+- 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: consultants and all that... (/showthread.php?tid=1930)
consultants and all that... - drpeterwardle - 22nd June 2005
I am not sure that every body working in field archaeology needs more than a very elementary knowledge of the town and country planning system until they become a curator/consultant/project manager.
The origins of the development plan system for example is of no real relevance - neither is planning for real exercises. A knowledge of the branch of TCP known as development control and its application with regard to conservation and the historic environment is all that is neccessary. The same level of training for a planner will suffice - say one lecture, one essay, and a bit reading. This ought to be covered, these days, in an archaeology degree in any case.
In the eighties at Bradford such topics as archaeological law was included in my MA course.
Peter
consultants and all that... - the invisible man - 24th June 2005
Quite. Full RTPI membership would be a tad over the top! I had in mind something like a module at undergrad level. There is a (compulsory) CRM module at Bradford..
Today, Bradford. Tomorrow, well, Bradford probably.
consultants and all that... - 1man1desk - 5th September 2005
After a lot of recent discussion about consultants on other threads, I thought we should revive this one rather than continue to side-track other discussions.
Themes that have come up include (with my answer):
What do consultants do?
I've set that out elsewhere in response to a direct question, and this is what I said:
Quote:quote:Like consultants in most other fields, our main role is to give informed/educated advice to our clients. Often that will be aimed at reducing their exposure to risk as a result of archaeological discoveries - along the lines of 'if you put your new road there, it will cost you lots of time and money. Move it to the left a bit, and you'll miss all the archaeology.' The benefits to archaeology of developers receiving this sort of advice are obvious.
We also do a lot of desk-based assessments and similar, often as part of Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA). On EIA projects, we are often working as part of a multi-disciplinary team, usually with other environmental disciplines and with the designers of the development - which again enables us to influence scheme design, and client's decision-making, in a way that benefits the archaeology. People in archaeological units find this much harder, because they are not integrated into the multi-disciplinary team.
We also do a lot of consultation/liaison for the client - most obviously with curators, but also more widely. Curators often don't like us in this role, because we argue with them on behalf of the client. What they don't see is that behind the scenes we are also telling the client hard home truths about their obligations in respect of archaeology. Both sides can be unreasonable - our role is to find the middle way that meets the needs of both.
In addition to that, we design/procure/monitor field projects, but contrary to common opinion that is a small part of our role (say, 20%).
Consultants are evil because they represent/help developers
Well, that presupposes that all developers are evil themselves, but it doesn't only apply to consultants. Everyone in every contracting unit represents/helps developers, and the only archaeologists in the country whose jobs are not dependent on developers are in the main national bodies (EH etc) or universities. Even curators only exist because of them.
Take note that most work for consultants is on very large schemes, and consequently the biggest clients are not commercial developers but public infrastructure bodies (Environment and Highways Agencies etc).
Consultants are evil because they push down the quantity/quality of archaeological work done
Quantity - Well, we do try to make sure that the client is only asked to pay for work that is 'reasonable' in the technical planning law sense. Some (not all) curators have a track record of trying to get their pet research projects funded piecemeal on the back of development projects, and however laudable the aim it is very unfair on the developer to ask them to pay for work not occasioned by their development.
Quality - We produce more detailed, individually-tailored specs than most curators - all of which are agreed with the curators - and we are better placed to police them effectively. Because they are more detailed, it is much harder for a cowboy unit to cut corners, and easier to enforce the full requirements. That includes making it easier for the curator, if they are able to do some monitoring.
Consultants are evil because they poach on the curator's role
Units often misbehave in various ways, all damaging to the archaeological record, and it is the curator's role to monitor them. However, they usually can't do so effectively because they don't have the resources. Consultants can, and do, monitor much more closely, and contrary to comments from other contributors we have every incentive to make the contractors stick to the spec (which we usually wrote anyway).
Consultants cream off money that would otherwise go to field archaeologists
The units tender for a given scope of work that has been set by agreement with the curators, so it is difficult to see how not having a consultant would increase the money available to the unit. There is no fixed pot of money for archaeology, and clients see the consultant and the contracting unit as two separate items.
Consultants are un-necessary middlemen ripping off the client
Charming to see such concern for the developer, who is in all other comments seen as the devil incarnate. However, we can't force ourselves onto any client - we exist because there is a demand. Most work is repeat business, so the clients clearly don't feel ripped off.
I have commented on some of these themes individually on other threads, so you can look there for more detail.
I'd welcome any comment on the above - as long as it is based on thought rather than prejudice, knowledge rather than ignorance, and tries to address the points made rather than simply repeating abuse already posted elsewhere.
1man1desk
consultants and all that... - eggbasket - 5th September 2005
You have missed a point, 1man1desk. Consultants are also evil because they smell vaguely clean and wear shirts and ties. And some of them may comb their hair! Shocking behaviour.
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
consultants and all that... - Sith - 5th September 2005
It's hard to tell what consultants smell like due to the clouds of sulphur that follow our every move.
Sith
Egged on!
consultants and all that... - Pedant - 6th September 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by eggbasket
You have missed a point, 1man1desk. Consultants are also evil because they smell vaguely clean and wear shirts and ties. And some of them may comb their hair! Shocking behaviour.
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
Yes, but do you comb your hair, eggy?
I reject your reality and substitute my own
consultants and all that... - eggbasket - 6th September 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Pedant
Yes, but do you comb your hair, eggy?
Naturally, my hair is most elegantly coiffured and anointed with the finest unguents and oils known to humanity. My body is a temple to the goddesses of sartorial elegance and is the envy of all my co-workers. And my mind is as beautifully appointed as a Byzantine sewer, although it regrettably also shares other characteristics of said Byzantine edifice.
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
consultants and all that... - Pedant - 6th September 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by eggbasket
My body is a temple to the goddesses of sartorial elegance and is the envy of all my co-workers.
Eggbasket
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
Apart from the ice hockey injuries... [:p]
I reject your reality and substitute my own
consultants and all that... - eggbasket - 6th September 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Pedant
Apart from the ice hockey injuries... [:p]
I reject your reality and substitute my own
They envy my injuries too. Honest ...
Eggy by name, eggy by nature
consultants and all that... - troll - 6th September 2005
It has been banded about for years that "developers plough millions into archaeology". I`ve said this before but, the percentage of developer`s budgets that go into archaeology is peanuts. Unfortunately, the lions share lands on the desks of consultancies and by the time a site opens, we are generally left with a quid, a hat and, a packet of crisps. I have to say at this point that I have again, been extremely rude to consultants here and again, have to apologise. My recent postings have been acidic in the extreme and have been fed largely by phone calls and e-mails that I receive from the circuit world almost daily. I would, remove my postings over on the other thread through sheer embarrassment but, by leaving them in, the consultants responses will be read in context. Apologies guys. Think I`m having one of those 7 year itch "why the fek should I bother" months...to offer some comments...it would be nice to see project designs and specs (from consultants) followed on the ground but, that would seem to be the exception rather than the rule. Further, it is not unusual to find specs and designs from consultants that are simply un-workable and un-realistic on site. Also not unusual to find gaping holes in consultants research methodologies-something that can and does have very real consequences for the site in question...developers will hold workers to the letter of the method statement/project design and when potential is underestimated or ommitted, tough. A key problem in consultancies is the loyalty issue. There`s not that many out there who will smack a client`s arse when they behave badly, have seen it all before-site is trashed every day and the consultants ignore it.Money talks, the main demon responsible for the ills in commercial archaeology. 1man1desk, Doctor Wardle, my apologies-you just happened to be in the way during one of my frequent menstruation cycles. One day I may just grow up. Having had a recent look at the outlined consultants mandated modus operandi-I was just wondering; is there honestly any role there that could`nt be fulfilled by commercial unit staff rather than a consultant? After all, the units(in theory) know the sites/timings/potential/likely costings-surely a more efficient/cost effective and informed choice for developers?