happy christmas and a muddy new year

[muddyandcold]

Hope everyone has had good christmas. Have taken opportunity of break to explore the net.. Has anyone else noticed that archaeological solutions has quitely reappeared as an RAO? Same staff, same standards etc ?? During the ban they were allowed to trade, not fined, and after a short break allowed to rejoin?? shouldn't a report by the IFA be available showing the findings, and how it was dealt with? Whitewash springs to mind.

[BAJR Host]

One should point out that Archaeological Solutions state that they removed themselves until such times as they felt able to rejoin the RAO scheme.

I note that sadly the website http://www.arch-sol.co.uk/ has been snatched .. I do note on the IFA website that they have indeed returned as an RAO. This would mean that the IFA have carried out a visit and inspection to ensure that all the problems that caused the initial removal of RAO status have been (or are being) dealt with to the satisfacton of the IFA. So although it may look like same staff - "same standards" - there would have to be changes or the RAO scheme would be a sham... After all what would be the point for a company to have RAO status if there were no benefits to the return.?

There is no point in 'banning' people for ever either... but there is a point to helping organisations to succeed. Thats what the RAO scheme is about. It would be a blow to the RAOs , the IFA and others if it was shown that RAO status was not representative of a standard that had to be adhered to and could be relied on.

The IFA made a statement on their website at the time.. and as is now clear, after a year away, they have managed to regain RAO status.... which is surely a good thing....

BAJR for example had no problem letting Arch Sol. advertise during the time they were not RAOs.. - perhaps a more serious 'ban' would be a removal from BAJR and no advertising allowed.?

I prefer to be charitable... if however you know anything about a company that you feel should be known.. contact the relevant group directly.

Oh... and happy christmas to you too muddy...

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

[troll]

I think that RAO status in general was quickly watered down by Network who chose to use the IFA RAO on their letterheads when their membership had "lapsed" by over two years when they were busted.The (robust?) IFA response of "we have been assured that this wont happen again" was somewhat pathetic, missed an enormous point and was altogether un-surprising.A quick natter over tea and bickies seems to be the order of the day and a limp assurance to the IFA is obviously enough to right the boat again.Hows about this......If the IFA provides an organisation with the RAO status and said organisation takes the urine...should we not be advising clients to take the IFA to court?

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[BAJR Host]

I does seem to have been an honest mistake by Network. However your suggestion that RAO status should carry some weight - with the clients allowed to take action on the IFA if one of their RAOs costs them money... might just make the ahem ... accreditation a bit more robust ?



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

[troll]

Absolutely sire.In an increasingly pseudo-legal industry-if the IFA are seen to be the validators of some standards of work,surely they can legally be held to account when RAO status does not amount to the description on the tin.I`m afraid that I don`t share your willingness to accept the "genuine mistake" card of Network for a number of reasons-irrelevent here but my main point remains-whilst there are some superb RAOs out there, there are others who fall way short of expected professional standards.If there is no policing of RAOs, like there is no policing of commercial units, I think the IFA opens itself up to the weight of commercial litigation.I worked for a consultancy some years ago who openly admitted that an RAO stamp of approval-like an audited quality assurance system-is worth real money and real business.If this is the case, and we are to encourage other units to apply for RAO status-surely we need to assure them that they are not simply taking part in another pantomime and that RAO status really is worth something.I think that the legal aspects of RAO status should be very carefully thought about by the IFA and further, the status itself should be attainable only by those who meet if not exceed its tenets.Those who do should be protected against the "genuine mistakes" and back-door re-entry of those who fall way, way short of even the basics of expected professional standards on a consistant basis.

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[BAJR Host]

In that I must agree.. if standards are to be maintained (and as you rightly say many are doing just that) then the standards must be both policed and seen to have a benefit and a disadvantage to losing these benefits.

Perhaps a big question for the 25th IFA conference..?

I can however see a kernel of formation where SCAUM becomes the Employers group.... Diggers Group or PROSPECT (ehem cough) representing the employees and ALGAO representing Curatorial ... The IFA could/should merge with IHBC and concern itself with standards and guidance.... CBA/CSA concentrate on community and BAJR can just poddle along..

It would be interesting to see exactly what RAO status confers on a group? Does it mean that a Client can be 100% assured that the group is absolutely capable of a task? And if that group finds this is not the case could they point the final finger at the IFA for not ensuring the standard was met? Perhaps as you say... this could be considered.

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

[BAJR Host]

quote:The IFA recognises that those commissioning archaeological work wish to be confident that the archaeologists undertaking the commission subscribe to codes of professional conduct and practice, and are subject to strict sanctions should they transgress. Archaeologists adhering to the by-laws of the Institute will ensure that they have the requisite skills to provide informed and reliable advice, and will prepare and/or execute schemes of work appropriate to the circumstances. They will ensure that archaeological work is specified, commissioned, designed and undertaken to accepted professional and ethical standards, and they will seek to minimise uncertainty, delay and cost.

For those reasons, anyone wishing to secure the services of an archaeologist is strongly recommended to contact a Registered Archaeological Organisation (RAO) or a full Member of the IFA (MIFA).

The Institute maintains a register of organisations committed to meeting IFA standards with regard to quality of archaeological work, employment practices, contributions to community benefits and development of the archaeological profession. The Register is a rigorous Quality Assurance scheme for archaeologists. To be accepted, an organisation must:

Include in its constitution a resolution that it will comply with the IFA Code of conduct and meet IFA standards
Demonstrate adherence to these standards through annual registration and a detailed questionnaire
Pass regular inspection visits of its offices, excavations and publication programme by a committee of its peers and IFA staff
Be supervised by a Member of the Institute of Field Archaeologists (MIFA), our highest grade of membership

Heads of RAOs will have a track record of responsibility for substantial archaeological projects. They personally undertake to be bound by the IFA Code of conduct, and are responsible for ensuring that work will adhere to this Code.

Users of the services of an IFA-registered organisation can commission work with confidence. There is no equivalent QA system in archaeology. The registration scheme provides a procedure for handling complaints. We will investigate, and take action if necessary.

IFA is unable to comment on work by non-registered archaeologists.

With a Registered Archaeological Organisation you can expect your work to be carried out to the nationally accepted standards which local authority archaeologists and planners insist upon.

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

[vulpes]

The AS website can be found here! http://www.hertfordshire-archaeological-trust.co.uk

Not really a 'pot person'.

[troll]

G`day Mr Hosty and Vulpes.After reading the IFA doc on RAOs, it has to be said that I would have seriously looked into the issues of liability before writing that! I know a couple of London Barristers who would eat anyone alive in court based on such a document.I think this thread illustrates beautifully the quagmire we find ourselves in.Whilst I am tempted to pull this document to pieces-theres not enough space here and I`m sure subscribers to the forum can see the gaping holes and the "my first penguin book of liability" approach to current law. The fact that an RAO scheme was innitiated in the first place is (to me) an admission by the IFA that the current validation system and their alleged policing of standards simply does not work and further cannot be policed by the IFA.Potential clients are invited to see RAO status as a "guaruntee". The IFA validation of individual archaeologists does not work and cannot reasonably be seen as a "guarantee" and further....why do the IFA feel that validating organisations will be any better? Rather than witch-hunting units here, I think its high time that we had a good long look at this...

..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)

[Alex Llewellyn]

I would just like to confirm that Archaeological Solutions is not an RAO at present. Unfortunatly it looks as if an out of date version of the list of Registered Archaeological Organisations managed to get back onto our website. This has now been amended and a list of all current RAOs can be found using the search facility http://www.archaeologists.net/modules/ic...p?page=196