+- 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 - kevin wooldridge - 28th January 2012
Wax Wrote:There is nothing wrong with setting standards the issue is the attempt to ensure that the only recognisable measure of those standards is RO status.
To be pedantic the only recognisable standard is membership of the IfA. RAO status is through individual corporate membership of the IfA. There is no grade (at the moment) in the IfA for organisations to become corporate members.....
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Dinosaur - 28th January 2012
Martin Locock Wrote:... perhaps because the RO scheme is the only standard accreditation developed for British archaeology?
(It's worth pointing out that arcaheological appliactiosn of generic quality accreditation such as ISO9000 would almost certainly make prominent references to IfA membership, CPD, and the IfA standards and codes)
Got that one (and a couple more), and certainly not a RO, so no, it doesn't, try again
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Martin Locock - 28th January 2012
I didn't say it would be RO - what I meant was that it would end up looking a lot like the ROscheme .
ISO quality system presumably defies role and processes?
And roles are defined in terms of functions, authority and skills?
And skills are defined by some sort of external benchmark?
And external benchmarks mention CPD and professional bodies?
And products are defined by reference to industry standards?
I remember a discussion a while back on the relationship of RO to quality accreditation, and I asked whether there were any examples - I'd be interested to see what sort of overlap there might be.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - BAJR - 28th January 2012
To pull this back into shape again,
could I stand up and say that per ce, I have nothing against being an RO (If I met the criteria) if it was a standard that did not set minimum standards - but aimed for the highest standard and all the other things that have been mentioned in addition have timeframes for application. that is... pay, defined roles etc, (the things that Martin talks about for example)
Why Curators have to become ROs' .. not sure, unless they are carrying out contracting work that requires measurement of quality... and to be fair, they should be doing that anyway... OR ALGAO should be creating curatorial standards ( ROFL )
The IfA are currently the only standard there is for accreditation, other than being able to carry out the work (which the curatorial staff already know)
I am getting tied in knots myself in both agreeing and having issues in equal measure. hence the consultation... so a reply should/could be formulated that express support/concern for the various parts. I actually agree with 80% and have already set out the bits I worry about.
WE all want to see an end to minimum standards and county variation in the implementation... get rid of the cowboys... but are unsure about how to implement it.
hmmmm
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Martin Locock - 29th January 2012
I'm not sure curators have to become ROs, but they should a) be appropriately qualified, and b) undertake work in accordance with some form of standard.
I do feel, though, that it is hard to argue that every single act in the course of an excavation should be governed by brief, spec, method statement, contract and monitoring, because the archaeological resource is so precious and irreplaceable, while at the same time allowing curatorial decisions which decide whether any work takes place at all to be opaque and idiosyncratic. It seems to me that the arguments against applying explicit and quite demanding standards to curators sound exactly like the arguments of the rearguard of anti-standards for excavation.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - BAJR - 29th January 2012
I have of course for some time waved this in the air. it is not perfect... but it does say... here is a definition.
One more time...
Dutch Archaeology Quality Standard
http://www.sikb.nl/upload/documents/archeo/knauk.pdf
Now, back in the day when I was curatorial... and to exsure people knew what exactly to do... I created this along with Biddy Simpson. Simple Clear and transferable. (but sadly, like so many, implemented in a patchy way! )
http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/file/175/historic_building_recording_guidance_for_curators_and_commercial_archaeological_contractors_february_2006
Now... ALGAO should / could get to grips with itself. but it never did. and random curation was the result. From good to confusing, from strict to more fluid... from helpful to obstructive.
One curatorial body does this the next door does that... one wants this in a report, the other does not mind. etc.
The question is, is this really document about "applying explicit and quite demanding standards to curators" or is it about applying explicit and quite demanding standards to contractors based on membership of the ifa.?
I am afraid that Curators are being asked to become ROs. (as are community groups and University departments) This baffles me... but then it baffles some of teh curators who I have talked with.
A clear explanation about what this document is actually trying to achieve would be good. so far seen three plausible explanations or is it all three?
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - ken_whittaker - 30th January 2012
Martin Locock Wrote:... perhaps because the RO scheme is the only standard accreditation developed for British archaeology?
(It's worth pointing out that arcaheological appliactiosn of generic quality accreditation such as ISO9000 would almost certainly make prominent references to IfA membership, CPD, and the IfA standards and codes)
There is a risk of a growing misunderstanding.
There are a number of UK archaeological services accredited to ISO9000 QA schemes operated by various accredited certification bodies. These schemes support management processes across all aspects of industry and commerce, but they are not generic. They are designed around the needs of the organisation and comprise detailed management processes and quality standards pertinent to the range of services offered. These are set out in detailed company quality manuals that reference professional standards and codes of conduct, such as those offered by the IfA or IHBC for the conservation profession. Compliance requires formal recording of all project data, including the completion of project documentation files detailing the performance of the project, including documentation demonstrating that regulatory and professional requirements have been satisfied. These are subject to internal technical review by appropriately qualified professionals and to external auditing by qualified and experienced quality management professionals. Both the technical reviews and external audits ensure standards are adhered to and identify measures to continually improve quality. This form of QA is a proven means of securing quality business management across all sectors in the UK.
Apart from not being generic, as is claimed, none I have worked with include RO status as a mandatory requirement....there simply is no need, given that the IfA standards apply and failure to comply is a potential disciplinary matter...with the ultimate sanction being dismissal. But what I would like to understand is:
1. What is different about the archaeology profession that justifies its own separate QA accreditation process ?
2. Does the RO scheme offer anything similar in comparison ?
3. Why is the IfA not promoting QA systems via accredited certification bodies, ie support those qualified and themselves accredited as suitable to run such schemes ?
These are simple questions. Until I hear a convincing explanation on those points I remain avowedly against barriers to entry based on the RO scheme. Each attempt to promote such an agenda.....now mascerading as standards for the curatiorial section, latterly in the self-appointed Southport Group's reinterpretation of PPS5, and previously through off-record discussions dismissed by officials drafting PPS5, simply appears to subvert the interest of organisations who do invest in industry standard quality management systems, for the benefit of organisations who reject externally audited and rigourous management processes as an impediment in their attempt to get ahead in the race to the bottom.
The IfA is a membership organisation. It could base accreditation on individual membership, as do other professional conservation bodies, eg ICON Professional Accreditation of Conservator-Restorers, a practice I could support. It doesn't, so adding to the failings of the RO scheme, by disadvantaging those those members who are not employed by a RO. This is simply unfair.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Unitof1 - 30th January 2012
Still no details about who paid how much for whats to be consullted then. How many meetings, where, when. So much for transparancy in the civil service. Presumably the ifa will cite confidentuality overt the contract with the civil servants.
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Wax - 30th January 2012
Thank you Ken :face-approve:
Standard and guidance for archaeological advice by historic environment services - Martin Locock - 30th January 2012
The ISO9000 scheme has seen relatively little take-up in British archaeology (20 in 2008): I think it would be good to encourage its wider adoption. IfA does nudge ROs in this direction. Perhaps a line in the guidance could mention QA systems as a good thing.
Incidentally government advice is for public bodies to only count ISO firms accredited by members of UKAS - there are variations in practice elsewhere in the world under the nominal heading.