3rd January 2007, 02:49 PM
This is where I agree with 1 man.. in that non involvement in a scheme must have serious consequences... (and benefits if you are in) - If a scheme is launched... then the duty of care should be on the organisation that launches it.... to maintain a standard that assures the client that by hiring a contractor that is an RAO they are going to get a good job done.. and there will be no hiccups (in most cases --- hey.. nobody is perfect). If there is no assurance... then perhaps it is a bit premature to punt the
"Users of the services of an IFA-registered organisation can commission work with confidence. There is no equivalent QA system in archaeology." as a measure of competance in archaeological works. DC archaeologists are much more able to remark, this company has/has not been able to work successfully in the past in this county. As we are the ones who actually see all the work. (But then - as I am noticing... we are a bit of a curates egg as well
) ALGAO could easily implement a scheme where work is graded..and the results passed to the RAO scheme to help.. perhaps highlight problem areas..
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
"Users of the services of an IFA-registered organisation can commission work with confidence. There is no equivalent QA system in archaeology." as a measure of competance in archaeological works. DC archaeologists are much more able to remark, this company has/has not been able to work successfully in the past in this county. As we are the ones who actually see all the work. (But then - as I am noticing... we are a bit of a curates egg as well
) ALGAO could easily implement a scheme where work is graded..and the results passed to the RAO scheme to help.. perhaps highlight problem areas.."No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu