consultants and all that...

[1man1desk]

Troll,

I see the real figures for both sides on a daily basis, and you are wrong about the money - the lion's share always goes to the contracting unit. For information only, here is how it usually works (in my experience of 12 years in consultancy for 2 companies):

On a typical project, the consultancy company will get paid a time-charge for the staff involved, on which there will be a profit of between 4% and 15% (lower figures for bigger clients that keep coming back).

When the work involves recruiting a contracting unit, we usually arrange for the client to employ the unit directly. We then just get our usual time-charge.

Some clients want us to employ the unit ourselves. In those cases, we usually have a mark-up (generally about 4%) on the contractor's fees. That mark-up reflects the fact that we take a large financial risk, usually having to pay a contractor before we get paid ourselves, when the contractor's fee is usually at least 10 times ours. It also reflects increased insurance costs.

I repeat, however, that we would prefer the client to employ the contractor than to do it ourselves, despite the mark-up.



1man1desk

[1man1desk]

Troll,

How many commercial units (all working for developers) 'smack their arse' for them? What do they do that is better than the consultants?

In any case, how would you, working as a contractor, know what consultants say to the developer behind closed doors?

If you see sites 'trashed every day' - who is doing the trashing? Contracting units presumably.

You are right in one thing - the contracting units can (and do) do virtually everything a consultant can. If so - what is the difference, morally, between them and us?

If the contracting units can do everything we do, but we are more expensive - why does the work come to us at all? I could give you some reasons, and I will if asked - but I'd like to see your ideas first.




1man1desk

[troll]

Commercial units function at the sharp end of the whole exercise-the end game if you will.As such, and I think you touched upon this when you mentioned your risk in commissioning a commercial unit, is where the stressful environment is. The unit has pressure applied from just about everyone involved to complete on time.In what can be a savagely competative environment, conflict with a rogue developer is the last thing thats needed. Field units depend on developers to comply with method statements-this does`nt always happen and despite the most gentle of reminders, units can often be powerless-the safety net of a pro-active curator and an engaged consultant is a luxury in some places nowadays. I feel that units have an insight into the archaeology of their operational catchment areas in a way that consultants do not.I believe that units understand the needs of the archaeology and the viability of field methodologies in a way that consultants do not-no sleight intended, fieldies do this for a living. In terms of dialogue with developers, I feel that units can provide a fuller,informed and realistic dialogue.Working as a contractor- what is said behind closed doors between the developer/consultant is immediately recognisable when what is carried out on the ground is vastly at odds with the previously agreed mitigation read in the tea-hut the day before.By "trashing" I mean that the diluted compromises at the point of trowel, under commercial pressures (sometimes political) bear little or no resemblence to the spirit of the original design on rather more than an ocasional basis.We can only work with what the planning authorities/curators/consultants/developers allow-please don`t blame field units for juggling whilst sweeping the floor behind us with a broom up our backsides. Allowing a developer simply to "do the minimum" is a kiss of death to start with.Advising them as to how they can dilute that minimum does`nt help. I think that consultation goes to you guys simply because as commercial units, we fail to communicate with potential clients the concept that their requirements could be dealt with under one roof as an integrated package. I think consultancy is also seen as a safeguard against financial risk by clients. Not only that, consultation seems to be a recent fashion in other professions-much like having a personal trainer. In a litigious society, I understand the need for sound advice-I would like to see the sound advice view the public as much as a client as the developer and balance this by involving field units at a fundamental level-not simply see them as waste removal teams. Field units do this every day-all day and yet, all to often, grand schemes are handed down by those above that can sometimes be , well, laughable really. All I`m saying really is that the most pressure,the least resources,the least funding, is at the sharp end where it matters most.

[eggbasket]

quote:Originally posted by troll

I feel that units have an insight into the archaeology of their operational catchment areas in a way that consultants do not.I believe that units understand the needs of the archaeology and the viability of field methodologies in a way that consultants do not-no sleight intended, fieldies do this for a living.

Hmm, what about the consultants who became such after years in the field? Do they not understand field methodologies too? Or is it surgically removed when they get their first consultancy job in the same way that unit managers instantly forget what it is like in the field when they become managers?

With regard to the insight into the archaeology of a given catchment area, there may be some merit to this, but I have yet to see this added value reflected in a report and I wonder if it really only applies to smaller units with limited operational areas. I also wonder how many consultants actually function in a similar manner, restricting themselves to a given geographical area, or in the cases of larger companies, they may assign staff to a given area, thus creating a situation where those staff actually develop an understanding of the archaeology of that area similar to that of the field units.

Eggbasket

Eggy by name, eggy by nature

[1man1desk]

Eggbasket's comments make a lot of sense to me and reflect my experience.

In addition, while consultancy companies may operate over the whole country, their individual staff members (in my experience) tend to stick to smaller areas. They may operate in more than one region, but overally they tend to cover about the same size of catchment as, say, one of the larger field units, and they have every opportunity to develop local knowledge.

True, we do tend to do some work outside the core regions - but then so do the field units, so what's the difference?

Troll - you make a lot of assumptions, and then treat them as evidence, but as far as I can see most of them are plain wrong.

The only pressure I, or any of the team I lead, have ever put a unit under is to do one of the following:
- fulfil the spec that they signed up to, which was agreed with the curator
- report according to the spec
- charge according to the prices and rates in their tender.

As for dodgy dealings between consultants and developers, the only major omissions from the specified scope that have occurred on any of my projects have been when the unit and the developer have done a deal behind my back. I am still trying to extract two large reports from units under these circumstances. A third one has just come in this week, after 3 years of pressure from me and the curator in partnership against an unwilling unit.


1man1desk

[troll]

Guys-the ubiquitous terms "I think" and "I feel" were used in my response to mean just that. My opinions on this thread are founded in my personal experiences so far. Being "plain wrong" would seem to infer that either I am just plain maelevolent (could never spell that) or worse-dillusional. Being "plain wrong" in the eyes of 1man1desk however is encouraging as this would seem to infer that He/She is lucky enough to work in an environment that is not exposed to the muppetry rampant in other sectors of the job! Eggy-(happy anniversary by the way!) it would be nice to know that those within the consultative/curatorial roles have indeed "done their time" and do in fact come from a ground-up background.I fear that this is not always the case-there are consultancies who do take on newly graduated/clean-handed staff, something I voiced concern over some time ago. Rather than go around in circles on this thread and indulge in finger-pointing (by me mostly[:I]), I hereby admit that one cannot possibly make sweeping statements about particular arms of the sector. I think that this demonstrates however, the wide variability in standards from one "company" to the next-all operating under the same umbrella. I think we`ve also demonstrated nicely the chasm between varying arms of the same body in terms of knowledge of the state of play in eachother`s camps. 1man1desk- I accept that perhaps for you and you`re company, my statements lack credibility and raise your hackles but, by the same scale, please accept that other eyes have very different views on the subject of consultants based upon individual experiences. I suppose that the bottom line for me here is that, we simply don`t communicate enough...probably because we see eachother`s roles as different languages? Something we should work towards changing? Oh for a joined-up and integrated profession.....

[1man1desk]

Troll,

I think that most consultants, in my experience, have 'done their time' and therefore have a fairly good understanding of the digging side of the profession - and a lot of sympathy with the problems that occur there.

I know from conducting interviews with job applicants over many years that most field archaeologists are barely aware that the consultancy side exists, while those who do know about us have only the vaguest idea about what we do.

We do sometimes employ graduates. At present, in my team of 5, there is 1 graduate; everyone else has professional field experience varying from 9 to 21 years. However, when we use graduates they are given work to do that is appropriate to their skills and experience, not involving significant archaeological judgements. We do encourage our less experienced staff to look for chances to get the experience, even to the extent of leaving to dig for a few years and then returning - we re-employed someone who had done exactly that earlier this year.

I would love to encourage better understanding between the branches of the profession. That is why I have put a lot of stuff into my posts about what consultants do.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[troll]

Do I feel a paper presentation at the forthcoming BAJR conference perhaps? An ideal platform methinks?

[troll]

I think that it would be fair to say that the varying arms of the "profession" have some pretty skewed views of eachother`s roles. It would be nice to see if we could all explore some common ground, concentrate on moving things forwards and in particular, come up with some sort of reallistic agenda. I feel that as a bottom line, field archs are simply asking to be accepted as the specialists that they are and, not seen as the muck-shovelling muppets of the 19th Century. In the same light, I assume that consultants, in the spirit of reciprocity, are fed up with being labelled as the parasitic element of the equation. So, to move forwards...lets get together, put our differences aside, discuss agendas that are close to our hearts and try to do something tangible about them at the forthcoming conference. Best wishes and happy ceasesfire to you all!