Return to the bad old days.

[Sniffer]

I wanna ask my boss this to be sure - but I believe we only use students or others as 'supernumerary to establishment' i.e. to give educational exposure without leaving responsibilty in their hands; and certainly wouldn't fill designated posts with them even if we employed them during a gap year or outside term time. I know we've used a metal detecting club for one project - but that was to do additional work not being charged for and was providing an educational benefit to the club.

Students aren't meant to be a cheap source of labour or a way of doing things to maximum profit. They're meant to be learning. We had a Mexican student turn up as a volunteer digger. He spent all his time when above trench workshadowing people. His idea and all credit to him.

I wonder how many clients of commercial archaeology specify the employment status of postholders in tender docs? I've never seen it - only vague things about the Directors, professional memberships and project managers.

I'm inclined to agree with Troll about UK commercial archaeology being a heritage-removal service. It looks that way often enough. Sadly, the state of the commercial sector in the UK is such that contractors have to maximise their gain on each project to survive. Too many contractors, too little archaeology.

[hurting-back]

To answer your question about tender docs: I can tell you from working extensively with tenders that the majority of briefs and specifications we receive to determine our scope of work use IFA guidelines as their base and require that the team consist of suitably qualified professionals.

About the students: while on an excavation it may save a contractor in the short term to rely on an excessive amount of 'cheap' student labour, usually this turns out to be a false economy; experienced archaeologists record accurately and quickly and keep the recording methodology consistent throughout the site which greatly facilitates the post excavation process. To attain this level of ability requires not only experience and ability, which many students and amateurs undoubtly have, but experience with the recording methods of the unit one is working for, which in turn requires an investment by the unit in its workers over some time.

This is more obvious with evaluations as a poorly executed evaluation results in a poor understanding of what archaeology may be on site which has great ramifications for everyone involved when the client then asks what the scope of the mitigation will be. This is why many large consultancies will insist on the use of professional archaeologists (as defined by the IFA) as a poor result will reflect badly on them as they will not be able to advise their client of the likely cost of excavation.

Also the use of students or similar is often inappropriate in certain types of sites such as linear schemes and urban excavations where there are many health and safety considerations. Moreover, many clients now require all workers on their sites, including archaeologists, to hold CSCS cards.

Sorry to ramble, but I suppose the point is that all the paperwork is often already there - the problem is that when costing a project you are often resourcing an extremely vague amount of work. This is compounded by poor practice: I often lose evaluation work, phone to hear that we were beaten by a VERY low cost, then a few months later am asked to tender for the excavation phase and read the report produced by this low price and have to tell the client that there just isn't enough information to give a firm estimate and am forced to give a hidiously large range to cover the risk! This is obviously bad for the client, who has paid to evaluate the site to see what is there and plan appropriately, and reflects very badly on us archaeologists!

This sort of behaviour is what damages the profession not, as you rightly point out, the use of the odd student on an appropriate project.

don't panic

[1man1desk]

Posted by Sniffer:

quote:I wonder how many clients of commercial archaeology specify the employment status of postholders in tender docs? I've never seen it - only vague things about the Directors, professional memberships and project managers.

In our consultancy role we usually include clauses specifically limiting/controlling the use of volunteers, both to prevent exploitation and to prevent undercutting through use of extra-cheap but unskilled labour. We do also specify minimum levels of qualification/experience for every staff role during site work and during post-ex, with supplementary evidence/justification required if the unit proposes someone who does not quite meet the criteria.

Posted by Hurting Back:

quote:I often lose evaluation work, phone to hear that we were beaten by a VERY low cost, then a few months later am asked to tender for the excavation phase and read the report produced by this low price and have to tell the client that there just isn't enough information to give a firm estimate and am forced to give a hidiously large range to cover the risk!

It is part of a consultant's role to assess tenders in terms of quality as well as price, and there have been occasions where we have advised our client to reject the cheapest price because we were not convinced the unit had put sufficient resources in place. Our advice has always been taken on this point.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[hurting-back]

Hello 1man, just to be clear: I don't think that the consultants are necessarily the problem in this area (although I can think of many who do not always put quality over short-term price savings); this situation is often caused by inexperienced clients making a cost based decision which then results in the situation outlined above. This is made worse by the fact that there is often little done (to judge by some of the evaluation reports from many units that I am forced to read) to assure that the report is of a high enough quality to achive its stated aims: namely to, as far as practicable, accurately assess the nature and extent of any archaeological remains sufficiently to create a reliable mitigation strategy.

I do not think there is one group of people to blame for this: undoubtedly some curators could do more to enforce quality, but they only have a limited remit (don't get me wrong, I know many curators who work very hard to maintain standards and that the problem here is often systemic rather than with individuals); equally there are units willing to undertake poor quality fieldwork and produce bad reports in the first place. I also admit that all units have probably done this at one point or another...no one is perfect. The main point I tried to make (rather poorly really after re-reading my original entry) is that the use of students would not confer a real advantage financially to a project's budget unless there was either a lack of quality control of the fieldwork through to the post excavation or a very skilled and experienced batch of students on the site willing to work more or less for free (which I suppose could happen).

don't panic!

[1man1desk]

Dear Hurting,

It's not a question of putting quality over price; more one of seeking a correct balance, where you know that the quality is good enough to meet the stated aims and objectives of the work. I wouldn't go too far in the other direction either, where the unit offers all sorts of extras which might be nice academically but are not relevant to the objectives, but which do cost money.

On the role of consultants, we usually work only for the larger clients, who tend to be fairly good. It is the smaller developers, or those in more cut-throat competitive industries, that tend to be budget slashers.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[hurting-back]

1man,

The quality statement should read more like 'necessary' quality, or better yet 'I can think of some who often put short-term price savings before the quality necessary to achive the project's aims and objectives' - often I encounter, with clients of all sizes, that there is favourable treatment given to those expressing the view that the archeaology is 'nothing to worry about' or of less consequence than it may actually be. This can invariably push down prices on projects and is a sin committed by consultants and contractors alike (but not by all of them!). While this may be more common in smaller scale projects, it certainly is not limited to them. The consequences of this are there for all to see. Hence my statement (with caveat) about curators and the variable nature of fieldwork and reporting requirements. It is this environment that allows poor quality reports to be given to me to form the basis for mitigation strategies and is also what would make the use of students and the like financially beneficial to a project's budget.

So I agree - the right balance is essential and I would never advise a client do more than is required by their planning condition. My fear and frequent frustration is that I often see the results of projects which do not meet even these minimum requirements.

Back still Hurting.....

don't panic!

[BAJR Host]

back with my curatorial head on.. I agree that there can be a push for the cheap eval in the hope of getting the BIG job.. however.. I would not let a sub-standard report past.. and with my consultant hat on my curatorial head I would not be happy with a less than thorough report either... I do feel that minimum standards should be 'replaced' with exemplary standards, as we all know that to 'win' contracts we have to cut cloth etc to the minimum required, as the developer does not want to pay for 5 extra soil samples for example if they don't need to...

"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu

[hurting-back]

I like the idea of 'exemplary' standards rather than minimum; what may not be 'necessary' to achieve the minimum required by a brief may actually be very useful in determining development impacts more accurately and in fine tuning research objectives to avoid surprises in post excavation costs, for instance. Recently I have had some success in convincing clients to invest a bit more (for a stated objective) to allow them a clearer picture and better planning. Often the archaeological cost risk to the client isn't in the actual cost of a unit undertaking an evaluation or excavation, but in the unexpected delays they can cause - I have seen pipepine jobs where the cost of having the archaeological team out for one entire day equates to the cost to the client of having their team held up for a few hours! I think formalising the approach you suggest, even alittle bit, would have benefits for clients, contractors and for the quality of work.

don't panic!

[drpeterwardle]

I appear to work in a different system to everybody else:

For example hurting back said the objective of an evaluation is:

"accurately assess the nature and extent of any archaeological remains sufficiently to create a reliable mitigation strategy".

The objective of a pre-determination evaluation is to provide enough infomation so that a reasoned planning decision can be made that is will it be refused or a condition place upon it. Evaluation can be used to determine the scope of an excavation and/or form the basis of the tender competition for an excavation.

1manand his desk said.
"It is the smaller developers, or those in more cut-throat competitive industries, that tend to be budget slashers."

Most developments work on tiny margins compared to risk for example housing, pfi schemes etc."

Big developers PLCs or pension funds etc have duties to share holders/investors which again means they have to be very careful about costs.

Somebody said "I would never advise a client do more than is required by their planning condition" Why on earth not? There may be good reason for doing things the planning system cannot demand - managing risk and closely defining the scope of an excavation are good examples of this. I do this all the time.

The notion that the cost of a digging team for a day equates to the delay cost of a few hours delay for the main contractor on a pipeline
is simply not the case. A few minutes more like - having said that the delay cost on most pipelines can be capped.

As for the notion that it is the unexpected delays that cause the problems not just the actual archaeology costs is a simplification. There is a cost to any project in terms of archaeologists being present unexpected or not.

Myself I see nothing wrong with students/new graduates being employed by Units (provided that they are properly trained in H&S) how else are people going to get experience? Particularly on placements that form part of the degree course at the better Universities.

What is important however is that the project is correctly monitored, staff are supervised and the "quality" of the work is checked. There should also not be too many of them

Peter Wardle

[Sniffer]

I would like to pick up on the 'duty to profit' element involved in commercial archaeology. I think the difference between a job being done by all-qualified staff as per the best of local rules and it having corners cut is down to how that duty to profit is interpreted.

The small firm has to break even after wages on pretty much all but the most instant jobs. They don't have the luxury of taking the longer view of providing 110% of what's needed or providing 'freebies'. The larger contractors usually have enough budgetary slack to provide those without it impacting on their ability to meet the bills or demonstrate a profit to shareholders etc.

What's the answer? If I knew that, I would be owning my own business instead of working for Pat - but it might have a little something to do with the pay scales.

Yes, it's right that everyone doing Grade 4 work gets Grade 4 cash in their hands - but that is disadvantageous to the smaller contractor unless they can replace part of that with a share option, bonus or such (say 90% rated salary and the remaining 10% being replaced with shares issued to the value of 15%). Allowing smaller contractors to keep their direct cash costs down without ruining the earnings of employees and potential employees will help those smaller contractors to engage enough of the professional staff.

It's a rather simplistic solution, but when it's competition time and it's David Vs Goliath, David needs a gimmick or an edge if he's ever to win. True, it might be said that all the unique selling points of personal service and not being a faceless corporation count - but I doubt they count that much when it comes to dealing with non-archaeologically-minded pursestring-holders.

The quality issue and building a relationship does.