+- 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: happy christmas and a muddy new year (/showthread.php?tid=368)
happy christmas and a muddy new year - BAJR Host - 2nd January 2007
Many thanks Alex... and a happy New Year... while your Here
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
happy christmas and a muddy new year - troll - 2nd January 2007
Ditto that-many thanks and a happy new year sire!
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
happy christmas and a muddy new year - 1man1desk - 2nd January 2007
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:If the IFA provides an organisation with the RAO status and said organisation takes the urine...should we not be advising clients to take the IFA to court?No, because the organisation that 'takes the urine' is responsible for their own misdeeds; the client should take them to court.
The IFA statement says that "Archaeologists adhering to the by-laws of the Institute" will be good boys and girls.
It does not guarantee that all RAOs will always adhere to the by-laws, just that they have demonstrated a commitment to "meeting IFA standards with regard to quality of archaeological work, employment practices, contributions to community benefits and development of the archaeological profession".
Any registration scheme - no matter how strict - can only be based on the evidence available at the time of the validation; neither the IFA nor anyone else can predict future misdeeds and refuse registration because of something the company has not done yet.
The rules of the RAO scheme do allow a company that has been de-registered to re-apply after a period of time, and if they meet the standard at the time of re-application they can be re-registered. That does not mean that de-registration is a meaningless sanction; if Registered status does mean that a unit gets more business, the affected company will have lost a lot of money before they regain their RAO status, while the management will have had their reputations dragged through the mud.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
happy christmas and a muddy new year - BAJR Host - 2nd January 2007
Acting as a devils advocate... as a development control archaeologist... I..and others like me, are the ones that check that standards are maintained....not the IFA... so one would have to ask the tricky question of what is the benefit (or disadvantage) of not being an RAO? It seems that nobody has been affected by removal.. neither should a client feel comfortable when the statement
Quote:quote:Users of the services of an IFA-registered organisation can commission work with confidence.
actually means.. hey... we aren't guaranting anything..
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
happy christmas and a muddy new year - troll - 2nd January 2007
Absolutely Mr Hosty.Thank you 1man..we know how its supposed to work but unfortunately, it doesnt across the board.Not even close.I would have to take a stance at variance to 1man on this issue-if the IFA are indeed seen to be the validators of firms that a client can "commission with confidence"-any court of law in Europe would surely see the validators in a far more negative light than the offending firms themselves.All I am saying here is this-either we are to become a profession or we are not and pantomimes of any description should be banished to the halls of central government where they form the backbone of a banana republic. One could argue that the "strict sanctions" referred to in the document are nothing more than stuffing in a framework of cliches and gaping holes.
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
happy christmas and a muddy new year - vulpes - 2nd January 2007
:face-huh:
happy christmas and a muddy new year - troll - 2nd January 2007
Good day Vulpes. I see your point but....
BAJR does not inform its "clients" that they can choose its members with confidence.Neither does BAJR validate or assess units in a commercial environment.Yes, the BAJR AUP serves its purpose but by contrast, the IFA RAO scheme provides potential clients with confidence that members of the scheme will work to required standards.Different kettle of fish altogether.
As an aside, said unit should`nt have been accepted as an RAO in the first place so an element of "told you so" may be allowable here?..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
happy christmas and a muddy new year - BAJR Host - 2nd January 2007
You also get a warning... then a public warning... then the AUP kicks you out...
With the AUP... you are warned that if you misbehave (even by accident) this will be brought to your attention.. and you won't do it again.
An RAO status confirms that you are not going to misbehave and that you can be 100% confident in the contractor.. or is it now 95%? 90%? 75%
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
happy christmas and a muddy new year - troll - 2nd January 2007
Completely Mr Hosty.RAO status is either a guarantee or its not.If it has no legal standing or, the IFA are simply not able to meet its responsibility of control, then it is (as a document and a scheme) non-viable.The IFA have openly admitted that they simply do`nt have the logistics to police standards across the industry.Why would a potential client believe the situation will be any different for the RAO scheme?
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
happy christmas and a muddy new year - Cautionary Tale - 2nd January 2007
First off happy New Year to you all.
Secondly: at the moment, the RAO scheme is more comparable to schemes like ISO 9000 etc which indicate to clients/suppliers what procedures and standards the company has committed to uphold. ISOs donât have a legal basis in themselves (I think - though they can commit companies to upholding legal principles), but the loss of validation can result in monumental problems as they signal what should be expected. Yearly audits occur (much like RAOs go through) where documents and working practices are inspected for compliance on that day. These schemes, much like the RAO scheme, cannot guarantee on a day to day basis what the company will be doing or indeed not doing, so why is their an expectation for the RAO scheme to be able to do this (as desirable as it may be) when it is restricted to a single profession of limited numbers?
While I agree that curators have a significant (if not exclusive) role to play in monitoring final outputs (whether direct from a contractor or through a consultant), there is little room for them to be able to adequately monitor processes which lead to the outputs, which IFA standards (and an auditable paper trail) could.
à venuto dal deposito