+- 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: I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. (/showthread.php?tid=1153)
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - andy.bicket - 30th October 2008
Just to have my pennies worth coming from the PostGrad side of things.
During a 3 year PhD, my institution requires 30 days of Professional Development training. This is reflected in a "skills matrix". Anything you do can feasibly be included in your PD training, but it's the time you've reflected on it that counts rather than the actual time spent in a training course. Within 3 years you'll notch up massive amounts over the required limit, so not a problem. How this relates to Commercial Archaeology might be an issue as each course may take 2 hours, half a day, a whole day or even a week of individuals time.
The ultimate benefit of this is that training across the academic community is to a large extent similar, so employers know where they stand in the future as everyone has recognisable skills. Individuals choose the skills they want to learn, unless it's compulsory training so everyone is different but with similar core skills. So the 'industry' essentially invests in itself, but so do the individuals, remaining competitive in a tiny jobs market.
The IfA is based in a university, so I imagine they are familiar with this kind of thing. Not being a member, can someone tell me if there is a similar thing available from the IfA, or has been talked about?
Sounds like from some of the posts there is a drive towards CPD but without a framework of skills to base CPD upon, but I'm sure I'm poorly self-informed. This would be a good way to lead the field, helping to boost standards across their membership, but perhaps inducing more people to join?
It's really a very easy thing to do, takes an hour or so to collate what you've done in the year, fill in the relevant skill codes, write a little "what I did in my holidays, and how it made me a better person" and there you go! As I said before, whether units want to spend the time and money on sending folk on training or improving things inhouse is another matter, and as always down to "time is money!".
But if it takes your workforce less time to do the same thing to a better standard then what's the problem? :face-thinks:
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - 1man1desk - 30th October 2008
Posted by Hal Dalwood:
Quote:quote:a SRD scheme is not the same thing as CPD. CPD is the responsibility of the individual professional, not their employerBut, there is no reason why you can't align one with the other, so that the training provided by the employer on the basis of a Personal Development Plan also achieves the CPD you need to do for your professional body. Most employers that operate training schemes will encourage this, and will try to make it easy to do.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - Hal Dalwood - 30th October 2008
Absolutely, 1man1desk. We just haven't done it yet, here.
Hal Dalwood
Bad archaeologist, worse husband
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - Austin Ainsworth - 31st October 2008
So Hal, as an employer, what does your company do to further the CPD of your employees?
![[Image: OzinLondon.jpg]](http://i248.photobucket.com/albums/gg189/boltonsquanderer/OzinLondon.jpg)
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - Hal Dalwood - 31st October 2008
Hi Austin Ainsworth,
My employer is a local authority, not a company. The team of archaeologists is about 40 strong. Everyone has an annual Staff Development Review, which includes identifying training and development needs that will be met the following year.
The training and development might include: formal IT training (i.e. MS suite and corporate GIS) and personal training courses (e.g. team leading, dealing with difficult customers etc.) - these first two types are run by the local authority as training for all its employees. Otherwise staff might attend: formal training courses in professional archaeological skills (e.g. principles of undertaking risk assessments for new situations) and formal technical training courses in archaeological methods (e.g. surveying historic buildings, earthwork survey). Staff seek to develop their specialist professional knowledge through academic conferences (e.g. Medieval Pottery Research Group conference etc.). But the 'personal development' element is broader than this, so staff develop their professional and academic knowledge through attending 'professional' conferences (such as the IfA Conference) or 'academic' conferences (TAG, Prehistoric Society conference, etc.).
I think that covers the formal training - courses and conferences - but a lot of other elements of an individual's identified training plan might be in-house.
Hal Dalwood
Bad archaeologist, worse husband
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - BAJR Host - 31st October 2008
This will be fine for more permanent staff, but I wonder if it extends to temporary staff - (which are in the main field staff) - many employers will not be willing/able to extend training to staff only with them for 1-3 months - time is money and all that. Is this seen as a problem?
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - oldgirl - 31st October 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by andy.bicket
Just to have my pennies worth coming from the PostGrad side of things.
During a 3 year PhD, my institution requires 30 days of Professional Development training. This is reflected in a "skills matrix". Anything you do can feasibly be included in your PD training, but it's the time you've reflected on it that counts rather than the actual time spent in a training course. Within 3 years you'll notch up massive amounts over the required limit, so not a problem. How this relates to Commercial Archaeology might be an issue as each course may take 2 hours, half a day, a whole day or even a week of individuals time.
The ultimate benefit of this is that training across the academic community is to a large extent similar, so employers know where they stand in the future as everyone has recognisable skills. Individuals choose the skills they want to learn, unless it's compulsory training so everyone is different but with similar core skills. So the 'industry' essentially invests in itself, but so do the individuals, remaining competitive in a tiny jobs market.
The IfA is based in a university, so I imagine they are familiar with this kind of thing. Not being a member, can someone tell me if there is a similar thing available from the IfA, or has been talked about?
Sounds like from some of the posts there is a drive towards CPD but without a framework of skills to base CPD upon, but I'm sure I'm poorly self-informed. This would be a good way to lead the field, helping to boost standards across their membership, but perhaps inducing more people to join?
:face-thinks:
There's a skills matrix and associated information within the National Occupational Standards, which are fully available to all on the IfA website. This covers a variety of types and levels of jobs. I was involved in using it to develop a skills register within my organisation, which then fed into identifying (with the staff involved) what they could already do, what they wanted to develop (good for them and usually the company) and what we needed them to develop (good for the company).
And following on from comments just above, we did this for all staff on all types of contract. The biggest surprise to most people was just how many valuable skills they had.
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - BAJR Host - 31st October 2008
http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/icontent/inPages/docs/training/The%20Qualification%20in%20Archaeological%20Practice%20information%20sheet.doc
is the easy to remember link
just kidding....it is a doc download folks NOT a web page... just so you know.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - Hal Dalwood - 1st November 2008
BaJR Host posted
Quote:quote: This will be fine for more permanent staff, but I wonder if it extends to temporary staff - (which are in the main field staff) - many employers will not be willing/able to extend training to staff only with them for 1-3 months - time is money and all that. Is this seen as a problem?With regard to staff on very short contracts, the problem would be the lead time for the employer to identify an individual's training needs, to identify possible solutions, and then to provide training. So at present, I should think that most of the training and development for staff on short term contracts is in areas relating to fieldwork (excavation, finds & environmental work), and the training will be entirely in-house.
But that is why a CPD system might be very effective. If individuals do take some responsibility for their own personal development through undertaking formal CPD, it will then be easier for them to engage employers in discussing their own training needs. Or is that too starry-eyed?
Hal Dalwood
Bad archaeologist, worse husband
I'll vote for that! Duty of the New IFA. - BAJR Host - 1st November 2008
Quote:quote:lead time for the employer to identify an individual's training needs, to identify possible solutions
Or you could just have a course or training on and they are welcome to join in? rather than a tailored system of training - in this case.
And yes... at this time more than any - it is going to be important to keep people going, and learning and gaining skills... even if the outlook is for a bleak christmas. support those that are not in permemnant jobs, as well as those that are.
"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers