Reasons for RO

[BAJR]

Following on from a previous thread, this is the chance to convince groups or companies to become ROs. why has it been beneficial, what does it do for you, has it seen your quality improve and the staff appreciate the benefits accrued.

Conversely - is it just another benchmark of quality and not 'the' benchmark of quality - is there another?
Would you argue for or against, with rational points. Could you as easily argue for it - the old trick of swap sides and see if you could take on the other argument?

Here is the IfA text on the RO scheme

IfA?s Registered Organisation scheme is a unique quality assurance scheme; there is no equivalent in the historic environment. It is a ?kite mark? of commitment to professional standards and competence. Registering your organisation

• allows you to be explicit about the quality of your work
  
• provides users of your services with a benchmark against which the quality of your organisation may be judged
  
• highlights your contribution to the protection of the historic environment
  
• involves monitoring your organisation?s compliance with IfA regulations every two years
  
• builds on the success of your individual IfA membership
  
• is open to you regardless of the type of historic environment work you do or the size of your organisation
  

http://www.archaeologists.net/join/organisation

Guidance notes for applying organisations
RO fees 2011-12
Regulations for the registration of organisations

So convince me to join or stay as I am. :face-approve::face-approve:

[Dinosaur]

Seems to be tumbleweed blowing across the scenery in this one.......

[Bodger51]

The precept is mostly down to trying to manage the nature of the industry in your local area.

The problem is when a relationship defines an industry, or a industry defines itself.


So for me the question is not so much what role determines the standards but rather is this standard external to the industry denoting commercial bystanders to any given contract (quality assured)

Whether the role is externally applied by a supported body which provides a subsistence base to an organisation where the level of support provided is basis of formulating a 'pushed' judgement, or a body which is of commercially independent means, which enable it to stand on any given basis.

Like wise there is the further option of self assement, where you could be self certifying or mutually involved in the process of standards.



So the question comes down to what is right for the conditions and a given recomendation, to provide fertile ground for an active and responsive industry.

The nature of the industry however determines the capacity in the form of interested parties for products, or likewise a commitment to a a direction.

So if no-one comes up with an array of products and no-one agrees, it would be a nose dive

If people superficially agree just to play along, its a nose dive

So the basis to establish both the nature of the industry conditions and the orientation stems from a degree of agreement with regards to agreement.

Central standards, local standards, personal standards, professional standards could all be correct but the nature of a professiona and an idustry which would strive to build a purpose and direction requires an application of a standard and thus an agreement, without thinking about it, or you could think about it and come to an agreement.

If your arguing to make your box, then you live with it.
If you argue your situation, thats personal.
If you argue a grand scheme, then you accept it.

And if everyone you imagined would support your argument is nowhere to be seen, then you can muster the same support again from those who turned out, or said I do appologise.

Then I suppose some sports are more important than other sports.

(personally)
A body that exists has a better chance than a lone voice on the wind upon planning legislation, unless you knowsome in high places on your side, but then thats just you, not an industry.

[Jack]

Seems to me, after a admittedly brief look at the links (by the way the link to the guidance notes didn't work for me), that the RO system is not primarily designed as a system of quality assurance.

It reads more like a deal between the company and the institute where the company can use the IFA logo on stuff and call themselves a RO if they pay a fee, have members in the IFA, agree to receive junk mail and pass an initial 'interview'.

Real accreditation involve audits. Usually an initial audit, follow-up audits, self-audits and regular external audits etc.

Not a system of 'oh we might investigate the company if someone complains enough.'

So for me (unless I missed something)....thats a big NO to RO.

Make the system better and more fit for purpose and I may reconsider.

[Martin Locock]

The system does include audit.

When an organisation applies to be an RO it submits a suite of policies, manuals and other corporate info which is then checked by the RO committee. If accepted after a visit by a monitoring team drawn from IfA, the committee and otehr ROs, it is added to the register (the main purpose of monitoring is to check that the organisation's policies are being followed). Each year the RO has to submit a return providing information about its staffing, activities etc., and this is subject to a beachmarking by the RO committee to check whether any concerns are flagged up. If so this can be explored or a monitring visit is triggered. Every RO is monitored every three years or so.

So Jack, yes the audit element is there, even if not mnetioned in the specific links.


To pick up on another point, someone suggested that IfA would not want to remove RO status because it relies on the money they pay. The decisions of the Ro committee (and the monitoring panels) are separate from those of IfA staff or the IfA council, and the RO scheme contributes only small proportion of IfA income (most coming from members' substrciptions).

[Martin Locock]

There is a full set of audit/monitoring, annual self-audit with external benchmarking, inspections every three years etc.

[BAJR]

Thank you Martin for making that clear. Jack is right, that this is not evident from the initial view.

Can we say what the RO scheme contributes to

a) employment conditions
b) quality standards

and if this has been compared to non-RO companies?

[Dinosaur]

I'd also be interested in answers on those two points - talking to 'itinerant' diggers and looking at job adverts there seems in reality to be little difference in wages/conditions, from a diggers point of view there are good/bad employers in both camps (and a number of posts on other threads have indicated that some ROs recently seem to have been back-tracking badly in this area, so even if there was a difference it's been severely eroded). And speaking as someone who spends a lot of time using both published and 'grey' end product from the full range of sources, there seems to be little difference between RO and non-RO - some RO product is academically and professionally shameful (I'm currently grappling with two successive published reports on the same site by the same v. large outfit that present the same archaeological features but with differing relationships and phasing, without any explanation as to any reinterpretation, its just different in version 2...errr) and some non-RO product is brilliant! Show me a tangible difference on either count, with some supporting factual evidence that RO status is somehow better

[Martin Locock]

I was writing from memory: ROs are re-registered every two years, and inspected at least every 6 years.

Employment conditions: ROs are required to match the IfA minima for pay and conditions - this is not true of non-ROs even if there are IfA members within them. This doesn't mean that there isn't a difference, but if that is the case then that is because non-ROs have raised their conditions to match.

Quality standards: ROs are asked about a wide range of quality, standards and policies. It is likely that ROs hold more documentation of their processes than non-ROs unless they hold IIP or BS5750 assurance accreditation.

In general I'd say that RO status is no guarantee of excellence - rather it is a guarantee of reaching reasonable standards.