+- 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: Thinking for the Future... (/showthread.php?tid=3549)
Thinking for the Future... - Unitof1 - 2nd November 2010
Quote:[SIZE=3]English Heritage's input into planning extends far beyond simply providing archaeological advice to a couple of London boroughs.
[/SIZE]
News to me
does eh pay for the archaeological advice in a couple of London boroughs?
the only time I have had any involvement with eh and planning I had to tell them that they were holding the publics copy of an eia for a pipeline. It took them two weeks to find it. They were a statutory consultee and were able to respond with the comment that the cleaver people routing the pipeline had not put it through a scheduled monument-standard letter- which the eia people had already pointed out in the desktop and which I am sure the local not statutory consultee planning authority would have also spotted. I would be interested in any examples of their requirement that could not be undertaken by other authorities.I think that you will find that the nation is made up of local authoritituies.
Now eh do like to come out with planning like authority wibble here is a pointless jobs worth example
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/professional/advice/advice-by-topic/climate-change/renewable-energy/biomass-energy/
hows that work then? before farmer plants elephant grass younitof1 called in to undertake evaluation?
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=7&ved=0CCoQFjAG&url=http%3A%2F%2Fplanweb.north-norfolk.gov.uk%2FDocuments%2F321_47.pdf&ei=FBzQTND9Ns2TjAfC2926Bg&usg=AFQjCNG-FNKJcD5cUpIdwep447pzfW1Yeg
pointless waste of time- nice burocratic signiture
agree gwql about not returing to MSC YOPS, although they were not all tossers they soon become so when they carryied on without taking their degrees realising that it would always leave a chip on their shoulders
Thinking for the Future... - Digger - 2nd November 2010
Mmm-thoughts. I believe the problem with some units folding is, er, money. Some may not have been financially well run in the first place and third parties are no longer prepared to continue to inject (even small) amounts of cash to sustain them (especially in the current economic climate). Others are hampered by not for profit and other company/council operating constraints that have not allowed them to hold cash surplus for when times are tough. Self employment may be a way forward for companies to take on staff without having to find substantial capital to commence/undertake new projects. I am aware of units who have taken on projects jointly and combined operations to a) keep there existing staff levels busy and b) take on larger projects, in their own backyards that would normally be out of their unit size ability. So it has previously worked without mass hirings followed by end of job layoffs.
While it still appears to be early to judge the impact of government cuts and the (increased?) level of private sector investment in new development; a shrinking market means less operators. Normally in any sector-those who diversify and become more flexible in their appproach to getting new business (don't read cheap, bad etc- rather creative, inventive) survive and can potentially prosper. What bugs me is when 'managers' take the soft option and start off loading staff as it is the easiest option in cutting costs rather than actually looking for ways to improve how they run, reduce waste and look for new income sources. I am not sure how flexible EH can be on this- I seem to recall that there is quite an generous subsidy scheme opperated by EH (as in travel costs, food and accomodation) please correct this if I am wrong. I have seen some extremly flash coffee and tea setups in my time and I am talking several hundreds of pounds....
Enough general wittering/thoughts- it's not the best of times and the goal should be to reduce the human impact.
Thinking for the Future... - deadlylampshade - 2nd November 2010
From my limited re-exposure to archaeology (in a "commercial" world), units/companies appear to me not to have modernised their business methods (if they have any LOL!) in line with the way archaeology has to be conducted these days.
There is a classic "stove-pipe" approach to business driven by set procedures and reports which, when you ask someone why it is done that way reply that it has always be done that way ( usually in a belligerent tone) sometimes followed by "well we've survived this long..."
The last part of the sentance is where it is going horribly wrong.
Basic business process review could make units more efficient, more manageable and, dare I say it, more professional.
I am sure this will upset a few people, but I am NOT critisizing anyone for being unprofessional...I just mean a bit of work could make things MORE professional in the way work is approached.
Thinking for the Future... - Digger - 2nd November 2010
Agree totally Mr deadly
Thinking for the Future... - Dinosaur - 2nd November 2010
In this day and age it's the more visibly businesslike units that are going to impress potential clients, stuff like ISO, membership of environment bodies, visible training of staff with qualifications recognised beyond the little island of archaeology (currently being threatened with NVQ 3 and 4 in health and safety here) all actually make a significant difference when putting in tenders to a lot of the big players. A lot of units haven't figured this out and are starting to pay for it :face-thinks:
Thinking for the Future... - Unitof1 - 2nd November 2010
sorry dino, its only price that counts and in archaeology thats a relative thing. I must admit that a future problem that I can see in my business plan is that I rely on the fact that the dianosurs prices make my pitches a piece of fish swimming environment and if they go under I will have to get even more creative but hay I have been exposed to post processulaisum so it should not be much of a problem.. err just found myself playing with my femmunin side in a doorway looking over some conceptual photos of uniforms worn by eh stoneheng guards.
Thinking for the Future... - GnomeKing - 3rd November 2010
shame we cant rely on the quality of our work, rather than 'bussiness-like appearance and scraps of paper....
Thinking for the Future... - kevin wooldridge - 3rd November 2010
Dinosaur Wrote:In this day and age it's the more visibly businesslike units that are going to impress potential clients, stuff like ISO, membership of environment bodies, visible training of staff with qualifications recognised beyond the little island of archaeology (currently being threatened with NVQ 3 and 4 in health and safety here) all actually make a significant difference when putting in tenders to a lot of the big players. A lot of units haven't figured this out and are starting to pay for it :face-thinks:
Reading between the lines here Dinosaur...you appear to be suggesting protocols that at the minimum define Registered Archaeological Organisations and might be used in a wider sense to describe 'Chartered Archaeologists'. Does your brave new world therefore include a role for the IfA or an equivalent body?
Thinking for the Future... - Unitof1 - 3rd November 2010
Quote:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]shame we cant rely on the quality of our work, rather than 'bussiness-like appearance and scraps of paper....
remind me why do we have to rely on the quality of our work rather than 'bussiness-like appearance and scraps of paper....
kev your chartered dream can be attained, first all you have to do is get the institue of civil servant heritage spongers onto this list
http://www.cscs.uk.com/upload_folder/documents/pqp%20acceptable%20competence%20assessed%20grades%20of%20membership.pdf
Thinking for the Future... - Dinosaur - 3rd November 2010
kevin wooldridge Wrote:Reading between the lines here Dinosaur...you appear to be suggesting protocols that at the minimum define Registered Archaeological Organisations and might be used in a wider sense to describe 'Chartered Archaeologists'. Does your brave new world therefore include a role for the IfA or an equivalent body?
Most big construction firms have absolutely no idea what the h*** IFA is, so no, I wouldn't include that amongst useful things to have on a company CV. Membership of organisations they've heard of like the IEMA is far more likely to impress. The trough that archaeological companies are by-and-large trying to feed out of is not an archaeological one, so learning to operate in the big bad non-archaeological world where we are just another bunch of peripheral subcontractors might be a good idea? :face-stir: