-crying:
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Martin Locock - 13th February 2012
Unit - yes, according to this standard you should consult the HER (old SMR) before starting fieldwork. It would be hard to devise a meaningful programme of fieldwork without some understanding of the archaeological resource in the area, for which the HER is the best source.
In those cases where a curator sets a brief, you should agree the works in advance with them to ensure that it satisfies the requirements (for example if the palaeo potential is a major issue then the work should include some sampling and assessment). If there is no curator, this standard wouldn't apply, but the standards for FE, Excvation and WB also require that a written project design is prepared in advance.
Also to note that you are not required to be a member of IfA to undertake work that meets IfA standards. Anyone can commit themselves to IfA standards in their specs, or require work that meets them in their briefs.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Jim Hunter - 14th February 2012
Marcus Brody Wrote:Here in Scotland, there are already Councils that employ consultants to provide their archaeological advice, and the extent to which this is successful is largely dependent on the details of the contract between the two parties setting out when the consultant will be asked for an opinion. I'd imagine that the distinction has been drawn in the current document because there are already standards and guidance documents in place for conservation officers and consultants, which they should be following anyway - you'd have to hope that the new document doesn't conflict with any standards set out in these existing documents, as this would put anyone performing a dual role in a difficult position!And consultants are often in a curatorial role as the client's agent's archaeologist on a road scheme or similar role on a rail scheme. Interesting to note that lots of the big engineering consultancies for whom those archaeologists (like me) work aren't RAOs - although their archaeologists will be IfA members. I've never been convinced that the RAO scheme added much for thsoe companies if every archaeologist in that organization was in the IfA anyway and its other procedures were being monitoried by BSI or similar.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Unitof1 - 22nd February 2012
hello Jim hello totally agree RAOs undermine the concept of an archaeologist and an institute representing them.
Quote:Unit - yes, according to this standard you should consult the HER (old SMR)
before starting fieldwork. It would be hard to devise a meaningful programme of
fieldwork without some understanding of the archaeological resource in the area,
for which the HER is the best source
why cant I just rely on my finer understanding of geomorphology? Seems to me the HER is never about the exact point of interest. How can it be. Cant understand why you would find it hard to devise a meaningful program. I calls it an evaluation. All it requires is an argument about the sample rate.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - ken_whittaker - 23rd February 2012
Jim Hunter Wrote:I've never been convinced that the RAO scheme added much for thsoe companies if every archaeologist in that organization was in the IfA anyway and its other procedures were being monitoried by BSI or similar.
By far the better arrangement.....individual accreditation through the Institute, backed up by an accredited company quality managment system, externally audited to recognised standards consistent with the industries we serve. It ensures transparency, accountability and drives up the standard of business management, which are the fundamental problems facing the profession.
Yet the RO scheme seems determined to proliferate such problems. For instance the scheme does not measure quality in the terms set out in ISO 9000, yet many the time have I encountered statements implying such. It is lamentable that the RO scheme ignores standards of business management, which over the past three years have resulted in many ROs accumulating trading deficits of eyewatering levels, and which are responsible for the appaling employment issues the profession constantly wringes it hands over.
Yet this situation can be easily resolved, the multi-disciplinary consultancies point a way forward, and it doesn't need the IfA to pass up on the RO scheme, although it does question the need. If ISO 9000 acceditation was an entry requirement the scheme would continue to be self regulatory, but with the benefit of competent quality auditing, that can be provided to the IfA to demonstrate compliance with professional business and technical standards.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Wax - 23rd February 2012
Thnik I agree with Ken here
There does seem an unwillingness within archaeology to sign up to modern professional business paratices including the use of standards and well used an understood management systems. The multidisiplinery practices have taken it on board but there are many other archaeology units and organisations who frankly look totally unprofessional when measured against general standards applied across other industries. How many mangers in units have recognised business management qualitifactions?
There are project management qualifications that apply across the board in many industries but I rarely if ever meet archaeologist who have even heard of them.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - tmsarch - 23rd February 2012
I'm a (pension grabbing) curator and personally I would want to see some major revisions to the Standard & Guidance before I could support it. That's not to say that I'm against the principle of such a document, just that in my opinion there are some major flaws in the standard currently being promoted.
An over-riding and fundamental issue that the proposed S&G seems not to have understood is what the actual role and position of a curator is and who we are answerable to. There seems to be much confusion within the document about what areas are within a curator's control. Much of what is required by the S&G is out of a curator's direct control. There are many examples of this throughout the document, for example:
Advisors should ensure that policies in neighbourhood development plans and orders take into account the significance of heritage assets and their settings, the potential impact of proposed development upon them, and appropriate measures to offset that impact.
But we cannot ensure, where consulted we can recommend but we cannot require that the LPA accepts this advice. Personally I am also unhappy with the word offset in the above sentence as well - mitigate yes, not offset.
The S&G also needs to remember that Local Authorities are democratic bodies led by elected members. These members could choose to apply policies that are in contradiction with the S&G and this could make adoption difficult or impossible.
The S&G in general seems to place the aspirations of the IfA and Southport Group in general above the primary role of the curator, whose core function must surely be to provide expert planning advice. Outreach and other such activities are aspirational. Whilst we encourage, seek out and take part in such activities, they remain an add-on, but are not a curator's core function.
The RO stance in the document heavily favours the IfA's vision for it's RO scheme, but I cannot see that any curator could support the current tone of the document on this aspect. In this aspect the S&G also includes some phrases that I feel are disingenuous, for example the S&G states:
In England and Scotland, planning policy and supporting guidance require that archaeological work is undertaken in accordance with IfA standards and guidance
As far as I am aware PPS5 never refers to IfA standards and that compliance with these standards isn't a requirement of the PPS. There are also confusing sections that seem to suggest that there is a connection between the significance of an asset and the need to have a RO contractor:
Where proportionate to the significance of the asset and the impact of the proposed change to it, advisors should consider recommending or requiring work to be done by an accredited IfA Registered Organisation to ensure the quality management of the work
I know of many excellent contractors who, for whatever reasons, choose not to be a RO. Likewise I am aware of RO whose work has failed to meet our own local standards. I cannot support a document that promotes me to require work be carried out by an RO. Personally even if this was the path the industry wanted to go down I don't think the IfA is anywhere near robust enough in enforcing its own standards (either for individual or organisational members) to be considering pushing this agenda at this time. Until the IfA is robustly enforcing its standards within its own membership its not in a position to try and foist these standards on others.
The S&G also states:
Advisors must be competent for their roles, and employed in line with relevant legislation and IfA by-laws. Where required to commission, specify or monitor development-led archaeological work carried out by IfA corporate members or Registered Organisations, advisors should be corporate members of the IfA.
This seems to be promoting a closed shop, and unless I am reading it wrongly, also seems to be saying that only IfA members may monitor other IfA members. This is unenforceable and seems to be leading to a process of self-regulation. I can not see any curator supporting self-regulation and to do so would be neglecting our primary role, which is to advise the LPA whether their planning conditions are being satisfied - the only way to do this is through active monitoring.
There are also too many paragraphs in the S&G which are little more than IfA trumpet-blowing and advertising, such as:
Accredited suppliers under the IfA Registered Organisation scheme reduce the risk to applicants of selecting a supplier who will not meet industry standards, and ensure that there is recourse to a third party (IfA as accreditation provider) in the instance that quality criteria are not met.
I cannot see any relevance or need for such a statement in a document that is designed to provide professional S&G for archaeological curators. Paragraphs such as this could be omitted wholesale and there is no need or reason for them to be included.
Sorry for the long winded reply, but hopefully this shows that not all curators are happy with the S&G and this is not the line that curators themselves are necessarily seeking.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Dinosaur - 23rd February 2012
Not long-winded at all, think you put your points over just fine :face-approve:
Good to hear some curatorial objection, since after all its you guys that IFA is trying to directly foist this on, us contractors are just going to cop the indirect fall-out
